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.

Slop job again

Another DYK on the main page without metric conversion (although it does appear in a caption). Why aren't people checking for basic accessibility? Tony (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, hopefully, with some other stuff too. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Thank you TRM. If I'm not mistaken, Cameron_Park_(Waco) still says “over 20 miles of trails”. And looking back at Keyser Creek, which I pointed out last week, it still has eight instances of unconverted "mile", whereas DYK is, I think, supposed not to be the end of article improvement, but a shot in the arm for it:

    "a mile, exiting Newton Township, passing through Ransom Township, and entering Scranton. The creek then turns southeast for about a mile, crossing Interstate 476. It then turns southwest for several tenths of a mile and receives Lindy Creek, its first named tributary, from the right. The creek then turns south-southwest for several tenths of a mile and receives Lucky Run, its last named tributary, from the right before turning southwest. After a few tenths of a mile, it turns south-southwest again and eventually turns southeast for a few tenths of a mile before turning south. Several tenths of a mile further downstream, it southeast and then south-southwest. After several tenths of a mile, ...”.

    That whole section is unworthy of WP—it reads like a bad attempt at a pirate map (with the unfortunate end that the measurements are awkward in original and putative converted forms ("a few"? Treasure hunt, anyone?).

    It also has incorrectly converted gradients. No one in the metric world would write: "120 metres per mile": "400 feet (120 m) per mile. However, in its lower reaches, once it flows off Bald Mountain and into Keyser Valley, its gradient is only on the order of 40 feet (12 m) per mile." Surely there's a better way. Everyone can understand a 1:12.5 gradient, but someone needs to work it into that simple, universal form. The article still has unconverted feet: "reaching 3100 cubic feet per second. The peak annual ...".

    I'm sorry to be persistent, but this is going on the main page and should be an example. Not all en.WP readers are in the US, Burma, or Liberia. Tony (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tony, there's no point in continuing to complain that articles don't meed criteria that aren't required by DYK rules, and MOS compliance is one such non-required criterion. Personally I think we should drop the stupid "newness" requirement and instead have DYK consist of only GAs -- imagine if all this DYK effort were concentrated on bringing articles to GA status! -- but I've been a voice in the wilderness. EEng (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

EEng, I agree with your GA point entirely. But what is the answer to the gradient issue? Tony (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just getting to that after following up with another smart-alec comment over at MOSDATES. I actually think you're wrong that most people can understand a 1:12.5 gradient, if by "can understand" you mean "have an intuitive grasp of" (aside from the fact some would protest formalizing in MOS the use of colons for ratios). I think the best we could do would be say stuff like "gradient of x feet/mile (y m/km)" or ".08 gradient" or "8% grade" and so on, and leave the reader to his own interpretation of that. (Anyway, does anyone really have an intuitive grasp of how big a light-year is? or an acre, for that matter?) EEng (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If Stream gradient is correct (it lacks references) then use feet per mile or metres per kilometre, unlike the normal conventions for road and rail gradients. It's not stipulated in the SI. Road signs in Europe commonly show gradients as percentages, but river signs showing gradients are not common. NebY (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the gradient conversions. I had fixed identical conversions for a different creek over seven weeks ago, but perhaps the author hadn't noticed. Jakec, instead of doing a gradient conversion as {{convert|400|ft|m}} per mile, it should be {{convert|400|ft/mi}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tony1 sorry that I missed those other conversions in the Keyser Creek article, but I've at least addressed the "miles" in the Waco one. On one point that you've made above, you're absolutely right that the prose in that article was lamentable, I'm pretty sure I could meet the character count criteria of any such article by giving such a turgid and uninteresting account of the path of a minor creek. I'll happily try to fix up these issues as you find them. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

The Ayes have it. http://i.imgur.com/IkdRP2g.png seems to be the final consensus version, but beware: consensus in this case is a tiny number of people so please be open to reviewing your opinion based on reader and editor feedback post change. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Some people on the main page don't like the formatting of the Did you know section, and have proposed an alternate wording and are looking for a bold admin. See/participate in this discussion. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at considerable length, but I can't find the archive to reference it. Harrias ^talk 06:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• If this particular problem was discussed before, I missed it. As of now, what we have at DYK is this:

Did you know… From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content: ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?

Those who feel that the “From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content:” disrupts the sentence “Did you know that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?” suggest that any of the following flows better / avoids fracturing the syntax:

Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content

From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?

Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? ... that the above are drawn from Wikipedia's new or recently improved content?

As we know, very few people participate in discussion concerning the Main Page, but of those who have voiced an opinion, six say the present sequence is broke and needs to be fixed, two say it ain’t broke.

Cheers, Awien (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the previous discussion either, but I know it happened because I was part of it and made the same suggestions then. --Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the Sept 2013 started by you? Or March 2014? — Maile (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you please keep the discussion "over there"? It's pointless to present alternatives shorn of their typographic details, and no "bold admin" is going to change the MP layout without clear consensus. EEng (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• This has been the format, at least as far back as Wikipedia keeps screenshots of the main page [1]. History says, it ain't broke. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have reformatted this as a Request for Comment, so editors can weigh in here and an administrator can ultimately close the discussion. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to have an RfC, let's do it properly with a {{rfc|style|rfcid=326B452}} tag to get it listed, and centralise the discussion either here, or on Talk:Main Page. Harrias ^talk 15:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think the discussion should be held here, because it affects DYK primarily, and because all the DYK editors weigh in on this page. The discussion was started on the Main Page talk page by someone who seemed to be looking for a "bold administrator". An RfC is more effective. Yoninah (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Eman235/talk 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support change. I agree that it's better to make a direct connection between "Did you know..." and "... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?" That catches the reader's eye. At the end, we could make the line into a sentence: See more new and recently improved content here. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support change, as I have already said on the MP. Eman235/talk 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support change for the reasons already explained on the main page: no amount of formatting redeems garbled wording, and no amount of "seniority" is justification for letting it stand. Awien (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose change because it's based on the Procrustean idea that everything's a sentence, and that things should be bent and twisted in obeisance to that mistaken notion. I would, however, recommend that the terminal colon be removed from

From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:

