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.

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 #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) 22:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Now nearly four hours overdue; admin needed to promote the next prep (which includes some day-specific Olympics hooks) to queue as soon as possible. Pinging Cas Liber, Chris Woodrich, Maile, or any other administrator. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We need more people to build prep sets, folks. I suggest the folks who review and find errors in sets need to help be part of the solution by building a few. Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The "solution" could just as well be to slow down and promote less articles but with better reviews (and in some cases better reviewers). People who find errors in sets don't need to do anything apart from that very necessary work. No one needs to work on DYK, or on prep building, or on any other part they don't like or have no interest in. But if you do work on reviews or prep building or nominating articles, you need to make sure that what you are bringing to the mainspace is correct (and otherwise up to some basic standards). That's the only thing that needs to be done, everything else is strictly voluntary. Fram (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Picture question, recognizable a good thing?

What's the proper place to ask a question about use (or nonuse) or a picture once a hook has been promoted to a prep area? I'll go ahead and ask so as to avoid wasting anyone's time, but I've no objection to someone moving this section to a more appropriate page.

I was surprised the image of Khizr and Ghazala Khan was not used in prep 5. The image of them on stage at the DNC, holding up a pocket Constitution has been featured in an awful lot of national (US) and international news over the last week, and we happen to have a copy. The image was this one, but there's also a cropped version. The image currently used in prep 5 is indeed clearer when small, so I guess I'm just asking whether recognizability/prominence of the image itself is something typically considered? Perhaps it's considered in the opposite way (i.e. it's less about driving lots of people to new articles, and more about introducing people to new subjects)? Thanks. Pinging Cwmhiraeth, who did the promotion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There is only one picture hook per set. More nominations are made that include images than can be used, so the prep set builder looks for a variety of images over the course of a few days. In this particular case, I thought that the Khans had had their time in the limelight, and asked their embarrassing questions, and as it is a time running up to the presidential elections, it was better not to rub salt further into the wound by making it the lead hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Yikes. I would be a lot more comfortable if you had just said "whichever looks best when smaller is really all that matters". From your response it sounds like moving DYKs into prep areas is an opportunity to exercise personal ideological judgments ("the Khans had had their time in the limelight, and asked their embarrassing questions...better not to rub salt..." -- I cannot think of a process on Wikipedia in which this sort of rationale would be appropriate). Maybe the answer to my question is "there are no real guidelines -- it's totally up to whoever moves them into prep"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Very troubling response from an error-prone set builder. Looks like we have a problem with personal bias here, not to mention the indignation when poor hooks are pulled. I'd suggest a long break from DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I was also wondering why the Khan hook wasn't the lead hook. I swapped it to make it the lead in a different prep. We're NPOV, right? There have been enough hooks with the name Trump in the last few months to make DYK look like free publicity for one candidate. The uptick in sales of the Constitution because of the Khans has been all over the news. It's a good hook for the lead, and a good image. — Maile (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm still left wondering re: best practices :/ (somehow my last response above was made just after this, but I didn't see it and didn't edit conflict -- weird). BTW @Maile66: I did upload a cropped version of the image which you could use instead (it might show up better when small?) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I just switched to your cropped image. Looks better. — Maile (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep set builders can use their judgement in choosing which hooks and images to promote. It was a judgement call on a political topic and you folks appear to think differently. Fair enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination as per DYKPN

Hello. I nominated Member of parliament, Lok Sabha for DYK on 8 Aug 2016 as per DYKPN which clearly states that "If your article was created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations, it may still be approved" (article was created on 16 Jul 2016 and oldest date listed on DYK is 13 May 2016). A reviewer is reading only the last part of the DYKPN ("So you have at least seven days, but probably a few more") and trying to turn down the nomination which is against the stated policy of DYKPN. What is the stated and understood policy for DYKPN? Can someone clarify that please? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No idea how you found that page (which isn't policy), but these rules don't seem to be part of the accepted DYK rules, which are outlined at Wikipedia:Did you know and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. Fram (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Fram, check the 2nd line under first point here. It is a part of the stated policy, and no, it is not my invention. It was always there. In any-case, we (self and the reviewer) have arrived to a conclusion on the DYK nomination page. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, I don't think that should be there, these things have never gotten approval as far as I can see (but I may miss something), and having even more rules apart from the rules and the supplementary rules seems unwise. In any case, it is not policy (nothing at DYK is policy, I think), and al it says is that they can be allowed, not that they will or must be allowed. "you have at least seven days, but probably a few more." doesn't sound as if it was ever intended to extend the deadline with two weeks (or two months, which would under your definition also acceptable in this case). Fram (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• The current version of this policy is at WP:DYKSG#D9. As I noted in my review, with about 200 active nominations (plus dozens more in the special occasion area set to run during the Olympics), we have a significant backlog of hooks. Depending on how new the nominator is to DYK, we might allow a few days beyond the seven, but not a couple of weeks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I just updated WP:DYKPN to add the Significant backlog of hooks condition mentions in WP:DYKSG#D9 Pppery (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have already discussed the DYK nomination with BlueMoonset and left it there. Not talking specifically about this incident, in general, WP is full of such "rules" or "policies" that are very ambiguous in nature and can be twisted, turned and interpreted the way people like. In this particular case, had the majority wanted to pass the article for DYK, they would have taken shelter of DYKPN. Moreover, it is appalling to notice that at times how conveniently people add their own "rules" to the existing ones without any discussion. For example, out of nowhere we have now started discussing that "depending on how new the nominator is.....". Where did this "new" thing come out from? Let's not shift goalposts now. Also, who defines what is significant backlog? 10,20,50,100,200,1000? Who defines? Why cant people be more clear with the policies to avoid such confusion? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 20:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and this issue has previously been raised, vis a vis the fact that there are multitudes of rules and corollaries to rules spread out among no fewer than six different pages. These rules and corollaries are selectively activated or ignored as it serves a specific editor. I will support any proposal to rectify this situation. LavaBaron Promoters: Please ensure there are 2 reviews for this nomination (see my FAQ) 11:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

