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.

LavaBaron's editing restrictions

Per this AN thread, LavaBaron is given editing restrictions on DYK. Any hook nominated or reviewed by LavaBaron must be reviewed by a second editor before it may be promoted to the main page. The restrictions are reproduced below as follows:

1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
4. (To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.
5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

The enforcement of these rules should be the responsibility of all editors who promote DYK hooks. Any editor may undo the promotion of any hook to a prep area or a queue area (for admins) whose promotion was made in contravention to these restrictions, assuming good faith and citing this AN restriction. --Deryck C. 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this addition to the header section of T:TDYK really necessary? It feels to me like a scarlet letter. LavaBaron has agreed on his or her user talk page to note that double reviews are needed in his nominations and reviews, which is where the reminder is needed, so is a header notice necessary and appropriate? EdChem (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary given Lavabaron's commitment to add a note to his contributions, so have reverted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass - thanks, but I don't have an issue with it. It may be better for everyone involved if it was still in place. I'll defer to your judgment, though. LavaBaron (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, EdChem, I very much appreciate your comment. However, by way of explanation, I don't have any issue with the header, personally. This restriction will eventually slip off other editors radars and I don't want to risk getting blocked if another editor doesn't notice my own warning notes and accidentally promotes anyway. In the grand scheme of things, I'm fine with being publicly exhibited in the stockade for awhile if the alternative is the hangman. I'm probably wrapping things up here anyway, so it's not really a big deal. LavaBaron (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You are not going to get blocked for the actions of another editor! However, since you've made the commitment to remind other editors of your restrictions in your contributions to T:TDYK, you will need to stick to it as failing to do so might attract unwanted attention. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity, I think LavaBaron is wise to include reminders on his nominations and reviews. Just because something is objectively unreasonable doesn't mean it won't happen, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, however, I was just blocked on accident the other day - which I've just learned can't be WP:REVDEL from my log and will be part of my permanent record as long as my account exists - so I would like to be extra careful in any edit I make, or any edit anyone else makes that may in some way reference me by name. (I apologize, in advance, for publicly disagreeing and if the preceding comment seemed insolent; it was not my intent to be but rather to observe a personal experience as a possible reason for maintaining the header alert so that as many people as possible know that my DYKs require extra scrutiny. I appreciate all the work you do for WP as an admin and will defer, without further debate or objection, to you judgment on this question.) LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

EdChem you claim Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity..., could you provide an explanation for this including diffs please? As far as I could tell, most people who are pulling hooks are doing it based on the fact that they are erroneous, or ill-sourced or malignant. Of course, you could correct me if I'm wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I expressed my opinion. I am in favour of higher quality and minimising inaccuracies in articles on WP. I am not, however, comfortable with the discussions which come across as disdainful of the contributors and contributions to DYK. Examples, quotations all being from you, FYI:

• "Admins who deal with errors here are under no obligation to do anything" is the exact attitude of image patrollers who tag and notify when fixing the problem was as easy or easier, and ignoring the disruption caused. It comes with an apparent belief of superiority which is really irritating. That you can just pull a hook rather than fix does not mean that that course of action is appropriate or wise. Also, you signed as an admin who "participate at DYK but rarely move prep sets to queues and updating main page" but reserve the right to disregard the structures of DYK ("DYK rules are non-binding on admins", "I'm not arguing, I'm stating fact. Admins are not under any obligation to comply with the arcane and multifarious "rules" of DYK") - hardly helpful. Maybe things wouldn't be so oppositional if hooks were corrected rather than pulled (by all means discuss here or with the nominator / reviewers afterwards) or returned once corrected. You could build some goodwill by protecting the main page and advancing the goals of DYK within that broader goal, rather than always coming across as critical. Admins are supposed to be editors with extra buttons not rulers, and while I have no doubt you can make a case for being uninvolved, from my perspective you come with a pre-existing opinion and bias against DYK - you come across as disdainful ("DYK are no longer interested in interesting hooks it would appear, they are just too obsessed with self-preservation").
• "... not worth the grief and the disruption to the arcane processes and delicate individuals here" - good to see your healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here.
• "... the review process is up shit creek" - this is an over-broad generalisation which does not acknowledge or recognise the good work being done by many reviewers. Take me, for example... I've never had a hook pulled from the main page (nor do I recall one from the queue) and I don't recall one of my reviews being subsequently faulted. I've noted problems with paraphrasing and sourcing and I believe I am thorough (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - you can look at all my DYKs if you like). In some cases, I have posted after a tick is given to address a problematic review. Is my work "up shit creek" too? Or are there people here who could use some acknowledgement and who can serve as examples for new reviewers to follow? The QPQ system has its flaws and I favour removing QPQ credits from poor reviews so that another review is needed for their nomination to proceed, but the flaws don't make DYK worthless. There is some high quality work done here, both editing and reviewing, and that seems to go unnoticed. For example, I am proud of this case where what was brought to DYK was inaccurate and low quality and what went on to the main page was much higher quality (IMO).
• "The answer: slow the rate down" - you said this in the context of the JetBlue hook which you described as "dreadful and promotional" (an accurate assessment, IMO). You have posted repeatedly about section length and rate and built no consensus for change. I suggest that is, in part, because your approach leads to a high degree of defensiveness. I can't see why 8 hooks rather than 7 is a problem for DYK, and if that is better for balancing the main page then it is something that should be collegially achievable. Isn't it better for WP and our readers if we can work together?