EEng (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• I support change the fact that it has been like this for some time does not mean it's right, or optimal. I suggest the following flow: Did you know... ...that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? The above were selected from Wikipedias new and recently improved content.Fractal618 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support change. The current layout puts the "from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" between the header and the blurbs. You wouldn't write "Did you know from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?" but that is what the current layout implies. Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it should continue to be done. Would prefer moving "from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" to the end and rephrasing as "that the above were taken from from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content?" --Khajidha (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support change, per the argument given by Khajidha. This is a better way of presenting DYK hooks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support change, This has always bugged me, but I thought I was the only one. Alternatively, if it can't be changed as proposed, perhaps remove all the ellipses so to break the suggestion that the title and the hooks should be assembled into sentences. ApLundell (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Question - It's hard to get behind an idea if you don't know what that idea even entails. So... what change are we discussing? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Answer Remove the words "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" from their present location where they intrude into the middle of the question "Did you know that blablablabla?" (i.e. "Did you know From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content that blablablabla?" and put them anywhere else, tweaked as necessary. Awien (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes well... I can't endorse anything until I know where "anywhere else" is. And I don't see a suitable alternative, so oppose change for the time being. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Can we first agree that a change is in order, and THEN decide on what the change is? Since April 29, 2015 multiple alternatives have been suggested. Breaking up the vote into two parts, decreases the chance of a split vote leading to no change, which is the one thing most of us agree is needed.Fractal618 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Questions - Why is it important to have the phrase "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:" on there at all? Wouldn't that solve the whole thing if that was removed? Why move it to somewhere else? Where is the FA equivalent of that in their section? — Maile (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think something like this would be an improvement http://i.imgur.com/Ev57be5.png Fractal618 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That phrase defines the source of the facts, letting people know that these aren't just random things. The FA equivalent is the actual title "From today's Featured Article". (Although I find that somewhat ambiguous for uninitiated readers who might think that it is just any old article that is being featured and not an article determined to be of featured quality.)--Khajidha (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting at, is aren't "random things" the very basis of today's texting on various social sites? Why would the general public care whether or not DYK is like that...or not? At the bottom the "Archive" link points to exactly the same "Recent additions" that the linking "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:" does. So, why two links, top and bottom? What purpose does it serve? — Maile (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The general public wouldn't care, the notification is for those who decide to get involved in the DYK process. I don't know why there are two links. --Khajidha (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood. But, there again, the "Nominate an article" link at the bottom is for those who want to get involved. — Maile (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change format

Agreed. This combines "archive" and "from recently improved content" http://i.imgur.com/IkdRP2g.png I think we are getting somewhere. At this rate we might even get bumped above "Featured Article". Fractal618 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your example is exactly what I think it should be changed to. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Your example omits the word "that" beginning each one. It's not a main page formatting for "that", but something built into the DYK nomination template. Could you redo it with "that"? — Maile (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Support this with the addition of "that". Eman235/talk 22:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Support if "that" is added. --Khajidha (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

support (w/ thats) - sure thing Maile, when i get a chance. didn't mean to try and slip that by just got a little "delete-happy" after the bullets.you guys made my day by the way :)Fractal618 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support with the "that"s added. Awien (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support with "that" added. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support - (With "that") It's a minor thing, but I really do think it makes the whole section smoother. ApLundell (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – FA and OTD both use Archive, so I think it would be preferential to retain that similar formatting, rather than changing it. Harrias ^talk 15:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Is there a metric for determining when a vote is over? Fractal618 (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's 30 days typically but you can request closure, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. Eman235/talk 02:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If consensus remains clear, it can certainly be closed sooner than 30 days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. We started this RfC with a question of whether the line "From Wikipedia's new and revised content" should be moved, and now there is this parallel discussion of whether the "that" should be removed. IMO these should be two clearly defined discussions, which they are not. You're already talking about closing, but I'm not sure what we're closing. Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the "that" be removed. It was a typo that we are reminding people isn't part of the proposed change. --Khajidha (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah, the omission of "that" was a typo, and not what this is about. What Fractal618 has offered, and what is being voted on, is a resolution of what to do about "From Wikipedia's new and revised content". As also discussed further above, that particular line at the top was merely duplicating a link at the bottom. Fractal618's example makes some minor wording change at the bottom, eliminating the need for "From Wikipedia's new and revised content" at the top. This vote is whether or not this is supported as a solution to the original question. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If this was an election, the media wouldn't hesitate to call it at this point … Awien (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

My experience with doing an RfC is that you wait a few weeks for comments, and then turn to an uninvolved administrator to determine consensus and enact the change. Yoninah (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've requested closure. Eman235/talk 18:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An orphaned article....

Currently Embodied bilingual language sitting in Prep 2 is a genuine mainspace orphan. Besides the fact that hook is dull, (i.e. that the words "kick" and "run" relate to the leg, who knew??), we shouldn't be posting articles at DYK with big "orphan" tags at the top. Suggest this is pulled, a more interesting hook is thought of, and the article actually demonstrate its utility within Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The rules forbid running an article with dispute tags -- improvement tags are OK. If you think that should be changed, propose something. The hook was broken, now fixed -- and is interesting, actually. EEng (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm just asking a civil question. Glad you responded in typical form. P.S. I never said anything about breaking the rules, the rules allow an enormous amount of detritus to be posted from this DYK process as you know and happily accept. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I defended you for a long time hoping you'd eventually cool it, but I must now say that you're one of the most consistently unpleasant good-faith editors I've ever run into‍—‌the word toxic comes to mind. Either stay and help, or go away, but cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping. [2] EEng (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

That it is on a semi-obscure subject, without much support, doesn't mean that it can't be linked by someone with the knowledge to do it. It would help if the linguistics devotees were aware of its existence. But it doesn't warrant The Rambling Man's dismissive appraisal as to its encyclopedic worth, IMO. And I've seen far worse articles on the main page as DYKs, so it is not truly beyond the pale. -- 7&6=thirteen 20:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I had no real objection to the article itself, the hook was poor, but if we're using the main page to demonstrate quality articles that are relevant to our readers, we shouldn't be advertising orphan articles. It's really simple. If you don't like it being pointed out, that's fine too. I understand that a few of you have difficulties in this area. By the way, "I've seen far worse articles on the main page as DYKs" is an absolute indictment of the DYK process. Not that it's news, but would you prefer to remove that comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think your observation is apt. We should de-orphan it; not kill the messenger. Fix the problem, not fix the blame. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears to be linked to one article now, thus the removal of the orphan tag is just fine. That the hook is still considered of any interest remains to be seen, I look forward to seeing the pageviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I put two requests for assistance on the Wikiproject Linguistics talk page and at portal|Mind and Brain. Added links to one or two articles. Our ignorance and unfamiliarity with the subject matter does not mean it is a universal attribute. We just need the right audience. they might even be able to give some help on the hook. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I would maintain that orphan tagging does not disqualify a DYK. It is not a dispute tag. However I expect that people that put on an orphan tag actually make an effort to find and make links to the page first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