9 August - a birthday

Special occasions holds two hooks for tomorrow, the birthday of Albert Ketèlbey, - any chance that at least one of them could reach the Main page that day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for action. I'd have one more wish: In a Chinese Temple Garden is scheduled for tomorrow, while the image is for the TFA today. Could an admin swap the two? Problem is that Bells Across the Meadows is quirky, the other not so much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

ps: another reason for a swap is repetition, - the hook for the quirky is also part of the TFA blurb, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, I was wondering why "Characteristic Intermezzo" is both capitalized and in italics in the Bells hook. The article uses "characteristic intermezzo" (lowercase and quotes), and the hook and article ought to be consistent in their usage of the words. What is the origin of the words; do we know what they mean in this context? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It's the subtitle, see infobox, will change the article. - I came to undo the swap request, as the image in the TFA is for In a Persian Market, sorry, - yes it's yellow ;) - Just the duplication is probably not enough reason for a swap. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

After some troubles (see below), Template:Did you know nominations/Bells Across the Meadows is waiting for a review, to match the hope "for 9 August or shortly thereafter". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we need any action? Moving the nom away from Special occasions for which it is too late? Telling the DYK bot that the article didn't appear already, although credits were sent? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5

... that Luton Town Football Club won their first major trophy in 1988?

We usually discourage the use of Easter egg links, such as this one where 1988 doesn't lead to 1988 at all, but to the cup final of the specific competition that Luton won. This needs rephrasing to avoid such. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to disagree in this case as simple wording makes up for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow that at all. This kind of mystery linking is discouraged across Wikipedia. But hey, it's posted to the main page now, with just four other, more adequate hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5

... that Bells Across the Meadows, a Characteristic Intermezzo by Albert Ketèlbey, was rated the 36th most popular work of Your Hundred Best Tunes in 2003?

The article Your Hundred Best Tunes has this list (which may well be a copyvio) but is unreferenced (and tagged as such). The target article has two references, one (which looks reliable) which states simply that the piece was "one of the 100 most popular tunes of all time", the other, which looks nothing like a WP:RS called "all-music-free.com". This means the current hook appears to be not reliably sourced and is hence not verifiable. Suggest it is reworded or pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

We could swap it with In a Chinese Temple Garden, as suggested just above, winning time and avoiding repetition today. We could say (better tomorrow) "one of Your Hundred Best Tunes". I asked several editors including Dr. Blofeld to find a source for the list, but he only found the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This is how the article looked before expansion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If someone would approve By the Blue Hawaiian Waters, that could also be used instead of the Bells, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've pulled the Bells hook and re-opened the nomination in order for a different, reliably sourced hook to be proposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man et al.: A reliable source has now been found and added to the article for this original hook. Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Softlavender! I had to be out all day and couldn't take care of it. Found a better image, but need sleep now. More tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

So, where are we now? A hook was pulled, I still got a credit (which I removed). A replacement hook was available, but was not used. A source was found (for a fact from a 2009 supporting article, a fact which was also mentioned in the blurb of the TFA). Good news: I found a better image. Can we now proceed with the nom as if all of this had not happened, or will a bot say that the article appeared already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5

... that Josiah Holbrook organized the first industrial school in the United States?

I have no idea what an "industrial school" is, so I looked it up on Wikipedia, and found Industrial school. I don't think this is what Josiah Holbrook organized. So, to a large number of readers, this hook is confusing. Suggest a re-word. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the sources I believe it should link to Manual labor school - which are sometimes referred to as industrial schools, and one of the sources does explicitly state he started the first 'industrial' school. I assumed it was some early form of agricultural college - which is what it turned out to be. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell just pinging you to let you know about this discussion. I'll be bold and pipe-link industrial school to the suggested target above. If it's wrong, hopefully someone can adress that, as it'll be posted in the next couple of hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

For a similar personage, see Philipp Emanuel von Fellenberg - which given the timeframe, would have probably been the inspiration. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. I've linked the term and added a hatnote to the industrial school article to help alleviate any confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Filling preps

I've been checking and adding but have some RL chores to do. Anyone is welcome to continue checking and adding. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks, Cas Liber LavaBaron Promoters: Please ensure there are 2 reviews for this nomination (see my FAQ) 11:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Two hooks removed from prep 6

• ... that a player challenging the New York Yankees appearance policy by citing Jesus having long hair and a beard, was told to walk on water if he wanted be exempt from it?
• ... that educationist Elizabeth Lachlan was asked to be Queen Victoria's governess?

Template:Did you know nominations/New York Yankees appearance policy @The C of E, Kosack, and Casliber:

Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Lachlan @Worm That Turned, Surtsicna, LavaBaron, and Casliber:

First one is supported by the article but doesn't match the source[1], second one isn't supported by the article as written. Fram (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The Yankees one is supported, the article states that if the player could copy Jesus' miracle then he could wear his hair any way he wants. That last sentence gives a clear indication that in making that statement he is saying that the player will not have to follow the appearance policy. Please restore it @Fram:, I will make it clearer in the article if needs be. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else having the same problem in spotting the difference between the source and the article/hook? It's one sentence on the one hand, and a very short article on the other hand, so this should in theory not be too hard. Still, three people missed it the first time round, and one missed it again now. Fram (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

What is one sentence in the source is quoted in the article and used for the hook. I'm not sure what you think you see here that's wrong? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The hook is one sentence, the source (article) for it is very short. The source article says nothing, at all, about a beard. Fram (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I was about to say, Beards. Although I think that is a leeeetle bit picky Fram. Could just remove the reference to 'beard' in the article - its a 5 second job. I have now done so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

For the Elizabeth Lachlan one, the fact is sourced, though the source does say purportedly. As such, Fram would you mind putting it back in with the addition of the word?

• ... that educationist Elizabeth Lachlan was purportedly asked to be Queen Victoria's governess?