All of the above are from the last two weeks or so. In that time we've also had a proposed topic ban at AN, and you are not alone in having an approach which I see as counter-productive. DYK has problems with reviewing, there is no doubt, and at times hooks need to be pulled from the queue and (sadly) sometimes from the main page - sadly because they shouldn't get that far - but what feels like a "gotcha" approach even in cases where a small edit would address the issue is IMO leading editors to feel threatened and attacked when what is needed is for them (and us) to understand how things get missed and to learn from mistakes. EdChem (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

TLDR: DYK regulars don't like the fact they're being scrutinised and that they're being unveiled as a reasonably owny bunch who are content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page. If you think the admin tools have been abused by me or anyone else in pulling detritus from the main page, then do something about it. As for "healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here", damned straight. The process consistently fails, and the individuals involved put up the shutters, heads into the sand and pretend everything's okay once these awkward people pointing out all these issues will go away. Well newsflash, we're not going away. And low quality or erroneous hooks will continue to be removed and those responsible for continually supporting them will be called out. Sorry if you misinterpreted that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Blunt version: Your strategy is frustrating your aim. Your description of MY work as "low quality" and me as being "content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page" as a consequence of my reviewing work is rejected as unsupported by evidence and obnoxious. Your attitude and behaviour convey disdain for DYK which renders your objectivity questionable. Newsflash, DYK isn't going away. You could try working with us to address problems... or is that too difficult? Sorry if this is too sensible for you. EdChem (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I work every day to improve every DYK that goes through the system. I don't have time to double check every hook but have pulled or suggested several be pulled en route to the main page. I have made multiple suggestions to improve things and yet DYK and its guardians see themselves as impervious and near-perfect, and criticism of any type is simply rejected. There's too much ownership and mollycoddling of editors in this part of the main page, it's unhealthy and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. There's not enough responsibility taken for continuous issues, this thread is the first of its kind and is probably about five years too late coming. Sorry if that's too much truth for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I made one suggestion for improving DYK, and you shot it down, in a fit of ownership, perhaps. Lay out your proposal(s), perhaps at VPP, if you don't like this page, and live with the fact that others have different opinions and views than you. Other people are not going away, either, and as you appear to think you are besieged, there must be more of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It takes more than one opposition to "shoot down" a reasonable proposal. And I'm here for the longhaul, whether the masses like it or not, so wise up. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually it got quite a bit of reasonable support, including from Fram. But your comment shows either a lack of the wisdom of self-awareness, or just plain hypocrisy, you act as if everyone who does not agree with you is suddenly a borg, when what's true is they just individually disagree with you and you can't handle it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Off topic-discussion

Then I wasn't the only to object by a long chalk. I can handle all of this, unlike the whinging DYK owners. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Your whingeing ('to complain persistently in a peevish way') shows otherwise. Sure, the borg is the boogeyman. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Not at all, I've offered several ways the process can improve, and indeed I actively engage in improving each and every DYK myself, including preventing copyvios being posted, including removing non-fair use images, including actually reading beyond the hook, checking for grammar and other minor improvements. I have no idea what you're talking about, but that doesn't surprise me. Now either focus on the discussion at hand, or chase me to my talk page to continue in your lame attempt at berating me, but either way, stop wasting time here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Of course, you argue you don't know what people are talking about and then continue with extended arguments that are oddly excited and bizarrely preachy, wise up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I asked you nicely to stop wasting time here. Please continue the attempt to berate me elsewhere. Otherwise stick to the program, improving DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I'm not wasting, anytime. Your way of asking things is decidedly not nice, don't fool yourself. Regardless, this is about improving DYK, as we are discussing the matter of proposing, discussing, and making changes in DYK. As your complaints persist about a borg in charge, here, you've been pointed to how to handle that complaint appropriately. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I've really got no idea what you are continually going on about. I have suggested solutions and actively work on problematic issues here. You? Nothing but odd and meaningless analogies. Try to be part of the solution, and stop eating time here failing in beating me up for telling the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Could someone uninvolved hat this worthless diatribe? We can return to trying to fix the many problems, rather than bizarre Star Trek comparisons. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC) It just cannot be true that you don't understand you whine and complain the "DYK guardianship" or "regulars" "ownership" obstruct your proposals for reform. Just stop and handle it the appropriate way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Alan, you've missed the point entirely. Unlike you I make positive contributions to every single DYK that passes to the main page, sometimes I have to stop them because they're junk for one reason or another. Sometimes other diligent editors have to pull them because they're junk. Those of us concerned with quality will take whatever steps necessary. Now, I urge you, please stop beating yourself up and saying the same meaningless things over and over again, and let some capable people try to handle the problem, and that includes stopping this meaningless guff. Now, over to you for the final word (and then a (ce)) and we're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK, here's my take, speaking as an on-again, off-again DYK participant: First, EdChem is right that there is a sense of a "gotcha" approach that does discourage people from reviewing and promoting DYK hooks. We fear being slamblasted for a good faith error and fear reprisals. On the other hand, if The Rambling Man spots a problem and removes a hook, groovy, so long as I'm not slamblasted for a good-faith error, I can live with that, he does a good job of spotting problems others miss and so long as he wants to do that job, I'm good with it. Similarly, when Moonriddengirl sends an approved hook bac for another round, she does what she does best. At the end of the day, I am fine if I make a mistake and others have to fix it, as long as it is acknowledged that I did the best I could at the time and intended to do a good job -- we all are human. But finally, having created about 200+ articles for WP, and about 50 of them have been DYK, I do hope that everyone here who criticizes content also creates it from time to time and so understands the challenges we face. (I know that TRM does...which is one reason why I'm not too upset if he has a high standard; I've done GAN reviews for his articles, and he DOES create content) Montanabw^(talk) 01:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Obviously, as my sometimes contributions on this page attest, there is no objection to re-running a review, where others take a look and find an issue that needs more discussion or reversal. Such additional review rarely need to be an accusation (or a gotcha) and in extreme cases where it does need to be an accusation, those should go to AN/ANI. And policy reform proposals should either be accepted or rejected here or at VPP, and then move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Query on editing restrictions