English

Extended content

Currently sitting in prep 2, an article called "Oru Second Class Yathra", includes a sentence thus: "the issue of refining a proper balance between drama and comedy was the task set for themselves by writer/directors Jexson Antony and Rejis Antony, as a means of juggling between the two modes in order to not wear down the viewing audience". Really? Really? Does anyone read and copyedit these articles before they're up for the prep queues? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Tried massaging it a little....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks. Any chance we could do something about the overciting in the puny lead and stuff like "The first half of the film was alright, but the narrative flagging in the second half." please, this is hardly what most of us would consider to be encyclopedic, let alone good enough for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC) If you think DYK criteria should be changed (and I agree they should -- if it were up to me DYK would carry only GAs) make a proposal for a change to those criteria. But you're wasting everyone's time with your constant demands that articles meet requirements not in the criteria. EEng (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC) And you're wasting your time entirely. If you really think we need to change the DYK criteria to include something like "articles should be written in an encyclopedic tone" then I think you've missed the point of the project entirely. I'm not wasting "everyone's time" and I'm not making "constant demands", I'm trying to ensure what we put on the main page is, at least, encyclopedic. Right now, this project is not doing that. Consistently. Instead of making jokes and trying to be clever, why don't you actually do something to improve the quality of these articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC) My participation here is largely in copyediting hooks, which takes plenty of time and (as you are well aware) is an almost hopeless task -- I try to eyeball every prep set before it goes to Q but I can't always do that, and sometimes I see something that I don't like the looks of when there's just too much else needing attention to take the time to figure out how to right it. If you'd pitch to help with this, instead of waiting until problems make their way to MP so you can have one of your daily apoplexies, it would really help. Injecting a bit of humor here and there makes the task go easier. The DYK criteria are very clear on what is and is not required, and there's precious little about article content. The only DYK provisions even vaguely related to content are these: 4. Within policy – Articles for DYK must conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright. Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources, violate WP:BLP, or have problems with the close paraphrasing or copyright violations of images and/or text. a) Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy. Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided. D7: 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. It's clear from the above that, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, I think) there's no requirement that articles' writing be good or even decent, no requirement that MOS be complied with, nor are ther any number of other requirements that you and I might wish for. So, I repeat, if you think the criteria should be changed make a proposal for such a change, but you're indeed wasting everyone's time with your constant demands that articles meet requirements not in the criteria. EEng (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, all very good, but we should not even consider posting items that aren't written encyclopedically. If you believe that an adherence to that maxim is "wasting everyone's time", you're barking. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC) For the third time, you'll have no effect here whatsoever by insisting that articles meet requirements not in the criteria, and you are therefore indeed wasting everyone's time. So (again) please cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping. [3] Now please be my guest and repeat (again) that you want things to be a certain way regardless of what the criteria say. EEng (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, I'd like articles that feature on the main page not to have {{tone}} placed on them because they aren't written encyclopedically. Do keep up. P.S. I'll stand by what I said in your tsky diff, you really need to stop advocating that we send crap to the main page. Time and time again. Anyway, I'll get on with improving the articles, you keep cracking jokes and supporting garbage articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC) I think TRM is making a good point here about encyclopedic writing. Now that every single DYK nominator has to post a QPQ, we are seeing tons of approval ticks for articles that don't meet one or another of the DYK criteria. I've also been wondering whether reviewers are actually reading the articles, the grammar is so bad. Hooks are also going through to the main page with red-linked talk pages, or stub-class ratings. The prep builder shouldn't have to spend an hour (usually more) trying to find 8 hooks that meet all the criteria, spending the time tagging and un-approving inappropriate nominations. Yoninah (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC) None of that's going to change unless and until we change the DYK criteria. Will you and a few others will join me in trying (again) to raise them? EEng (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC) That is nonsense. We shouldn't be passing and then promoting articles to the main page with "they give the it a road movie " (for instance) in amongst a bunch of mainly unintelligble prose. It's a fundamental of the encyclopedia that it is written in grammatically correct and encyclopedically toned English. We don't need a criterion for that, you just need reviewers to do their jobs properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC) You keep saying what ought to happen (which no one disputes) while ignoring attempts to discuss how to cause it to happen. EEng (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC) And you keep telling me I'm wasting everyone's time by bringing issues here, before they get posted, only to see them get posted, just because you don't have a criterion to hang "proper grammar" and "encyclopedic tone" on. On the main page now we have a complete joke of an article, but you were happy for that to happen because ... well I don't know why, because you're upset with me or something. Who knows. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Why do you keep saying I'm happy to have not-so-well-written articles appear? I'm not. I've simply pointed out that the review process as it stands does nothing to prevent that. If you find an article not to your liking, don't post here to complain about it, just WP:SOFIXIT. The people who participate here already share your concerns about quality, on the whole, so you're preaching to the converted -- and insulting and annoying them at the same time. So please cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping. [4] EEng (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC) As long as you stop trying to silence me for pointing out the appalling articles that are being continually delivered to the main page via the DYK process, I'll do my best to stop the tsk tsk, as long as you stop pissing about with jokes that aren't funny and continually starting new sections every time you get overly sensitive about a discussion that indicates that you're not quite in control. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Section break

Extended content

It doesn't have to be a rule. I always carefully edit everything I submit or review for DYK. It is just common sense and should be common and expected practice. However, we are all volunteers here, and we need to try being more civil and less contentious (or snarky) in these discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC) + 1 Victuallers (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC) You do and I do as well. But common sense or not, most people do the minimum required to get their DTK barnstar, so if we want everyone to do that, and reviewers to enforce that they do that, the DYK criteria are going to have to spell that out as a requirement. Will you join me in trying to raise the criteria? EEng (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC) I will. I would think that the article creators, nominators, reviewers (and those who promote it up the line) are each individually responsible for the quality of the article (it should be written in reasonably well-constructed and carefully-edited English, with an adequate number of WP:RS. If it isn't, then it should be either fixed or bounced back to the lower levels to have it fixed. Just doing a pro forma rubber-stamped review does not acquit one of responsibility. Our signature is our certification of quality. To paraphrase Orson Welles, the quality goes in before the signature goes on. It's about ownership or stewardship. I've always either made the changes myself or bounced it back without brouhaha. I always assumed I had some discretion, responsibility and the power to effectuate my decisions. {This may be an occupational hazard.} 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC) OK, so what change can we propose to the criteria that will help all nominators and reviewers feel that same sense of duty? Perhaps something like the criteria for B-class (WP:WikiProject_Wikipedia/Assessment#Quality_scale) but maybe only Points 1, 3, and 45 [fixed]]? Or perhaps we should raise the bar, and make DYK require articles to meet all B-class criteria? EEng (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Well, B-class article imply that not only are these articles eligible for GA nomination, they are also sufficiently long enough and stable enough. Many DYK articles are neither long enough nor stable enough; some DYKs refer to recent events, so it may be a while before it is sufficiently stable—and then, by that point, it is no longer eligible for a DYK. However at the minimum, the sources' reliability, article's verifiability, etc. should be at least B-class, if not the length or stability of the article. So, I'd say 1, 3, 4, and 6. 2 and 5 can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Epic Genius (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC) I would say 1, 3, 4, and 6. 1 - Appropriately referenced is critical. 2 - These are defined as our newest articles; they shouldn't be expected to be complete or fully cover the topic; they're still in development, so I would not include 2. 3 - Defined structure; yes. We don't want a random collection of information that reads like "Giraffes are the tallest animal in the world they live in Africa and eat trees they aren't the biggest animal by mass but they are the tallest they..." Information should be grouped in logical sentences and paragraphs and sections. 4 - this is what started this whole discussion is articles that are poorly written. It should be at lease well enough written that each sentence makes sense. 5 - I don't think we should require supporting materials, although if they are there more the better. 6 - This is similar to 4, but I think while 4 is discussing poor grammar 6 is disucssing technical or insider language. I think if we're featuring an article on, say, a concept from the Hindu religion on the main page it should be comprehensible to someone who isn't Hindu. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC) First of all, sorry -- I originally listed Points 1, 3, and 5; but I meant 1, 3, and 4. Re ONUnicorn's comments, I think Point 6 is asking too much as long as we keep the "new content" theme of DYK. (I happen to think the whole new content obsession is the true root of DYK's quality problems, but I'm not tilting at that windmill any time soon.) Obviously Point 1 overlaps criteria already in DYK rules, so it would be great if that part of the DYK criteria could be harmonized with the B-class criteria to the extent possible. EEng (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC) @EEng: Well, obviously, the text has to be understandable; otherwise, what is the point of writing the article if readers can't understand it? Epic Genius (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC) But we need to distinguish between what we'd like an article to be like now (or want it to be like eventually) and what's reasonable to expect from a new article. Now, if you want to join me in calling for an end to the "new" requirement, then we can reasonably expect articles to meet much higher standards, because people will have plenty of time... EEng (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC) An article should, at least, be written in English, and in an encyclopedic tone, as is expected of all articles on Wikipedia. Why don't you propose a new criterion that defines that fundamental tenet of the project? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Can we all agree that, as a start, we want something like B-class Point 4? It reads The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. But I think that last bit re MOS is too vague. Maybe we need more like what GA calls for with respect to writing quality, which is 1a. The prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct 1b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation In fact, maybe what we want is some subset of GA, not of B? EEng (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Sure. GAs are often nominees for DYKs as well, and GAs pass very easily as DYKs, so for non-GAs nominated for DYKs, one would expect the same standard. Epic Genius (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Well, I think the majority of current submissions would need substantial work to meet 1a. Perhaps we want to combine B-class Point 4 with 1b? EEng (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Yeah, that's reasonable. It should flow and not create grammatical screw-ups that a first grader could fix. The article doesn't need to necessarily be absolutely typo-free on the first try, unless it's already a GA. Epic Genius (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So what do other editors think?