That's then supported by the source and the article. Thank you. Worm^TT(talk) 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I understand the issue now. I apologize to the community I did not understand it previously and block the nomination from advancing to prep. LavaBaron (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It is with absolute terror I must admit that, after staring at the hook and article for the last 15 minutes, I am still unable to see anything wrong with it (vis a vis Elizabeth Lachlan). I know my admitting this is probably my final strike, but I owe it to the project to be honest and steel myself for the fate that awaits me. Thanks to everyone who has made my time here at DYK an enjoyable one. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in fixing hooks and articles for DYK, I would much rather have hook writers and reviewers who do more than a half-decent job. If an article states something as "possibly" and "supposedly", then the hook shouldn't present that as a certainty, and such things should never get unnoticed by the four people involved here. Similarly, when you just have to check a hook against a short source, then noticing that the hook makes a claim that is absent from the source shouldn't be too hard to see, and one would expect at least one of the three involved with that DYK to have spotted this. On the contrary, even when you make it clear that there is a difference between the hook and the source, it still remains invisible.

I often get the "that is easily fixed" reply, but this should never need to be fixed, the checking should be long done when a hook is in prep (certainly with the very short time hooks spend in queue). This week is filled with pulled hooks (we now have a five-hook DYK on the main page!). I don't know what the reason is (probably more than one), in some cases rushing things, in some cases lack of competence, in some cases simply not caring, perhaps other things as well. But the end result is that time and time again, problematic hooks get promoted (and often appear on the main page). Fram (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I do think this was a little heavy-handed on a minor thing (that not many people thought was a problem). Nevertheless I have removed beard from the Yankees hook. Please can you put it back? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't have changed the hook here, it makes this discussion impossible to follow for anyone arriving later. And no-one said it wasn't a problem, that's exactly the attitude that is causing problems here. While I can't stop anyone else from putting it back in its corrected form, I have no interest in helping anyone with this attitude to fact-checking or corrections to get their articles or reviews on the main page. I will not put it back (nor the other, for that matter). Fram (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for holding the line, Fram. You're right to have no interest in helping anyone; DYK has basically become Roarke's Drift and you're Michael Caine and Stanley Baker rolled into one. As the victim of your restrictions proposal for committing similar egregiousness as this, I feel I can speak like a felled warrior from the grave warning off the other Zulus from approaching your well-guarded encampment lest they suffer a similar fate. LavaBaron (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Right then, "purportedly" added to one took, and "beard" subtracted from the other. I concede I missed the "beard" in source. Reminds me of "Paris in the the spring". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Fram: You wrote "I'm not really interested in fixing hooks and articles for DYK." OK then Fram, why don't you stop waging war at DYK and move across to reviewing FACs instead? Your attention to detail will be more appreciated there. And by the way, you have not yet mastered the correct way of pulling hooks and returning them to the nominations page, leaving others to clear up the mess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ? I'm interested in keeping incorrect DYK hooks off the main page, I'm not so much interested in getting hooks on the main page. I won't achieve that by leaving DYK alone and moving to FAC review. I realise that people like you have no appreciation for "attention to detail", which is what you (and others) should leave DYK well alone. As for you "by the way", I think I have mastered it by now, thank you. By not reopening the discussions rightaway, I actually reduced the workload for anyone wanting to swiftly return the hooks to the main page. The mess is, as so often with these pulled hooks, yours. Fram (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: As someone so keen on paying "attention to detail", why does the statement immediately above this contain several inaccuracies and untruths, quite apart from the grammatical errors? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

For the grammatical errors, that's because this is a talk page and I have little interest in polishing my language here (I notice a "you" that should have been a "your", who cares?). Please indicate the "several inaccuracies and untruths" though or don't make such blanket statements. Fram (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"I realise that people like you have no appreciation for "attention to detail". How's that for an inaccurate blanket statement? The whole paragraph is an incoherent rant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't appear to have attention to detail, or else why would you post articles with no fewer than three errors in the opening line of the lead to a prep? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"Why don't you stop waging war at DYK and move across to reviewing FACs instead? Your attention to detail will be more appreciated there." So, you want me away from DYK because of my "attention to detail". That sounds to me like a lack of appreciation for attention to detail. That you consider that paragraph "an incoherent rant" doesn't come as a surprise considering problems you have had interpreting things correctly in some recent DYKs discussed here, but that you don't even remember or understand your own statements is something of a novelty. Then again, you seem to have problems sometimes understanding even the most basic explanations[2]. Rather worrying that you seem to be the most active prep builder at the moment, it means that we basically have to rely on the nominator + reviewer to do the check right and loose one extra set of eyes to critically look at reviewed hooks. Fram (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And this from someone who has just added an article with just three problems in the opening sentence of the lead to a prep set. Perhaps you don't actually look at the articles you're putting into prep. Or perhaps you just don't care enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Recommendation @Fram:: Read WP:CIV. (I would have included WP:DICK if that was still active) That's not very nice to pull something because of a problem that you have seen but then refuse to restore it when it has been fixed. It seems to be unnecessarily bureaucratic and/or spiteful to act in such a manner. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You're just now noticing this? Anyway, with that comment and this error, safe to say you'll be joining me on double-QPQ duty soon. LavaBaron (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • Like I have explained numerous times in the past, including most likely discussions with the exact same players: if not even the hook is right, I have very little faith in the remainder of the article and DYK check. Furthermore, in my view established DYK editors (like all of you are) who can't even get hooks right should suffer the terrible fate of having one less article featured on DYK. Get it right or don't get on the main page. Pulled remains pulled. I know that that is not a DYK rule, and that others can repromote these hooks if they are so inclined, but I have no interest in or obligation to restore hooks against my better judgment. Like I said, my goal is to keep errors off the main page, not to get DYKs on the main page. If removing errors from the main page means fewer or no DYKs on the main page, or a slower turnover rate, so be it, I see no problem with that. Fram (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Pulling hooks that can be easily rectified in situ is just needlessly disruptive. You could have fixed the hooks yourself or simply opened a discussion about them without pulling them. You are creating unnecessary work for other users when you do this.