Deryck C., I was wondering about the fourth restriction, which starts with "(To balance the maths)". I initially thought this explanation meant the second QPQ would be requested to make up for having two QPQs used to review a single LavaBaron nomination, but the way this reads, LavaBaron's second QPQ can be of a nomination already approved by another reviewer. Is this what you meant? While sometimes this means simple duplication of results (as here, which would not normally be eligible for QPQ credit), it can mean LavaBaron finding issues with an approved review, which does help the process. Also, so far as I can tell, the first review doesn't actually need to start from scratch, but simply that the DYK review has not yet been approved/accepted, unless by "accepted" you mean "accepted for review (but not necessarily approved)". Please clarify. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Your interpretation is correct. One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because...". Rule #2 has essentially side-stepped LavaBaron from the review chain, so I tried to find a way to balance out the reviewer effort while allowing LavaBaron to participate meaningfully and receive oversight at the same time. From the reviews linked above, I think LavaBaron has been using the requirements of his restriction to participate constructively, which is encouraging. Deryck C. 23:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Deryck C. That's very clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2016 (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) 10:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

With DYKBot, how much of a review is necessary for a QPQ?

I just promoted this nomination after doing the regular double-checking for the DYK criteria. Now that we have the DYK bot listing all the criteria, I'm wondering if this reviewer's sketchy review can be considered enough for a QPQ? Yoninah (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• In general, I think it's probably a good idea for community discussion on this very subject. On the one hand, the bot is at least checking for basics. That's a good thing. Really good. On the other hand, it doesn't check for things like grammar, spelling and whether or not an article even makes sense. Does the bot check against whether or not the sources are verifiable and not OR? It's also a good idea for a human to be reviewing the copyvio check, even a spot check. Both the Earwig tool and Dup Detector sometimes miss the obvious. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's definitely important to have this discussion. A major motivating factor for the bot was to shift the focus of reviews away from checking off things like "are there enough characters in the article?" / "What day was the article created?" and towards a more holistic, content-based review. The thoroughness of the review certainly should not go down - in my mind this means checking the spelling, doing a copyedit, commenting on the quality and quantity of sources, etc. (I hope it goes without saying that the reviewer should still at the very least fully read each article!). Should we think about amending the various pages explaining how to do a review (which currently emphasize the bot-verifiable criteria, the less objective criteria less so) Intelligentsium 00:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should revise the instructions on the edit page to emphasize the things that aren't covered by the bot. I'd say the human reviewer should focus on the following:

• Are the sources reliable?
• Does the text reflect the sources, especially the hook fact?
• Is the article neutral? Is the selection of sources unbiased?
• Are there cut-and-paste or close paraphrasing copyvios not caught by Earwig?

Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling is a really important check, I think. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through July 16. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 42 nominations have been approved, leaving 137 of 179 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from June and early July, which continue to need a reviewer.

• June 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Pennsylvania Shell ethane cracker plant
• June 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine Hilda Duleep Singh
• June 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/IWRG Guerra de Campeones
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/IWRG La Isla
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Sin Escape Con Correrás
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/IWRG Legado Final
• July 4: Template:Did you know nominations/The Aachen Memorandum
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Federico Döring
• July 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago
• July 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Julián Nazar Morales
• July 8: Template:Did you know nominations/María Ávila Serna
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Common paradise kingfisher (three articles)
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Ana María Boone Godoy
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/1917 United States declaration of war on Austria-Hungary
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/List of destroyers of the Indian Navy
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/John J. Coit
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Carmen Salinas
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Óscar García Barrón
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/List of frigates of the Indian Navy
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Vidal Llerenas Morales
• July 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Herman Cornejo
• July 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Sandra Méndez Hernández
• July 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Victor Milner
• July 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Tomás Ruiz González
• July 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Alfredo Bejos Nicolás
• July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Variegated squirrel
• July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Pablo Bedolla López
• July 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Manuel Espino Barrientos
• July 14: Template:Did you know nominations/José Ignacio Pichardo Lechuga
• July 14: Template:Did you know nominations/José Alfredo Torres Huitrón
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/San Blas jay (two articles)
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Lercanidipine
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Blake Martinez
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Akıncı Air Base
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Triplemanía XXIV
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Alejandra Barrales
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Italian Parliament (1928-1939)
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Statcast
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Lincoln Enterprises
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Louis Victor Plessier