The proposal on the table for discussion is to add the following to the DYK criteria:

• The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant".
• The article complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, but otherwise MOS need not be followed rigorously.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. These ideas are contrary to the fundamentals of DYK which include "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, and so on. As DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, it is not expected that articles appearing on DYK would be considered among the best on Wikipedia." So far as the main page is concerned, the DYK hooks are what appears there and they already get plenty of scrutiny. When I look at the main page myself, it's the other sections which cause me to raise my eyebrows and roll my eyes. For example, yesterday the FA blurb highlighted the supposed flatulence of William Shatner - a rather tasteless BLP violation IMO. And I don't consider that ITN's use of the present tense is grammatical for cases which are now in the past, such as the saiga die-off which took place last month. DYK is not a special problem requiring more rules creep. Andrew D. (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  You are aware that all blurbs in the ITN section are written in the present tense, aren't you? The fact that DYK regularly appears at ERRORS means that something positive needs to be done, that's not rules creep, it's common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

But Andrew, do you really think that "contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly", plus compliance with four particular MOS sections (out of the scores of MOS sections we have), is incompatible with "do not have to be of very high quality"? EEng (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Grammar issues are typically unimportant and are often a matter of taste. Our focus and energy should be devoted to fact-checking rather than MOS pedantry. For example, recently we showed a picture which purported to be the FIFA HQ but was actually a different building. That was an error at ITN. I'm not seeing any evidence that DYK requires extra vigilance, as compared with those other sections. Andrew D. (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Difference is, we're talking about the quality of the articles, not just errors in the listing on the main page. Other difference is DYKs are sanctioned by a single editor while ITN is handled by consensus. We're also not talking about MOS pedantry, we're talking about writing in English and in the right tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Andrew, being free of "major grammatical errors" and flowing "sensibly" isn't a matter of taste, and far from MOS pedantry, the proposal explicitly excludes almost all of MOS. The bar being set here is minimal. It's not that DYK requires extra vigilance, rather that there needs to be a little more guidance on what to be vigilant for. At the moment when a reviewer says, "This article have has [corrected – see below] a lot of grammar errors" the answer is, "That's not one of the DYK criteria". EEng (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, my answer would be "that should be 'has' not 'have'". My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk)

I has corrected the grammar error in my earlier post. EEng (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Through I will note the fact that the example given in the op would probably pass it; I'd not classify it as "major error", but a minor one. Of course, if I was it in my review I'd fix it or point it out, but... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose That would completely go against DYK's ethos of showcasing new content, not to mention potentially driving away new editors if there are excessive rules or reviewers who crack down on every little grammatical error (which will happen if these rules are brought in). If people have problems with the wording of an article then why not be WP:BOLD and correct it? It helps the article and writer as well as the project as a whole but DYK is not GA and should not require extra restrictive rules to determine worthiness. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Article classification

Extended content

Article classification is a waste of time. It's awarded and ignored as arbitrarily as a DYK is passed as good to go. I have to say that the example I provided at the top of this thread is a shocking indictment of the process here at DYK, and the thoroughness that the editors apply. The nominator, MichaelQSchmidt is an admin with over 54,000 edits since 2008, the passing editor, Epeefleche has more than 147,000 edits over nine years of editing to their name, the promoting admin editor, Yoninah has over ten years experience and more than 35,000 edits. It was then accredited for the main page by admin Casliber who has over 138,000 edits. So we have a total of four editors, three two of them admins, with a combined third of a million edits, agreeing that the article in question is suitable for main page inclusion. It seems clear to me that the DYK process isn't actually necessarily the root cause of the fault here. I have to apologise wholesale to EEng and others, we're really just dealing with a serious lack of attention from all those involved. If we need to change the criteria, as EEng is suggesting, it could only be to "PAY MORE ATTENTION PLEASE". There's simply nothing more you could add to any criteria to make this any better right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "PAY MORE ATTENTION" to what??? The criteria don't call for the thing you desire. Until they do, there's nothing for people to give their attention to. We're not talking about using any article assessments that might be awarded outside the DYK process -- we're using the C-B-GA-FA criteria as a touchstone for thinking about what the criteria should be for DYK's inhouse approval process. EEng (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC) BTW, Yoninah is not an admin. But yes, all of them are experienced editors, so it would not hurt for them to give a little more attention to the article's standards. Epic Genius (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Just for your info, ITN dropped the B-class requirement because it was pointless – we should not use the C-B-GA-FA criteria as a touchstone for thinking as it's absolutely pointless and arbitrary – where is the oversight for claiming an article to be a C-class, a B-class etc? It's no different from asking the reviewing and promoting editors/admins to use some common sense to check an article is written in English. If you wish, add something to the criteria that says "Ensure that articles are written in grammatically correct English and are written with an encyclopedic tone". This, of course, is 100% nugatory because all articles in Wikipedia should adhere to this fundamental objective. Getting bored of repeating it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC) It probably does not need to be 100% sourced, just sufficient enough that these articles won't be challenged with {{citation needed}}—or even worse, {{refimprove}}. However, the DYK requirements do state The article as a whole should use inline, cited sources. Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source. So, maybe there only needs to be one source per paragraph or something, but there doesn't need to be 1,000 sources for a short start-class-length article, as if the article was about to be nominated for FA. Epic Genius (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Sourcing isn't the major issue right now. It's the fact we have people promoting articles that aren't even written in grammatically correct English. And written like a homework project by a ten-year-old. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Hey, at least we don't have actual 10-year-olds writing these articles, but just to be on the safe side, maybe the DYK process could also require a rigorous grammar check before the DYK nomination is approved. Epic Genius (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC) The fact that a grammar check isn't performed is troubling. This stuff goes in the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC) I know, and that's why I'm surprised that such grammatical incorrectness could exist on articles that are linked on the most-viewed page of one of the world's most popular websites. It's like if Twitter management posted something like "see whats happening right now" on the twitter.com home page. However, we are volunteers, not paid management, so it's our responsibility to maintain our articles and make them error-free. Epic Genius (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Filling preps...