Also, pulling hooks based on the notion that because the hook is erroneous, there might also be errors in the article is absurd. There might be errors in any article featured on the main page, but that's not a reason not to feature them. If you find an unacceptable number of errors in an article, that's a legitimate reason to pull, but speculation is not. Gatoclass (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. Pulling hooks, even as a precaution, should be encouraged, as it maintains the integrity of the main page. If the hook gets re-inserted later, so what? There is no deadline, so I'm not sure why there's some kind of rush (as ever) here to push as many hooks as possible, as quickly as possible to the main page. It's proving, especially lately, to be error-strewn. I defended the DYK project when others have suggested it should be removed from the main page, but if this "head in the sand" attitude continues, I'll change horses midstream and advocate for it to be excised. Please, all of you complaining about Fram et al doing this thankless task, spend your energy doing proper reviews and stop promoting garbage to the main page. It's pretty simple. If you can't manage that, do something else and stop wasting Fram's (and others') time having to double check the work of three, four or five people who say a hook is "good to go" when it's clearly not. Fix it, stop bitching about the criticism, job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, The Rambling Man, of course hooks should be pulled as a precaution, but only when necessary. I have pulled more hooks over time than Fram, so I hardly need to be reminded of the need for doing so, but I only do it when there is no time to resolve the outstanding issue or else when the issue is clearly going to take time to resolve. Pulling hooks for minor issues that can be readily resolved is just disruption to make a POINT. You can make a point on Wikipedia effectively enough without violating the guidelines or creating unnecessary work for everybody else. Gatoclass (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not "making a point" to pull hooks that are erroneous or unverifiable or plain wrong, even if the issues are minor. The process needs to improve to reduce the number of occurrences. Right now it's a shambles, you had a five-hook set yesterday, that's pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No, Gatoclass, that's not needlessly disruptive. The DYK process is based on checks and balances. If fuor people have reviewed a hook, and I then come along and just change it at the last minute, then I would be disrupting process. Pulling a hook when I think it contains a factual error means that my opinion can be reviewed again, and that a new hook can be found (or the original hook be found to be correct after all and readded). I have tried other approaches in the past: changing a hook immediately has lead at least once to complaints that the new hook was wrong or inaccurate as well; not pulling the hook but simply discussing it here or at WP:ERRORS has lead twice last week to hooks not getting pulled or corrected at all. My experience is that the only safe method to deal with these is pulling them first, and then starting a discussion about them. The usual flak from some DYK regulars is just par for the course. "Also, pulling hooks based on the notion that because the hook is erroneous, there might also be errors in the article is absurd." No, if a hook is incorrect, then it is clear that the DYK review wasn't done properly and should be redone in all aspects. When the reviewers miss such errors, I see no reason to trust that they have done the other checks (like copyvio and so on) any better. Fram (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that is odd Fram, because you didn't express any doubt about the problems with these hooks when pulling them. Do you really need a second opinion just to remove a reference to a beard that doesn't appear in the given source? I hardly think so, you are not incompetent. And in any case, you can raise issues here without first pulling a hook. As I said to you the other week, if you don't get a satisfactory response here in a timely manner, that is the appropriate time to pull a hook, not before. But if you insist on pulling hooks prematurely, the least you could do is return them yourself when the issue is resolved, instead of leaving some other administrator to clean up after you. Gatoclass (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That hook was pulled from prep, so no admin was needed, any editor could do this. And the things you say I can do, yes, I could, but I have had bad experiences with them in the past, so I prefer not to do them. And a hook with an error is never pulled "prematurely", it has been promoted prematurely. Perhaps you should direct your suggestions to the ones actually reviewing and promoting these hooks? Fram (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Funny how everyone is only interested in getting these hooks back on the main page, and no one cares about why we have so many errors in the hooks this week (even more than usual, it seems). Thank you all for reminding me of what DYK is for and why you are all here. Fram (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Pulling hooks to prevent erroroneous and poorly sourced hooks to preserve the integrity of the main page is a thankless task. And an all-too-frequent one. You'd all be better off doing a better job on reviewing the DYKs than complaining when someone tries to keep a level of quality control going around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fram and The Rambling Man: I am very tired of the disrespect both of you keep showing to everyone participating in DYK without ever recognising any of the article development and good work being done. I would thank you for your efforts if I believed your approach was based solely on quality control, but your behaviour prevents me from reaching that conclusion. I have posted in the past hoping you would moderate your approach, but since you have not, I will be more direct: Your approach here is counter-productive because your criticisms cover the spectrum from serious problems to trivia, and your manner is provoking defensiveness-from-attack rather than appreciation for constructive criticism. I have never had a hook pulled, nor do I recall any review of mine being found to have a serious flaw. I have overturned ticks when I saw significant problems and raised concerns. My reviews often raise multiple issues. I should be your natural ally, yet you are alienating me and (I believe) many editors and contributors who care as much about quality and project integrity. Seriously, can you not find anything positive to say, or failing that, to make your comments without quite so much disdain? EdChem (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm very tired of having to check every single DYK for fundamental issues of grammar, spelling etc before (and sometimes sadly, during) their time on the main page. I'm also tired of checking that the three or four people involved in each review and promotion have done their parts correctly. It's not like it's a one-in-a-hundred kind of problem either. The general attitude here is that those of us pulling hooks, fixing errors, keeping the integrity of the main page intact, are the problem, not that the continual error-strewn promotion of sets is the problem. Stop being an apologist for a system that is clearly not functioning properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I only show disrespect to those whose DYK edits and attitude towards producing content for the main page repeatedly is not deserving of respect. There are many DYK participants (like apparently yourself) who have never been criticized by me, so you are wrong from the very start of your comment. Some of the editors here never show "appreciation for constructive criticism" nor any awareness of what they did wrong, no matter how many times you explain it. I'm not interested in "finding anything positive to say", I pull hooks with factual errors in them, and present evidence of this here. Only when people produce errors again and again (as nominator, reviewer and/or promotor) or when they try to defend the indefensible (like people producing OR hooks but not recognising this after lengthy explanations, or people comparing fact checking for a one-line hook with "demanding FA quality", or any of the other recurring defenses) do I start to show "disdain". I have no problem with people making errors, I have trouble with people making the same or very similar errors again and again, or people defending such errors. They have a whole encyclopedia (and better yet, a world wide web) to toy with, so there is no need to let them produce errors for the main page again and again. Fram (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Fram, you have treated me with disdain and disrespect inside the last three months. When you cited a policy that did not apply in a criticism, your response amounted to (IMO) that you are right even when you are wrong. You need to regain some perspective because you exhibit disdain towards others far more often than the above post suggests. EdChem (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 123#Prep 4 popash problems, where you gave another editor incorrect advice repeatedly and then went on to completely misrepresent my statements? (see the "If you want to criticize my attitude and my demands, it would help if you started representing them correctly." in my reply of 09:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC))) Nothing much has changed since then, apparently. Fram (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron's restrictions - review