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) 05:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Now overdue. Admin needed to promote a prep to queue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

70-article wrestling hooks

Now that MPJ-DK has graciously broken up his 70-article nom into smaller hooks, it seems that every day we're featuring a hook about a professional wrestler being shaved bald and having to remove his mask. I'm wondering if there is any way we can vary the content of the remaining hooks? Yoninah (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

They are nearly all used up, so we can just spread them out a bit. I think we made the wrong decision in turning down the 70 article hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Things should change in 2 to 3 days. The Olympics start on Friday and with the plethora of sports related hooks in the special occasion holding area it is hard to see more than a couple articles about non-Olympic wrestling making a set until after the closing ceremonies. --Allen3 ^talk 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

We should just not promote hooks which aren't interesting, like many of the Pennsylvania river hooks in the past and many of the wrestling hooks now. Certainly when, like in this case, so much of the articles are copied from one to another. Fram (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, since someone being shaved bald is in the quirky slot in Queue 2, I suggest returning the shaved bald hook in Prep 4 to the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

So 1) You cannot have it both ways, I have bent over backwards already so I am really looking forward to another discussion - you asked for it, now you complain that you get it, sorry but not sorry at all here. 2) I proved in great detail that there is enough unique text in each article to still qualify for DYK so can we please move on from that discussion? and 3) "Boring" is so subjective it's hard to please everyone, especially considering I've had several comments that "I don't think I'd ever find a wrestling hook interesting". Sorry to sound fed up, but that's because I am close to it. What "further work" is needed on "El Castillo del Terror (December 2008)"? In this case, the fact that his lost his mask, then his hair in short order is unusual for lucha libre, and the hook by itself is just fine, because I specifically was told to flood the DYK with 60ish DYKs (I did not actually do all 70) some end up being a bit similar. Going forward any DYK I'd do would be spread out over time and not clumped together.  MPJ-DK  12:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's our fault as prep promoters that these wrestling hooks are being promoted every other set. And I'm not saying the hooks are boring, just that they sound redundant. "Further work" means finding a different hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No, they are boring, because both the hooks and the articles are just the same thing over and over again with paragraphs about what happened in the "match" (usually sourced to one website). I don't really even understand why individual matches are even notable; since professional wrestling is not a sport, but entertainment, it is like having an article about an individual run of a Broadway play, or a single concert by a band. Perhaps it's just me, I don't know. But we're certainly not educating our readers by repeating ourselves. We've had plenty already, let's put something different in DYK instead, it's not like there's any shortage of nominations. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

So they're not boring individually but because they are close together? I get the feeling that I'm on a wild goose chase here as the goal posts keep moving on me. But at least you're clearly stating your bias by suggesting not doing Lucha Libre hooks, points for honesty I guess?  MPJ-DK  14:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

And yes Yoniah I'll take a look at the Castillo hook to see what I can come up with.  MPJ-DK  14:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Side note - compare each show to an episode of a TV show, I believe we've got plenty of those on Wikipedia.  MPJ-DK  14:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Outdenting to delineate Hook suggestion from general discussion. Since the template is locked I did not want to update it, so here are a couple of other suggestions that may be able to replace it.  MPJ-DK  14:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Alt1= ... that in 2008 International Wrestling Revolution Group held an El Castillo del Terror show in both November and December, and same guy lost both times?
• Alt2= ... that, in a break with tradition, International Wrestling Revolution Group held two El Castillo del Terror shows in 2008, one in November and one in December

• Thank you for the new suggestions, MPJ-DK. I went ahead and reopened the nomination so we won't have to involve an administrator if the prep set is promoted to a queue. Yoninah (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