If folks could start filling preps that'd be great. I was going to but realised I promised to copyedit something.....and not sure how long I've got. Back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay folks fill away...(again) gotta run....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to a bit blunt now - the level of attention that is required (see numerous threads elsewhere) is such that I will never have time to update the DYK preps or queues. It's too much like unpaid hard work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This is true, you need to re-check all the checks all over again... Perhaps we need to slow it down again. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits needed in Queue 5

1. Sweet_Adelines_International_chorus_competitions,_2010–2019, bolded in the lead hook as "in 2013", does not meet minimum character count and should be de-bolded and de-credited
2. [[Valley Falls, Oregon|Valley Falls]], [[Oregon]] should be corrected to [[Valley Falls, Oregon]]. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the very serious problem (now under discussion in another thread on this page) with basic grammar and style in many DYK articles, it seems bizarre to pull one because it's 48 characters short of some arbitrary limit. Just leave it and take the time and brainpower that would have been expended on the pull on participating in the discussion re criteria. EEng (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, an admin should unbold it and uncredit it. I have no idea why the reviewer claims both articles were long enough when DYKcheck is quite clear this one wasn't, and furthermore the article doesn't have any real meat to it; the 2015 and 2016 prose sections are virtually identical, and a third of the total prose is basically the key to the tables. It should never have been passed in the first place. Calling Crisco 1492 or another helpful admin... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not only should it be debolded, it is far too much of an easter egg link. Also in that same set, there's a claim that "that the Guryong Village, the last slum of Seoul, is located next to the luxurious Gangnam District" but the article actually says that the village has been referred to as "the last slum in Seoul's glitzy Gangnam district"[8] and "the last shanty town in Gangnam" and not the "last slum of Seoul".... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed both. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for overall workability

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/RFC DYK process improvement 2015 — Maile (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 5 that have been waiting for a reviewer for a month or more, and the remaining 31 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 121 nominations are approved, leaving 213 of 334 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.

Over one month:

• April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Tie the Knot (TV series)
• April 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Phoebe Nicholson
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Kongsi federation
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Long Night (Kim Hyung-jun song)
• May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/The Last of Us Remastered

Also needing review:

• April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Walter Scott
• April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Political positions of Lincoln Chafee
• April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Ali Mardan Khan
• April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography
• April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/My Girl (EP)
• April 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Jane Veloso
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Baltimore protests
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/1922 Princeton vs. Chicago football game
• May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Jade Helm 15
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Pratapaditya Pal
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Overjoyed (album)
• May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal evisceration
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Curtis Culwell Center attack
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Long Live the Royals
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/The Rapes of Graff
• May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/A Walk Across America
• May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction)
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Spanish Grand Prix
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/The Purple Revolution: The Year That Changed Everything
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Josh Naylor, Demi Orimoloye (two articles)
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Better (Kim Hyung-jun song)
• May 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Albany Free School
• May 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Puerto Princesa mayoral recall election, 2015
• May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/C.J. Pearson
• May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Timeline of ankylosaur research
• May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Timeline of ceratosaur research
• May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Timeline of hadrosaur research
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Babette Haag
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Tyus Battle
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ernie Reyes, Sr.

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) 03:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Pride theme for June?

I believe there was a semi-organized effort here to run relevant articles for Women's History Month in March, but I'm not a DYK regular and I don't remember how I found out about it. Is there a similar effort for LGBT-themed articles for Pride Month in June? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, and it's a little late to organize a systematic parade of hooks, but certainly any LGBT-related hook should be highlighted so we can fast-track them to run this month. How would you like to volunteer to check the currently open noms (all 400 of them!) too see if any qualify? EEng (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thought that was in February? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

June, to commemorate the Stonewall riots. Kind of a US thing but most other countries seem to have followed suit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: You say that like it's a daunting task, but there's so few plausible candidates that it doesn't take long. The only relevant ones I saw nominated before today are Mhairi Black and Ximena Bedregal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Two articles? It may be a little hard to run just two Women's History Month-themed DYKs on the main page. Epic Genius (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at there... you're surprised there aren't many current nominations about a topic there's been no effort to solicit nominations about? In any case, I'll rustle some trees; I at least have a few LGBT scientists that should have articles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like User:Opabinia regalis has already come across Wiki Loves Pride, but yes, there is a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia. We do encourage participants to nominate DYK hooks, but of course this can be difficult for new contributors to understand. I encourage DYK project members to be on the lookout for new content and to add DYK hooks to the Results page for Wiki Loves Pride. Needless to say, all are also welcome to assist the campaign by creating and improving LGBT content. Thanks for your consideration and assistance. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again, I think the best we can do at this late date is encourage new submissions (quickly, given the glacial pace of DYK review) in appropriate forums, and make sure they get reviewed ASAP so they can run this month. EEng (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. No pressure, but we really need to hurry up with these submissions. Epic Genius (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If I can get Graham Chapman through GAN, I'm sure I can do an LGBT themed DYK hook. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I started a Special Occasion holding area for June (LGBT Pride Month) and moved the approved Gayby Baby submission into it. Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please pull my hook from Prep 1 ASAP

Could someone please pull my Trout Run hook from prep 1 and replace it with something else, as it has been overtaken by events? This needs to be done ASAP as the prep is next to move into the queue. I'll submit a new hook shortly once the article has been updated. Prioryman (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2015 (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) 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

7 day requirement and NPP

Lately I have been doing a lot of new page patrol. The backlog at New pages feed is currently a little more than a month old (reviewing articles from April 18 on June 4). I've been working on the oldest ones first.

It sometimes happens when I'm reviewing new pages that I find one that I think would be great for DYK, but by the time I find it it's about 6 weeks old. The rules for DYK are that it must be nominated within 7 days. This doesn't make a ton of sense, as by the time the DYK appears on the main page it's been sitting in the reviewing ques here for a month and is at least a month old anyway.

I know at least one person who frequents this talk page would like to see the "newness" requirement eliminated. I don't want to see it entirely eliminated, but I think 7 days is a little harsh, especially given 1. the backlog at NPP, and 2. the fact that articles don't typically spring into existence on Wikipedia fully formed like Athena bursting from the head of Zeus, but rather develop over a period of days or weeks, and 3. New editors often aren't aware of the DYK process or how to get their work featured here.