The following discussion 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.

---

Proposed amendment

A month ago, LavaBaron were given restrictions to help improve the quality of his DYK contributions. The terms of the restrictions are:

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.

Since then I've become aware that #4 does not "balance the maths". Gatoclass has elegantly paraphrased the situation: no matter how many extra reviews one might require LavaBaron to do, one still ends up with a deficit of one QPQ because of the requirement that an extra reviewer checks his reviews. So it seems the requirement that LavaBaron do two reviews for every one of his nominations doesn't actually achieve its stated purpose.

Recent discussions surrounding several DYK hooks have suggested that #4 is creating more problems than it would help LavaBaron or the DYK community improve upon the quality of contributions. On the other hand, some have opined that #2 (which was the actual source of the problem) should stay in place as a check on the quality of LavaBaron's contributions for the time being. So I'm proposing that restriction #4 be rescinded as soon as this suggestion gains consensus; the remaining restrictions shall remain in place until their scheduled review in early October. Deryck C. 17:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, Edwardx, Worm That Turned, and Maile66: Tagging a few other editors whose recent comments on related discussions have prompted me to make this proposal. Deryck C. 17:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Also tagging @EdChem, Sphilbrick, Andrew Davidson, Sainsf, Casliber, Roxy the dog, Cwmhiraeth, and Gerda Arendt: who have made one or more comments regarding LavaGate. LavaBaron (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support per my previous comments on the topic. Thank you Deryck Chan for your reconsideration of this matter. Another issue has recently arisen however: LavaBaron recently added a second review to an existing review by another user and proposed it as a fulfilment of condition #2. I do not believe this was the intention of the condition, which was for LavaBaron's reviews to be checked by somebody else, not for LavaBaron to be seconding somebody's else's reviews, but I think a clarification on this point would also be useful Deryck. Gatoclass (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Gatoclass: See #Query on editing restrictions above. Anyway, rescinding #4 will eliminate this problem altogether. Deryck C. 17:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan:, I don't see how rescinding #4 eliminates the confusion, eliminating #4 means he is only required to do one QPQ, but #2 still doesn't say whether it's acceptable or not for LavaBaron to fulfill his QPQ requirement merely by checking somebody else's review, or whether the intention was to have LavaBaron's reviews checked by somebody else. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass - I appreciate your confusion. In one of the numerous addendums to these restrictions that, in good DYK fashion, have been scattered throughout the Wikispace in a variety of locations scavenger-hunt-style, it is explained that One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because...". But, obviously, adding more amendments - and amending the amendments or amending the amended amendments - will be great. We may also want to consider having the foundation retain a full-time archivist to keep track of all the addendums, corollaries, and amendments to this three-month restriction. Maybe someone can bring that up to the Trustees. LavaBaron (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support 4# seems like unnecessary surplusage to me. It just seems it puts an additional burden on everybody involved and may well likely lead to a slippery slope whereby that may become the norm if we allow it to be a set precidence. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and Support Extension of Restrictions to All Editors and Reviewers Who Have Had 3+ Hooks, or 2% of Lifetime Total Hooks, Pulled Three content errors in hooks or reviews, or 2% of lifetime total, being the cited threshold in the original ANI for which I was sanctioned, it seems reasonable these restrictions be extended to all equally serious transgressors to protect the integrity of DYK. In a back-of-napkin review of the volumes of hooks that, just in the last month, have been pulled, there are by my count at least 9 editors (including 2 admins) who are sanctionable under these standards. Obviously these are very good restrictions intended to protect DYK and were not targeted enforcement to mask a non-sanctionable dispute. But, if we don't extend them to all equal and worse transgressors - when we are easily able to identify who they are - then people will question if this is DYK's Southern Methodist University moment. LavaBaron (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, you ended up with a sanction not because a couple of your hooks were pulled, but because your dismissive responses to the administrator concerned raised questions about whether you were taking your responsibilities as a DYK reviewer seriously. You may not be worse than some other reviewers here, but when you stick your head above the parapet in a show of defiance, you make yourself a target. Take the right lesson from this experience and avoid a repeat of it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that's the real reason. So if that's the reason, how will three months of double reviews improve my deference to the majesty of said Admin? Sanctions are supposed to be imposed to protect the project, not as punishment. And yet here I essentially get dish washing duty for Contempt of Admin (an Admin who, BTW, has faced almost daily criticism from other editors of a more acute nature than anything I ever said). LavaBaron (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you got your restrictions because of contempt for the content rules, because your responses in those discussions showed that you didn't care ahout makng sure that DYK hooks were error-free (like Gatoclass said, "dismissive responses [...] raised questions about whether you were taking your responsibilities as a DYK reviewer seriously."). I have seen nothing recently that changes that impression, and many indications that the restrictions should be made permanent (or you booted from DYK altogether). Fram (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, it's not a matter of showing "deference" to administrators - it is, rather, a matter of showing respect for the rules that protect the encyclopedia. So long as you do that, you should have little to fear from any admin. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass with due respect (and I actually mean that, not as a snide aside as it's sometimes used) - in the case of the two errors cited, I already admitted they were both in error prior to these restrictions being applied. However, I also challenged Fram's way of conducting himself in dealing with errors, something that has become increasingly cited by other editors as here. The restrictions are not protecting WP since we've established my error rate is not higher than the average Wikipedian and I already admitted my mistakes. Let's call a horse a horse. This is busy work, dishwashing duty, "8 hours of peeling potatoes" - that's all. It's punishment, not a protective measure. LavaBaron (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support if only to stem the flow of sarcastic bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've treated these restrictions with the seriousness they deserve. (insofar as it concerns expressions of my opinion regarding them) LavaBaron (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