September 8: Star Trek Anniversary

Hello everyone, as you may have noticed we're starting to build up a host of Star Trek related hooks in readiness for the 50th Anniversary on September 8 (not the 9th as I've previous said here). At present there are 10 already approved, with another three currently awaiting review, and several more at GA (including one of the series) that could yet be added. Over at Today's Featured Articles, I've nominated "The Man Trap" (the first episode broadcast) for the same day. Since the success of the Frank Sinatra sets on December 12 last year (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#December 12: Frank Sinatra centenary), I've wanted to see if I could get a complete day for Star Trek on the 50th anniversary. So I wanted to make sure that people were aware that this was the intention, should anyone have any objections. We need 14 hooks in total for both sets, although my intention is to go over the number in order to give the promotor the ability to tailor some good sets rather than be stuck with whatever it is they've got. Like the Sinatra sets, the remaining hooks will be drop fed into non-specific sets over the following weeks and months. Unlike Sinatra, I don't have a single hook that I would suggest should be the lead on both sets. Miyagawa (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Great job, Miyagawa! Since every hook is going to say "Star Trek", it really doesn't matter what the lead image is. You may want to involve more people in creating new content by posting a list of suggested articles on this page. Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Good idea. I have a list in userspace I was using, so I'm going to copy and paste it into a subsection below. Miyagawa (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• • File:Star Trek TOS logo.svg or File:Emblem.svg? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Why not? Much more fun than Frank Sinatra! Awien (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support. As the great Captain Jean-Luc Picard once said, Make It So! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I know it's frowned upon to take up the DYK with one specific subject and then "take the room" for other hooks, but I for one am glad Miyagawa found a topic that seems to be acceptable, more power to you.  MPJ-DK  22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - We have a clear precedent, though I think that was one hook per set for about 36 hours... I'd say if we can't full the sets entirely, let's actually just shoot for several in each set... as if anything has to be pulled, i would be weird to have only one unrelated hook... Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Aye, my intention was always to have at least a few more than needed in case of urgent replacement for some reason. Also, just to help the sets to still have some variety. Miyagawa (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: I hope people don't mind but I have already started the ball rolling with Commander Riker's MainView. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Love it! Miyagawa (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

List of potential expansions/creations

This is a list I created... oooh I think it was last December with the idea that it might prompt me to expand some of these. As you can see, I've crossed out a couple as I've already expanded and nominated them - but as expected, other articles have come up because I've worked on linked articles and so there's still several here that haven't been done. Some of these were chosen because they were so short that they'd only need to be brought to 1500 characters to be a 5x expansion, while others were a little longer already but worthy of expansion because of their importance to Star Trek. There's also several Academy Award nominees in there for Trek related work - I had the thought that these could be compiled into a multi-article hook rather than repeat effectively the same claim for five or six different articles.

But this is just a very brief taster of a list I already had. There's still oodles of possibilities out there. By all means, add to the list. Miyagawa (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK expansion articles

• Scott Rubenstein
• David Alexander (director)
• Roger Guyett
• Up Till Now
• Star Trek: Invasion
• Richard Yuricich
• Star Trek (Blish)
• List of awards and nominations received by Star Trek: The Original Series

• Blood and Fire (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
• Manny Coto
• Les Landau
• Melinda M. Snodgrass
• Star Trek: ConQuest Online
• David K. Stewart
• Robert Swarthe
• List of Star Trek production staff
• Pan Am Flight 121

• Dan Curry
• Burt Dalton
• Allan Kroeker
• Marvin V. Rush
• Michael Mills (make-up artist)
• Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Starship Bridge Simulator
• Scott Wheeler (makeup artist)
• Ronald B. Moore
• Star Trek: Nero
• Star Trek: The Lost Era

• Aron Eisenberg
• Ben Grossmann
• Star Trek Movie Memories
• John Vallone
• Joseph R. Jennings
• Linda DeScenna
• Favor the Bold
• Dennis McCarthy (composer)
• Ömer the Tourist in Star Trek
• Tracy Tormé

Missing articles

• List of unmade Star Trek serials and films (based on List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films)
• Chaos on the Bridge (recent William Shatner documentary about The Next Generation)
• Vince Deadrick Jr. (stunt co-ordinator)

• Gary Hutzel
• Gailieo (Star Trek) (the Shuttlecraft)

Trumped

We had a hook up just now – "... that initiation fees at Trump National Golf Club Westchester have dropped $150,000 since 2001?". I was puzzling over this when it scrolled off the main page. I found that Fram had queried this too at WP:ERROR but nothing was done. The figures stated in the article don't seem to add up to what's stated in the hook and, in any case, these initiation fees seem quite variable/negotiable and so are not really hard facts. We could perhaps use a post-mortem as to what went wrong there. And perhaps someone can explain the user name of the nominator – I'm just seeing it as a square (Ɱ) – an unprintable character, which is puzzling too. Andrew D. (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a hook that required a bit of SYNTH that might be allowed in the article body as routine calculations, but that said, I'm really not a fan of hooks that do include even allowable synth. The core fact element should be self-contained within a single reliable source (if not repeated in others), so that there's no issue that the fact may not be verified. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's hard to see how the figure was arrived at even with some SYNTH. The 2001 figure is said to be 250,000 (for a family). And it seems that you might get in without a fee now. That would be a drop of 250,000 not 150,000. Perhaps it was a typo? Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• That's what I'm saying: at least for the DYK hook, no SYNTH, even allowable calculations, should be allowed. The core fact should be a reasonable paraphrase or the like that I can pull from a single source and understand clearly without trying to read between the lines. If it was the case that the hook was a typo that then should have been easily caught when comparing to the original source. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the user name, the character Ɱ is U+2C6E LATIN CAPITAL LETTER M WITH HOOK: http://r12a.github.io/uniview/?charlist=%E2%B1%AE. In Firefox I see a square with its hex value 2C6E. Browser support is apparently limited. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Pinging the article creator for input. 97198 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

See the DYK nom. I didn't put that one forward, nor do I think synth is generally a problem. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Notiomys AGF hook (prep 5)

• ... that before the 1990s, owls were more efficient at catching Edwards' long-clawed mouse than were researchers?