I'd like to see the newness requirement loosened to include articles created or expanded within 30 days from when they are nominated. That would have three benefits:

1. It would allow improved quality of the articles at DYK, because authors wouldn't feel as rushed to "finish" the article in 7 days, but rather would be able to do more research, and leave the article for a few days before coming back to proofread.
2. It would enable those of us working on the NPP backlog to have the pleasure of highlighting the treasures we find instead of all the focus being on deleting and slapping cleanup tags. (A huge problem with some NPP volunteers)
3. It would encourage retention of new editors who do good work, as NPPrs could nominate their articles for DYK and seeing their work on the main page would please them and encourage them to continue.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Man, I am so totally behind this you can't believe it. The newness requirement‍—‌especially the incredibly rushed seven-day requirement (it used to be five days, believe it or not!)‍—‌is at the root of everything wrong with DYK, and here's why. In a moment, all kinds of people will arrive to explain to you that it's the purpose of DYK to showcase new content, and defend that axiom as if it's obvious new content is something worth showcasing. But it's not obvious, while what is obvious is that focusing on extremely new articles is the reason that the material we deal with here is of such low quality.

The true reason for the newness requirement is that it puts an arbitrary choke on nominations, limiting the amount of material coming through. (In a moment someone will scold you for proposing to "open the floodgates" so that "we will be overwhelmed".) Implicit in that attitude is the assumption that we have to run everything that's nominated, as we do now -- almost all nominations close successfully -- and that any kind of evaluation of merit is necessarily "subjective" (it is, to a large extent, but so what? -- we're not robots here) and therefore either unworkable or unfair.

So that's the way items are selected here at DYK -- not on any kind of merit (article quality, interestingness) -- but merely on newness. We need to get some backbone and adopt actual standards, and start rejecting most of what comes through. Opening up the newness requirement will make it easier, not harder, to find a small number of worthwhile nominations, because we'll be allowing relatively well developed articles instead of newborn rushed ones. EEng (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I echo what EEng said: stop the rush and stop the clamour for medals and credits and WikiCup points etc. Focus on new stuff, sure, but quality new stuff. That DYK has become a dumping ground for an almost daily inclusion of articles on tributaries of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania is a prime example of our lame acceptance of the sub-mediocre. This stuff is not interesting, not quality, nothing of the sort. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with EEng and TRM. As the change from 5 to 7 days has been without controversy, I've been meaning to suggest 14 days. However, I'd not thought about the possibility of NPP picking up overlooked articles, so why not 30 (or even more) days? After all, the focus ought to be on interesting hooks to interesting well-enough written articles. For almost everything in DYK, our readers aren't going to know or care how long ago the article itself was started. And for stuff where there is an actual topicality pressure, we have ITN anyway. Edwardx (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I like this idea. I have nominated one or two articles I found at NPP for DYK, and might do more if the expiration issues did not complicate things. Patrolling the page is a logged event, so we could just change to the language to within 7 (or 14) days of the review. VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of changing the language to w/in 7 days after the review as an alternate to my original proposal. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Support this idea for the reasons given above. When readers see "new and recently improved content" they just assume it is fairly recent, they don't care whether it is 7 or 30 days and we regularly run very old content because it has been expanded. Most readers will not be checking the history or the age because they don't know how an article is made anyway, or care. 30 days sounds good. It can always be changed back if it doesn't work. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A wonderful idea to invigorate the project which has my full support. So many DYK hooks are insufferably dull these days, and a month limit would be good and the reward of a main page feature might attract some editing newbies. I wouldn't necessarily be against removing the date limit all together, I've very often sufficiently expanded a page that is many years old (and deserves a wider audience) knowing that I'll never put the effort in to get it to GA. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with all the points made above. I'd also like to do away with the "approve the hook at all costs", even after the nominator has disappeared and it's left to the DYK reviewer to finish it or else. If nominators knew that both their article and hook could be rejected for lack of quality or interest, they would put more effort into it, and we'd all benefit. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please continue discussion in this section re the general idea of increasing newness requirement from 7 days to (for example) 30 days.

I don't see how 30 days solves the original problem: NPP is currently taking about 42 days after creation to patrol a new article, so the article would still be ineligible. If we were to carve out a special exemption for NPP-found articles (suggested by VQuakr), then the current 7 days should be more than sufficient after the NPP tag is added. There's also a potential hitch: like all other nominators, patrollers would be responsible for providing quid pro quo reviews along with their nominations after they submitted their first five freebies. If they aren't prepared to do this, then we're not going to get many new article nominations from this very significant change to DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's like I was only away for a day. Plus ça change... Belle (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that after I posted, that 30 days would still put us behind, but not as far behind; plus I still wanted there to be some limit and I figured a month was nice and easy for people to wrap their head around. I also like VQuakr's idea of changing the language to X days after the page is patrolled; but even in that instance I think increasing the time from a week would provide additional benefits in terms of increased quality.

I'm not sure how many DYK noms would come from NPP patrollers. I know I would nominate some, and gladly provide QPQs, but then I also try to improve most of the articles I tag, whereas a lot of people that do exclusively NPP work are focused on deletion and tag bombing. I think there'd have to be an effort over there to convince people that recognizing the good along with recognizing the bad is part of the territory, including maybe adding a DYK script to the page curation tool so it does it semi-automatically the way it does the AFDs. Part and parcel of that would be encouraging QPQ as part of the process. But we can work on that over there once we've agreed over here that a slight change in the DYK rules is warranted. Also, I've put a message over there encouraging NPPers to participate in this discussion.

I'm not too worried about, as EEng says, "opening the floodgates". I don't think this change would increase the number of noms that substantially, though I do think there would be an increase. At any rate, if we try it and are overwhelmed we can discuss other changes. (Some of which, like requiring a minimal standard of quality, or voting on which hooks are the most interesting, are probably warranted). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait, is the proposal to simply increase the "newness" limit to 30 days (or something), or is it to add a special provision of X days after it's patrolled. I don't like the latter -- one more strange rule, and one that involves an unpredictable element i.e. when NPP gets to it. Someone creating an article ought to be able to know he has 30 days to nominate, without wondering when NPP will get to it. And the new 30-day limit should apply to everything (new articles, expanded, GA) not just new articles. EEng (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Then let's stick with my original proposal and not complicate things. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else? EEng (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since the original reason was to help NPP, but 30 days won't help NPP since they're closer to 45 days, this is a non-starter for me. (I'm not wildly in favor of an NPP exception, but it would have been "newly discovered" articles, and presumably with a certain amount of quality control since patrollers would presumably not want to nominate articles that would require them to do a lot of fixing to meet DYK standards.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• This proposal started with NPP but has clearly tapped into a general feeling that the 7 day limit is fairly arbitrary and may be working against the quality of nominations. There doesn't appear to be any objective reason why it should be 5, 7 or any other number of days (though I would be against no limit at all and have no objection to 14 days either). Those that still write articles may feel different from those that only critique other people's work, never putting their own work up for the judgement of others. As someone that writes a lot of articles I can say that they are often part of larger projects and take longer than 7 days to mature as research for later articles reveals material relevant to those recently completed. It's true that they sometimes stay in the queue a long time where they can be worked on but they also sometimes get reviewed very quickly and then an article that is not as good as it could be finds its way on to the front page. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and by encouraging those in the know to develop a new/expanded article offline or in their sandbox, the stupid newness criterion works completely against the WP ideals of collaboration and openness. A thirty-day limit would largely eliminate that silliness. EEng (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Most of the collaboration seems to take place once the article is on the main page so should each set stay up for longer? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, assuming we can't make the sets bigger, we'd have to run fewer hooks per day, and then we're back to selecting items on merit of some kind (article quality/interest and/or hook interesting-ness), which I think would be great but which seems to be a hard sell around here. EEng (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support I would prefer 30 days to the current 7. In practise, we have plenty of unreviewed nominations going back further than that and so we could make it 60 days without significantly disrupting the current workflow. We are not ITN and so there isn't usually any pressing need to get the material up immediately. Andrew D. (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, but how will we thin the herd?