See above. I support just to curtail the ongoing crap-spouting. There are far more important issues here, like the ongoing piss-poor quality of promoted hooks from many different editors and admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Gatoclass made a good point and so I support Deryck's proposal to drop #4. Andrew D. (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but actually I would suggest removing all DYK restrictions on LavaBaron. The restrictions are punitive rather than rehabilitative, and result in a requirement for other editors to do extra reviews. At a time when there is an accumulation of 150 or so unreviewed nominations, this extra work is adding to the backlog. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • it is debatable whether this page is even the right one to discuss the removal of #4; but a full removal (or extension, broadening, whatever) of the restrictions should be discussed at WP:AN, not here. Fram (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • This discussion was cross-posted at AN from the start. Deryck C. 15:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, thanks. The other way round would have been better, but so be it. Fram (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comments: I saw the point of #4 as being to improve Lava's skills, but there is no doubt that the present rationale is flawed for reasons already mentioned. In my opinion, there should be consequences for demonstrably poor reviews in the form of additional reviews and scrutiny, though I am not sure whether this is the right place for the discussion. "Demonstrably poor", however, needs careful consideration because some pulled hooks have serious flaws and should never have been promoted and some are cases where point-making is occurring, so it can't be based just on pulled hooks. There are cases where I have made comments on nominations that had a tick and so they were fixed before making it to prep, which is an example of the process working but also a case where the reviewed was just as flawed as if it had made into queues or the main page before being pulled. Bad reviews are a problem, and we need to do something about them. Not all reviewers are bad, however, and mistakes do happen. Unfortunately, a situation where DYK contributors feel hounded, unfairly disrespected, and attacked is not conducive to calm discussion of needed change, and the atmosphere here is provoking unhelpful but understandable defensiveness at present. By all means, remove restriction 4 if it is not helping anything, but recognise that the issues here are bigger than LavaBaron's restrictions. EdChem (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Just to point out, Fram is correct above - any modification or lifting of community imposed restrictions needs to be handled at the same venue as they were imposed. As this was imposed at AN, any relaxation or lifting in part/whole discussion needs to be handled there. I suggest someone move the conversation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting that Deryck C can't change a restriction he imposed based on a consensus discussion, according to Fram, but Fram asserts he can ignore anything he wants in doing what he wants at DYK irrespective of consensus discussions over the history of the project (paraphrasing)... EdChem (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Interesting, yes. The difference between local consensus and global consensus. Fram (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Actually, the difference between admin-is-necessarily-superior-to-peon-editors attitude and collaboration. Maybe you could try the second once in a while? EdChem (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
        • No, not "admin-is-necessarily-superior-to-peon-editors attitude", I don't think you have followed me around enough if you believe that that would ever be my attitude. Facts and errors are not based on consensus (someone here at DYK once tried that approach, that I wasn't allowed to pull hooks because three or more people had approved the hook and I alone had found fault with it, and I thus had to wait for a stronger consensus against the hook before I could pull it; needless to say that that was not heeded) and a rule that would state that one can only pull a hook if one then does a DYK review (or somesuch, see above) would be counterproductive and rather ridiculous (as explained above, this would mean that the ones producing the incorrect review would be able to use it for QPQ, but the one doing the actual legwork to check the hook thoroughly wuold then be required to do another review as punishment). As for collaboration: all I see is someone else coming here to find fault with the editors preventing errors from reaching the main page and trying to do something about it, both at the level of the hooks and at the level of what causes these errors, not someone trying to find a workable solution to reduce the number of erroneous hooks that reach the prep areas or further. Fram (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: full lifting of restrictions