Template:Did you know nominations/Notiomys @Cwmhiraeth, Northamerica1000, and Allen3:

This hook is based on this source but (for me) only page 135 and 138 are available on line, 136-167 are hidden. Cwmhiraeth, it looks as if the hook fact is based on the final paragraph of that source (page 138, starting from "until the end of the 1990s"): if so, it doesn't match the hook but involved your reinterpretation of the bare facts stated there (e.g. no mention is made of the number of relevant owl pellets found before 1990, only that they have since been used, next to traps, to find populations, without any mention which method gave the best result even then). Perhaps another paragraph discusses the same issue, but that seems strange: can you give some quotes that support the hook? Fram (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Pages 136 and 137 are available to me. The relevant sentence states "The low trapping success in areas where owls are apparently successful at catching them suggests that trap avoidance may be related to the use of traditional baits and traps." I mentioned the 1990s in the hook because the researchers seem to have been more successful since then, as mentioned in the final paragraph you mention. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So, basically, you have nothing that states that owl trappings were used before the 1990s, only the sentence that states that after the 1990s, more locations were found by using owl pellets (and other methods). The success since the 1990s may be because of the owls, not the opposite as your hook suggests (owls before 1990s, other methods since). Probably the owls are still more efficient in any case. Fram (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please could you clarify what you mean by owl trappings. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, meant pellets. Fram (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really following your arguments well. Before the 1990s, researchers tried to trap these mice, largely unsuccessfully, but knew they were present in the area because they found their remains in owl pellets. In later years, the researchers were more successful in trapping the mice and were able to record many more locations at which they were present. I thought it all quite amusing! I am happy with both article and hook, my only doubt being whether the hook should use the word "efficient" or whether "effective" would be better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"Before the 1990s, researchers tried to trap these mice, largely unsuccessfully, but knew they were present in the area because they found their remains in owl pellets." Evidence? This is not in the sentence you quoted nor in the paragraph I referenced. "In later years, the researchers were more successful in trapping the mice and were able to record many more locations at which they were present." Evidence? Again, this is not said in either part of the source. One can just as easily read the sources and think that until the 1990s, they worked with traps and only found 8 locations, but afterwards they started dissecting owl pellets and by that method found 42 more. Or, probably, that by using traps and pellets, they found 8 populations until 1998, but with the same methods used more intensively, found another 42 since. Please indicate the sentence(s) which reveal to you that improved traps have replaced (or at least outdone) the owls as best method, as it isn't available in what I have read so far. Fram (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Patton says "trap avoidance may be related to the use of traditional baits and traps", implying that modern methods would have been more successful. The hook refers to "before the 1990s" and says nothing about what has happened since. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

So you have no evidence for your SYNTH hook. This isn't the first time either (e.g. the recent bioluminescense hook, also discussed here). Please stick to the facts when writing a hook, don't present your own (perhaps correct but unsupported) interpretation of them as a hook or in the article. I'll pull the hook and reopen the discussion. Fram (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I now see that this was already on the Main Page for five hours, so I have pulled it from there and won't reopen the discussion, as it has had its moment of glory, FWIW. So, over the last days, I have raised one incorrect hook on WP:ERRORS where it stayed for five hours or so before the hook expired, without reaction: and I have discussed a hook here while still in prep, only to see it on the main page less than 12 hours later. I'll go back to "pull immediately, discuss afterwards" as that gives much better results, despite some complaints when I do this. Fram (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated an "Error". I think your arguments above are entirely without foundation, and that you have acted inappropriately by removing this hook from the front page. Does anybody else have a view on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You couldn't even get the length of the animal right in the article. You have demonstrated over and over again that your articles and hooks have way too many fundamental errors, and that you are hardly capable of understanding your errors when they are explained to you. Usually, after some debacle, you show some improvement, but you always return to the same behaviour. You don't even understand the difference between "before 1998" and "before the 1990s", it seems. You have not provided that even one of the 8 locations found before 1998 was caused by studying owl pellets. Sources like [1] and [2] strongly suggest that owl pellet study in this case was mainly (exclusively?) done after 1998, not before. "Based on a large sample, mostly recovered from owl pellets but including trapped individuals, we refine the known geographic distribution of this mouse (providing 20 new contemporary recording localities and four fossil occurrences)" (2008 source) There is nothing that supports your hook. Fram (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You couldn't even get the length of the animal right in the article either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you gave 86mm total length, I gave 137mm (quite a difference for such a small animal). [3]. All sources make it clear that the head + body is about 80-96mm, with the tail about 40-41mm. Fram (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the pull was fine, I think the original hook was dubious in any case. I feel sorry that Fram gets so much backchat from those who are in the wrong. This is the main page of Wikipedia we're talking about, not some kind of children's project. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• I fully support any pulls Fram makes from the main page, queues or prep areas. And along the lines of what TRM stated: this isn't some form of participatory trophy project, we're the top reference site for the entire world and we need to start acting like it. If one can't make or process hooks properly, they needn't be near the main page. There are plenty of less visible places on our site to edit for those unable to handle high editorial standards. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The hook is based on the source statement "The low trapping success in areas where owls are apparently successful at catching them ...". How does that not support the hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it has nothing about "before the 1990s" in it? Fram (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, at last we know what error you were trying to point out (its not apparent from the previous discussion). So you would not have objected to "before the end of the 1990s" or "before 1998"? Why not point this out rather than waffling on about owl pellets and mouse trapping then? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I give up, as you seem incapable of understanding this. I "waffled on" in a vain attempt to get through to you (everyone else seems to have no problem seeing the problem). Yes, I would object to these changes as well. The dates have no connection to the owl vs. trap comparison. You are the only one making that connection. Fram (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• I saw this discussion last night and considered pulling the hook then, but did not do so as it was still almost 24 hours from being featured and I assumed there would be plenty of time to resolve the issue. It is most disappointing to come back and find the hook pulled from the main page. Fram, next time you have a concern like this and do not get a reply in a timely manner, please pull the hook from prep rather than wait for it to be featured. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Will do. Fram (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Fram is involved in this content dispute and so should not be using admin tools to edit through protection. Lewis Carroll put it aptly in The Mouse's Tale