Extended content

Let's suppose for a moment that the discussion in the subsection above ends with a decision to loosen the newness requirement. Then comes the hard part: it's hard to predict, but this will increase nominations by a factor of maybe 2 to 4. How will we select among them? I say that every day we vote (no discussion, no consensus -- straight voting, because interesting is simply a gut instinct, not a logical conclusion) to pick the 10 most interesting hooks out of the current pool of nominations. These 10 then pass to the next stage, which is review. If at the review stage an article is found unsalvageable after sufficient effort, then the next day's vote will be for 11 (instead of 10) to make up the deficit. Nominations that don't get voted in after D days are (by popular indifference) not interesting enough, and so get dropped from the pool. Obvisouly there are a lot more details, and I've thought this through a lot more than I'm revealing here, but that's the general idea; more details on request. But I'm certainly open to other approaches to "thinning the herd". EEng (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC) That makes for a lot of new rules and a lot of monitoring. Why not just change it to 30 days and leave everything else the same and see what happens? Additional rules can then be introduced if necessary based on evidence not speculation. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Actually, I think it will be less work since we'll be posting 1/2 as many hooks per day. But I like your idea. Let's change it to 30 days, and see what happens. If there's a flood of nominations (there will certainly be some kind of increase) we can switch back immediately to 7 days (to turn off the tap) while we think what to do. However, I think we should be running fewer hooks no matter what, based primarily on a popularity contest for "interestingness", and at the same time raise article quality standards at least somewhat, as already being discussed elsewhere on this page (or did we move that to a special subpage yet?). But trying the 30-day rule for a while might tell us something that will help in thinking about that. (Warning: it may take a while for the word to get out and the effect of changing the rule come to "steady state".) EEng (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC) The results are unpredictable which is a reason for being incremental. It's quite possible that article length increases, making them harder to review, without any increase in the interestingness of the articles, so there could be a net increase in tedium, but it's worth trying. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Then as the one who opened this subthread I'd like to propose we suspend it and concentrate on just the 30-day question in the subthread above. EEng (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Prep 5

S&S

I can't see a reference in the Sense and Sensibility (soundtrack) article for it being Doyle's first BAFTA nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've got one, but I'd be shot at dawn if I added that. I'll yank it from the queue pending a source turning up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added another source and responded on the nomination page. Ruby 2010/2013 13:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Prep 6

Google Photos

Google Photos has two bright orange maintenance tags on it, is this generally acceptable these days, particularly as the rules state "Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy" and the tags say "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source" and "The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints"....? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

To strictly answer the question asked, no an article should not run on the main page with tags on it. However, these tags were added (seemingly as a hit and run job) by EoRdE6 after the article was reviewed at DYK. I've reverted them as no explanation was offered on talk. Wickedly Welsh Chocolate got tag-bombed, but only after it ran on the main page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this before moving the hook to prep 5 to fill the hole there; having seen it, and noted the response by EoRdE6 that the entire Wikipedia article is based on two The Verge articles—the only sources given—I thought it was safer to move this back to prep 1 in case the tags come back. this edit on Czar's talk page says it's an NPOV issue, and when queried by The Rambling Man, EoRdE6 points to this. It seems a legitimate issue to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

On further consideration, and having read a few other reviews, I find I agree with the other commenters: the article as it stands now is narrowly sourced and its neutrality suffers thereby. I have just pulled it back for additional work to meet DYK guidelines, and retagged the article, as the tags are appropriate at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Chicken in the Rough

Something strange seems to have happened to the template for the Chicken in the Rough nomination and consequently, I was unable to promote the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The template discussion can be accessed through "What links here" on the Chicken in the Rough page. Here it is: Template:Did you know nominations/Chicken in the Rough. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Unfortunately, the template was renamed after the article was similarly renamed—DYK templates are not supposed to be renamed—so it has been delayed as a result of that improper rename. I suppose that's fitting... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have an idea: Can the nom templates be set "move protected" at the time they're created? That would keep this from happening in the future. (I have a feeling the answer is No, but thought I'd ask.) EEng (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Claudico: misleading hook?

... that Claudico, an artificial intelligence computer program using 16 terabytes ofRAM, won a Texas hold 'em poker championship for computers, but it was defeated by a team of humans?

The article says a computer with 16 TB of RAM was used for strategy development. It doesn't say what kind of computer Claudico runs on while actually playing poker.

Also, there's no space between "of" and "RAM", but this isn't apparent on the Main Page because the link causes a line break. Ian01 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the main page @Ian01: ... could you check the article? Victuallers (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Prep 5

Does anyone read the articles they promote? Currently in prep 5 we have Tie the Knot (TV series), with the opening sentence of the Production section thus: "The series was the first for veteran actor Zhang Peihua in fifteen years without filming in Taiwan, playing the role of Nylon Chen's father, although he occasionally involved himself in theater" and goes on "Cheryl Yang, on the other hand, came back to SETTV once again after separating for four years, although she was consecutively given the female lead by other networks since her career break on My Queen"... grim. Any chance that we could write this article in English before it hits the main page? It really needs a {{clean up}} tag on it, which I'm reluctant to do unless I have to. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Pulled from prep and added a copyediting tag to page. Yoninah (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyedited it (though some of it defeated me; I don't know what an average of 1.22 is, though it sounds disappointing, and it's anyone's guess what Cheryl Yang is on about here: "According to her, however, she sometimes feel like talking with Chen Zhi Qiang, another co-star in the series, whenever she talked with Dou Dou.") Belle (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Honestly, we really should not be putting this kind of material anywhere near the main page... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Carl Nielsen

You saw it on the Main page: it's Carl Nielsen's 150th birthday. I nominated four articles for the occasion and then forgot about them. Two are approved, two are waiting, today I wrote one more, - please just look for Nielsen on the nom page and do what you can to make them appear within the next 3 days ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Holger Gilbert-Jespersen, Template:Did you know nominations/Oluf Hartmann, Template:Did you know nominations/Tre Motteter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Image in prep 6