As per EdChem's and Cwmhiraeth's suggestions, I move a counter-proposal for the full lifting of restrictions against LavaBaron. Edit: Adding sig and, to clarify, this is not a "vote" on lifting the restrictions, but a confidence test to see if the consensus by which the original restrictions were imposed still exists. LavaBaron (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as per nom LavaBaron (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support if it curtails the endless sarcastic bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I was the second reviewer on some LavaBaron reviews and found no problems. I am a bit more picky about hook wording, but that is no reason to keep the restrictions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. For starters, above he says " in the case of the two errors cited, I already admitted they were both in error prior to these restrictions being applied."; yes, you denied having made errors until it became clear that you would get sanctioned and then switched positions and admitted them, presumably in the hope that this admission would reduce the restrictions. There were also, as had been pointed out time and again, more than two errors in that episode. You now use that forced admission to reduce the restrictions even further. There has not been enough time to see if the restrictions have improved anything, we have Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Lachlan which you incorrectly approved, we now have Template:Did you know nominations/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor which you proposed and was swiftly rejected. The quality of your DYK work hasn't improved one bit. Perhaps (no, probably) other restrictions are necessary instead of these ones, but simply removing the ones we have would be counterproductive and send the message that he is doing a good job, when the opposite is true (that he isn't the only one with these problems is not a reason to lift the restrictions here of course). Fram (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just so we're clear on this, Deryck Chan did not make this counter proposal. It was added by LavaBaron — Maile (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought that was self-evident by my sig in the first !vote, but I've added it to the proposal line as well so that there's no ambiguity. LavaBaron (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose It has been what? A little over a month since the restrictions were put in place? Anyone else would have this speedy closed as a too-soon request to lift restrictions put in place by the community. Also, requesting it here instead of at AN (where it belongs) seems like you are further trying to get around community sanctions by putting this appeal in a lower trafficked area. You literally have two more months before the restrictions are automatically reviewed and potentially lifted. Wait. --Majora (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It is up to ANI to designate an admin to perform the required reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The restrictions are punitive rather than rehabilitative, and result in a requirement for other editors to do extra reviews. At a time when there is an accumulation of 150 or so unreviewed nominations, this extra work is adding to the backlog. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is posted too soon and in the wrong forum, and that'd be enough to oppose. But on the merits, Template:Did you know nominations/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor is sufficient to give me pause. I just can't be confident that disruption and shenanigans would not continue if the ban is lifted. I have no objection to appointing an admin for the upcoming review, but that too is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, there is a general consensus the article Hillary Clinton brain damage hoax is a GF article, even among those !voting "Delete." No one has raised any suggestion this article constitutes "disruption" or "shenangians." Brianga, Neutrality, and Notecardforfree all went to the exceptional step of affirming this was a GF article in their "Delete" !votes while DrCruse has opined it is unquestionably notable. Everyone on WP who has been a substantial new article contributor has had articles deleted. Having an article AfD'ed is a routine part of the collaborative approach. The suggestion I have ever engaged in "shenanigans" was not even part of the original restrictions, it was a question of QPQ accuracy and my unfortunate tendency to be dismissive towards admins and refer to them using inflationary diminutive monikers. I entirely resent this out-of-the-blue and vicious accusation that is unsupported by anything in my vast history of contributions. I don't care if you !vote "Oppose" but retract your unrelated attack. You can question my QPQ accuracy and my attitude toward critiques, but my content contributions on this project are absolutely beyond reproach. LavaBaron (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your editing history or restrictions. My AFD nomination was based solely on WP:PROFRINGE. I take no position on this debate. Brianga (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, but, as per your remarks [3], [4], you confirm your belief the article in question was a GF article? LavaBaron (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Lavabaron, I'm not saying you've been disruptive as such. I'm saying that I question the wisdom of submitting Hillary Clinton brain damage hoax to DYK, and based on that (and your responses here and elsewhere), and having never really interacted with you previously, I just don't have confidence that your work in this area will be drama-free if the restrictions are lifted. Perhaps I'm wrong - but that's not what this section is discussing. Is there support to remove the restrictions? I don't see, in your edits, anything that would lead me to support that. Perhaps it's a NOTYET thing, rather than a NOTEVER thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: It was not my intent to suggest that a complete removal of restrictions should occur. I think that a process for requiring error-prone editors to have their reviews checked is reasonable in principle, as part of a set of approaches for dealing with repeatedly sub-par reviews. Contrary to the claims of some, there are DYK editors who recognise the problem of poor reviews and the need for change. I just believe that the broader issue is more important than these specific restrictions, and while restriction 4 could serve a reasonable purpose, it does not serve the purpose it claims of providing a balancing of QPQs. EdChem (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Expanded discussion

• Response to Fram: In your first example, I (a) merely endorsed the approval already given by another editor and subsequently accepted by a reviewing promoter (neither of whom you are calling for restrictions upon, possibly caricaturing your focus on me as a case of ruffled feathers over a past slight and underscoring the abusive use of the sanctioning process to kneecap personal "adversaries"), and, (b) the idea that it was "incorrectly approved" is, itself, currently being debated with you cornered into what has become an increasingly customary contrarian and minority viewpoint.
  

In the second example, I voluntarily withdrew - of my own initiative - the nomination before it advanced to prep, queue, or posting; a demonstrated ability at re-analysis and reconfiguration, if anything, serves as a great example of my cognizance of the correct application of the DYK process. Indeed, I almost brought it up myself - thank you for highlighting it! Hope all is well with you - LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"I (a) merely endorsed the approval already given by another editor" Thanks for pointing out that you did not do a proper review yourself, even though that was required by your restrictions. @Deryck Chan: I leave it to you or other uninvolved admins to deal with this restriction violation. "b) the idea that it was "incorrectly approved" is, itself, currently being debated with you cornered into what has become an increasingly customary contrarian and minority viewpoint." You must be reading a different discussion then, as no one there is still debating whether this was incorrectly approved or not, and the hook was corrected accordingly. As for your "great example of my cognizance of the correct application of the DYK process.", of course, nominating an article that gets rejected almost immediately by the first reviewer, and then gets AfD'ed by a second reviewer, and then is resoundingly rejected at that AfD, is something to be proud of. Fram (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"Restriction violation?" Oh goodness gracious, Fram! As per the editing restrictions: "One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because..." Isn't this becoming just a little much? Relax - LavaBaron (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The restrictions are listed at the start of this section. I see "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." Your quote above is not part of the editing restrictions. Fram (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The restrictions have since been clarified by the restricting admin through interpretive notes in response to specific questions posed by third-party editors. That particular part of the codex is archived here. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything else. All the best - LavaBaron (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

So, did you review that incorrect hook? Or just rubberstamp it?Fram (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram - happy I was able to help you find that section of the restrictions. Now, as to your question: as previously stated, after evaluating the original reviewer's rationale for approving Worm That Turned's nomination by process of comparison against the content of the article, and possessing the options to either endorse or not endorse the reviewer's rationale, I endorsed the approval already given by Surtsicna and subsequently accepted by Casliber. Best wishes - LavaBaron (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't previously state that, but thanks, I guess. So not a restriction violation, simply another incorrect review. And could you please try to post your posts in one go, instead of the four you needed for this one or the 5 for a previous one? it causes multiple edit conflicts and makes it hard to be certain a reply still matches the post one thought one was replying to. Fram (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Fram! LavaBaron (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Response to Majora: Hi Majora - I put it here because this is a counter-proposal to the proposal for amendment of the terms offered by the sanctioning admin who posted it here (cross-posted to AN). This is why it's threaded within that proposal. I'm working to keep a logical and concise flow of discussion, not "get around" anything. As to why it's been requested after a month, it's simply because there was a spontaneous surge of calls for the lifting of the restrictions made by several valued and tenured community members like EdChem and Cwmhiraeth so it seemed appropriate, in the interest of realizing fulfillment of the aspirations and ambitions of the community for how they would like to organize their DYK, that a quick confidence test be performed. I'm of the opinion that discussion is never a bad thing and don't believing in rationing the quantity of dialog on WP or society generally, though to the question of ending the restrictions I'm mostly fine either keeping or ending them. Hope all is well with you - LavaBaron (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2016 (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.