  'I'll be judge, I'll be jury,' Said cunning old Fury; 'I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death.'

  — Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• • You tried this trick before, and failed then as well. Wikipedia urgently needs an "ignore" option. Fram (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. When it comes down to issues with unverifiable information on the main page of Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that pulling the hook is the optimal course of action so it can be dealt with without humiliating the encyclopedia. Attempting to call out some level of "involvement" is nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, though then you run the risk of humiliating the editors in the process, and wikipedia is largely written by people as dedicated as Cwmhiraeth...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Hook needs pulling

The Federico Döring hook links to Videoscandals, a largely unsourced article making claims of impropriety against living people. Ridiculously, the fact this was unsourced was noted by the reviewer [4] but they were only bothered that a sum of money was inconsistent with Doring's article, not about the fact that the article is a BLP nightmare! Meanwhile, the other article linked in the hook, Víctor Trujillo, is an all-but-unsourced BLP! (in fact its only reference is a thread on a forum). It's also written in appalling English. I absolutely despair - on what planet was this hook even considered to even be remotely acceptable to put on the front page?

I have not done hook-pulling before, so if someone could do the honours please. I will only remove it myself if it gets anywhere near a Queue. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality and sourcing of linked articles are rarely considered by reviewers from experience. 'Is the hook cited in the relevant article? Yes - move on' is the general approach. In this case the Doring article contains the 'hook' and is cited/referenced - probably appropriately, a Spanish speaker might be able to comment on the reliability of the source. The videoscandals and Trujillo articles being of very low quality likely did not cross the reviewers mind. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In which case they need to pull their fingers out and start reviewing things properly. As I said though, the reviewer even noted that the Videoscandals article was mostly unsourced, so why did they think linking to it on the Main Page was acceptable, regardless of its BLP issues? Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the DYK Rules for eligibility the hook passes 3 (fact mentioned in the hook is in the article) but fails 4 (not violate BLP). The rules do not *explicitly* state that all linked articles must satisfy all criteria, rather than just the article to which the DYK is attached. This may want to be amended to make it explicit for reviewers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; I'd say that's just simple common sense, but yes, it would be useful to update the rules. We should never, ever, be linking articles with BLP issues (or indeed unsourced BLPs) on the Main Page, and I'd say that the quality of all the linked articles ought to be at least adequate. Compare WP:ITN where an article doesn't get on the Main Page if it's not of suffiencent quality, regardless of how notable it is. DYK should be exactly the same. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

As an aside I have just stubbed Videoscandals. Too many BLP violations, too few reliable references. The Trujillo article is in a bit better shape - mainly because it doesnt contain obvious violations - but it is largely unsourced - A quick googling reveals there are plenty of non-English sources out there, but I am not proficient enough to put them in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pulled (I have done a few hook pullings in the past already :-) ) Template:Did you know nominations/Federico Döring should be reopened. @Raymie, Cwmhiraeth, and Allen3:. Fram (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think we have a policy concerning potential BLP issues in non-nominated linked articles, so perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the reviewer, but this may be something we need to look at. Gatoclass (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  Assuming a reviewer pays attention to the rules, in section 4 of eligibility, replacing 'Articles for DYK' with 'All articles linked in the hook' would cover this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Reviewers seldom review past the part of the target article that forms the hook, and then tick off the other arcane regulations. The actually quality of articles, both target and other linked, is rarely given the right order of consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't know if it's the case here, but QPQ may not be the best way to get serious reviews. The priorities of people pursuing their DYK count are different from those of people who are concerned about what is given the prominence of an appearance on the Main Page. Then, of course, there's the vexed question of whether DYK is a desirable feature at all. What's the solution, though? IDK. Awien (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've always been completely sceptical about QPQ, and the pursuit of barnstars and other shiny things just for getting duff articles onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, participants who are only interested in "shiny things" will continue nominating whether or not they are required to do QPQs. Which means that the dedicated reviewers (assuming we actually have any left) would quickly be overwhelmed. I don't think the problem is QPQ, I think it's lack of accountability for poor reviewing. Gatoclass (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