The picture in prep 6 File:Badawi Jabal, 1954.jpg claims to be public domain. It says that it was made in 1954, but the rules seems to say that it is only public domain if published prior to 1954. So is it free or not? If not we could use under fair use, but not at DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the licensing statement, the article is free for use in the U.S. as of 2004. Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My point was that this was wrong. I suppose I should nominate it for speedy deletion in that case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

English, again

In Prep 1, Overjoyed (album) has nuggets like "As announced earlier, an talk show would be held after the concert", "as Heo liked Lavigne as an artist ever since", "The DVD includes the singing performances of Heo such as a music medley of SS501 era, the after-talk show held after the concert, and photo shoot footages among others"... Please. Stop. Promoting. This. Stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please. Stop. The. Snotty. High-handed. Tsk-tsking. It. Doesn't. Help. Quality -- even fundamental grammar and style -- will never improve until that becomes one of the DYK criteria -- please participate at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F. EEng (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is it's queued up for main page inclusion. Thanks once again for your help in this matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT EEng (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, pulled. I'm not here to teach people to write in English. That's a fundamental requirement of the encyclopedia and does not need to be enshrined in the DYK criteria. You know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, not even half pulled. The hook was removed, but the DYKmake credit remained in the prep, and the nomination template was left in promoted state. I've done the clean-up, but it makes me wonder how many other nominations have been left in limbo like this one was, no longer appearing on the nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that, it's more important to ensure the item doesn't get near the main page than worry about the DYK credit system. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry -- can you point to this fundamental requirement that articles must satisfy? And if you can't, how are reviewers supposed to know about or enforce it? EEng (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That'd be in the title of the Wikipedia. If you can't write in encyclopedic English, it shouldn't be on the main page. Seriously, how many times do you need to be told? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaints about poor English - do they help improve DYK?

I'd very much like to hear others' opinions. EEng (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the poor standard of much DYK content, I'd say yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask whether concern about quality (which I share) is justified -- I asked whether berating other editors helps to improve quality. Also, I'm primarily interested in the opinions of those who actually participate in DYK. EEng (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"I'm primarily interested in the opinions of those who actually participate in DYK" Really? Since when does Wikipedia restrict legitimate commentary on content to those responsible for creating it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Those who have been participating here regularly are in a position to tell whether TRM's whining has improved things or not. If you want to review all the archives to come up to speed, your evaluation would be most welcome. EEng (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Those here who have thanked me for my edits (of course you can't see that) would certainly be happy to tell you how many articles at DYK I've fixed up. I don't just sit and whinge, unlike others........ The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Just ask reviewers and promoting admins to make sure articles are written in English. If you think you need a DYK criterion for that, you're barking. Start doing something about the quality, and stop bitching about people pointing out the detritus that is continually (daily) being advocated for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's shoot the messenger and ignore the message.</sarcasm> We get the fact that you and TRM don't agree. Going on about it won't help. Creating a "let's have a go at TRM" sub-thread won't help, because it's not going to be constructive and it will just spiral off into a distracting side-show if we're not careful. So I closed this thread, and you thought it the best course of action to reopen it, albeit amending the subheading to make it only 98% obvious who you're aiming at instead of 100%. On the bigger point, defending the right of poorly written articles to appear on the main page just because there's no specific rule against it isn't going to help the cause of DYK, incidentally. I don't think the DYK criteria specifically say that articles appearing on the main page in the DYK section have to be written in the English language, in fact. Some things are just too obvious to need saying. To quote TRM, "It's a fundamental of the encyclopedia that it is written in grammatically correct and encyclopedically toned English". That's not even close to asking for prose that "is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" and ought to be achievable. Bencherlite^Talk 17:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall your being around here lately, so you may be forgiven for completely misunderstanding what's going on here, including thinking that I'm "defending the right of poorly written articles to appear on the main page" -- quite the opposite. I have to run out now, but when I come back I'll lay it out for you. (Don't worry -- it'll be short.) EEng (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't bother on my account. You're fighting with someone who is on your side when it comes to article quality at DYK, and want to make it personal to boot? Wow, talk about missing the bigger picture. I'm glad I've not been around much here recently. </leaves> Bencherlite^Talk 19:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

EEng is looking for a change to the criteria. Something along the lines of "make sure it's not bang full of grammar errors, typos and non-English prose". I would argue that this is fundamental to the existence of the Wikipedia and doesn't need to be enshrined at DYK explicitly. If our reviewers and promoting admins don't actually understand that we need quality above DYK credits then they shouldn't be allowed to promote garbage to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Amen to that. Bencherlite^Talk 19:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

+1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"You're fighting with someone who's on your side" -- that applies in both directions between TRM and me. The difference between us is that one of us is actually trying to figure our how to improve things, and the other just keeps coming back here day after day to complain. There are many problems with the DYK process (both its criteria and its procedures) that keep us stuck where we are. These are just some highlights:

• The "new content" obsession means articles are often in rough shape when they arrive, and a big chunk of those participating are novice editors
• There are too many editors involved in each nomination, so everyone's tempted to think someone else would have checked this or that

Some of us are trying to revamp the process to address those kinds of problems -- see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/RFC_DYK_process_improvement_2015.

• (most germane to the current discussion...) There's nothing in the DYK criteria that call for anyone to check the writing for grammar and basic style.

It's all very well to say that "everyone" should know better, but the fact is that saying that over and over clearly isn't helping. I've been trying for at least six months to get that changed -- see Special:Diff/666377673#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F. As you'll see there, there really are people who think that basic style and grammar shouldn't be required, so if you care about our quality problems please participate there.

The kinds of efforts going on at the two links I just gave are real work, unlike the snotty tsk-tsking TRM engages in day in and day out. EEng (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to realise that your continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre, or worse, is damaging Wikipedia. I tell you what, I'll just pull every hook that doesn't meet basic grammar and tone requirements of an English-language encyclopedia until the DYK apologists get the hint. I may "tsk tsk" but at least I just don't hang around, pissing in the wind, making wisecracks. We should expect our reviewers and admins to acknowledge that articles should be written in grammatically correct English with an encyclopedic tone. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be allowed to accredit items for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said to you the other day: go soak your head. Where in the fuck do you get off referring to my "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre"? It's exactly that kind of shit that causes me to repeat, every time you come here: Cut out the snotty, highhanded, tsk-tsking. It's not helping.

Now give the diffs or take back your bullshit. Everyone's sick of you spewing insults right and left. EEng (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's my take on it. DYK is for new articles and editors. Expecting brand new editors to spontaneously write encyclopedic prose with the full knowledge of our major policies and guidelines is kind of like Cnut wishing the tide would just bugger off somewhere else or Nigel Farage thinking "maybe I'll get in next election" - it isn't going to happen (unless they're a sock). To get the level of service required mandates more work than I can personally give, which is why I haven't focused on DYK much recently, and probably won't for a while longer. In the meantime, the conversation is just getting too personal; I'm sure I could sit down and discuss this over a pint in a pub somewhere, and it would probably be a more enjoyable experience than sitting on a computer terminal, but we can only work with what we have. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So you would not support the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F? EEng (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)