here is a thought, QPQ doesn't count until hook has been listed on the main page? Right now you do a review, put the "tick" on it and can move on, you get QPQ even if there are subsequent issues prior to move to prep or after. Makes it less of a "drive by" thing.  MPJ-DK  12:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't need it to be that complicated. You could simply require that whenever a hook is pulled, the original reviewer (if a QPQ review) must supply a second QPQ review. However, even though this is the mildest imaginable sanction, when I suggested it last year it got no support. Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Its going to sound harsh, but given there are a few persistant offenders, I am not surprised the people who are most likely going to have to do extra work, opposed it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I think some of those folks need to realize that if DYK doesn't do anything to improve quality control, it is eventually going to collapse from sheer indifference and then nobody will be getting their articles on the main page via the DYK slot, regardless of quality. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Federico Döring is a Mexican senator – a level of notability which we accept routinely. Before the nominator started work on his article, it had no inline citations – just a deadlink as an external reference. In bringing this article up to DYK standard, the nominator performed a useful service and we explicitly encourage such activity by reducing the expansion requirements in such cases. We should therefore be thanking the nominator for his efforts, rather than churlishly complaining that he didn't do similar work on some other related article too. We depend upon such voluntary efforts and beggars can't be choosers. Andrew D. (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• You are right in that the article was previously not good enough, and the nominator improved the article. That's great. But they should have created a hook which did not link to BLP-violating articles. This is not churlish in any way - this is a top 10 website and cannot, ever, have links on its Main Page to articles which accuse living people of criminal activity with no sources whatsoever. However, the fault mainly lies with the reviewer, not the original nominator. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• You're right, Wikipedia is not compulsory, but competence is expected. If individuals regularly fail to understand what is expected of them, we will expect those individuals to either improve their input or stop, particularly if their input creates extra work for others to resolve, and possible errors on the main page. You know that Andy, more than most; lightweight reviewers are the bane of this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• I was the person who reviewed this article. I did not do it as part of a QPQ review but voluntarily because there is such a large backlog of unreviewed hooks. A reviewer is supposed to check that all the DYK criteria are met. This I did, and they are. I think you will find the article satisfactory and the hook facts cited. The only criterion I omitted was the checks for copyright issues and I stated in my review "the Spanish language sources prevented me from considering copyright issues." I went further than what is required in a review and asked the nominator to make the article consistent with another article and when he misunderstood, I did that myself. So come along all you good folk, you have had your fun criticising reviewers, why don't you go and review one or two hooks yourselves? It will cut the backlog and give you an understanding of what is involved. Then you will be in a better position to suggest improvements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• We aren't having "fun", we're flagging up a potential issue that could have had serious consequences. You read that Videoscandals article (you must have done to flag up the fact that the amount of money didn't match the other article) and yet you passed it as a suitable article to be linked on the main page despite the fact it contained many very obvious BLP violations. Following the DYK rules is not an excuse for this lapse, and if you think you did nothing wrong I'd suggest you don't go anywhere near anything that might appear on the main page again. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded. Your indignation is unjustified, Cwmhiraeth. If you intend to continue reviewing DYK hooks, you need to take this important matter seriously. —David Levy 18:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thirded. Please get a grip, the criticism here is not "fun" by any means, it's very serious. Continuing to promote garbage to the main page needs addressing. We all know what is involved, and to do the job properly takes a lot of time, time which apparently you don't have, and certainly I don't. But then again, I don't pretend to be a DYK reviewer. If we have to slow the whole process down while more reviews are made, or reviews are doubled up, so be it. But at the very least, stop attempting to defend the indefensible, it's embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• I was the editor of the article and nominated the hook. My focus has been on Mexican federal legislators and new governors in 2016. Quite clearly, I made a mistake in not really thinking about the quality of the articles I was linking to. I would be willing to hold the hook and work on the other two articles to bring them up to standards before placing it on DYK. Raymie (t • c) 18:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Or alternatively create an interesting hook that focuses on something else in his career. To be honest I suspect the videoscandals article should probably be merged into one of the other articles anyway. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: I've done that too; you may want to consider looking at the newly nominated ALT1 hook, which is about a different topic altogether. Raymie (t • c) 20:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Dreamsong

Dreamsong in Prep 6

• ... that Michael McNabb's "Dreamsong" was labeled by British composer Adrian Moore as a pioneer of electroacoustic music?

@EditorE and Syfuel:The source actually says ""Dreamsong" is a pioneering work". A pioneer usually refers to a person or institution. While "pioneering" usually refers to an endeavor or a product. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Maile66: Very useful comment! I change "pioneer" into the quote "pioneering work" for a more accurate description. editorEهեইдအ😎 12:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@EditorE: OK. Thank you for your quick response. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 Armistice of Bologna for required second review.

@Dumelow and Allen3: Armistice of Bologna has been pulled from Prep 1. Per WT:DYK LavaBaron's editing restrictions at the top of this talk page, any nomination he reviews needs a second review before being promoted. LavaBaron specfically noted that on his review, so this was an oversight. Just out of curiosity, are all potential promoter's aware of this? — Maile (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

All promoters were notified via Talk; whether individual promoters choose to obey these vindictive restrictions is, presumably, their prerogative, and some may become exhausted by the ridiculous spectacle of it all. They are only enforceable against me, not against third party editors. LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)