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) 18:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Now overdue. Admin needed to promote Prep 6 to Queue 6 so the bot can promote it to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done I wanted to do this hours ago, but I wasn't quite sure if Fram etal. were OK with the hooks. Well, it's there now. — Maile (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Absurd. You either stick to the quick pace dictated by current consensus or you advocate slowing it down officially. Don't do something in between. Needless to say the hooks haven't necessarily been reviewed by someone with a critical eye yet, and hooks may still be pulled, regardless of your caution in promoting the set. Bottom line is, either stick to the schedule and promote whatever whenever its needed, or finally acknowledge that reviews are too quick, too poor, and slow things down to one set of eight per day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It's always nice to see you here. Keep up your good work. We need you here. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Standard "I can't hear you" response. Try making the process work better, that'd be better than fruitless and sarcastic replies. You need to start thinking whether this project is worth keeping on the main page. Too many errors, too many apologists, too many incompetent contributions. Start on that, and then come back to me with your mindless chatter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I am, in the strongest possible terms, going to ask that anyone who complains about the quality of DYK please do at least one prep set for every complaint you make (or even just promote ONE article into a prep for every complaint... a QPQ for critics, perhaps?) There are far too few people building prep sets. It takes an admin to move them to queues, so if any regular complainers are admins, please do the moves. I really would ask more people to become part of the solution. Frankly, people like Maile66 need to not live in fear of being slapped for doing their job; it's daunting. No one has the time to do a complete re-review of every DYK that is promoted; we do anticipate that the reviewed hook got a second look from some of the regulars, and again when we build preps and queues, it's clear that other eyes look them over. Maybe DYK sucks and should be abolished, maybe we need to go to once a day sets, maybe we need to go to six-hook sets; who knows? Frankly, while we have the system we have, we have to make it go, so as we say out in Montana, if you're complaining about too much shit in the barn, quitcherbitchin and pick up a shovel. Montanabw^(talk) 04:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid the limited time I have I spend working on the DYK articles themselves. Just today articles are being promoted with grammar issues in the lead, typos, peacock language, reference errors etc. That's bad enough to occupy most of my availability. I imagine Fram and I (and others) will continue to try to preserve the integrity of the main page, despite all the apologists and "head-in-sand" brigade here who clearly aren't getting the fact that something is broken here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, if you do that, you have just done the review needed to also promote a hook -- actually promoting and moving one article to an empty prep takes no more than five minutes once the review is completed and if your name is on the edit, it would give the rest of us a bit of relief -- even one less hook helps. Though that's a approval issue that the original reviewer should have caught, and if not, then one of the other folks such as BlueMoonset or yourself, adding a "no" tag and thus removing them from the eligible for promotion list. When I build prep sets, as a rule, I start with the oldest hooks approved but not promoted, then I go to hooks or articles written/approved by the regulars here (at least the ones who are generally reliable) and then to the newer hooks that have to have more review. It's a time issue, and I prioritize the one that ought to need less review at promotion. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Great idea, Montanabw. We have only a few people spotting errors in (too many) DYKs in prep, queue or mainpage (well, recently not in queue as hooks tend to stay there for a very short while only). Let's add extra requirements for the right to spot errors to make sure that they will be less inclined to do so and we can have even more errors on the main page! You really are part of the solution here. Feel free to gather the other likeminded people on this talk page and add your rule to the DYK rules. I will ignore it anyway. If I see an error in a hook that has been promoted, I pull it. I spend too much time already in checking these hooks which have been nominated by (in most cases) experienced editors, and approved by two experienced editors, and which shouldn't need rechecking, certainly not at such an appaling rate. It's easy to note that e.g. the pylon photo had no indication of being the pylon from the hook; but if I had pulled it only with that reason, I would have been lambasted with complaints here. So I had to do the work the article creator and hook reviewers should have done, and try to find what these pylons (the highest ones) really look like. And then I should also do a QPQ review as reward for doing a better review of a hook than the regulars did? No, the logical thing would be to declare the review invalid (meaning that it can't be used for QPQ by whoever did it), the DYK unacceptable, and in the case of too-often repeat offenders DYK off-limits. Not adding extra requirements for the one person that actually did the correct review in such a case. Fram (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest, Fram, that you do your error-checking BEFORE things get into a prep set. Anything green can be promoted, and if you pull back the approval while it is still at DYK/N, that would actually be a better solution. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You may suggest anything you want. I would prefer it it were suggestions tackling the root cause of the problems, not suggestions which would remove the systematic problems at DYK out of sight, but we're all volunteers so we can't make others do what we prefer of course. The problem is not when I do my error checking (or will you stop DYK when I'm unavailable for weeks or months, as has happened?), the problem is that such error checking is still all too frequently needed after the nom plus double check has been done. Fram (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That would not be an appropriate use of IAR if the rule is introduced. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You're funny. Fram (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually the over-riding criteria for IAR is 'does ignoring this rule improve the encyclopedia?' If ignoring any DYK-specific rule would improve the encyclopedia by removing obvious errors from the main page, I think you will find IAR applies. (Not that invoking IAR would be needed, as any specific DYK rule would not over-ride Wikipedia's basic policies for verifiability, sourcing, accuracy etc). Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:16, 10 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 #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) 07:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

AGF hook removed from Prep 1

• ... that Mark Barrott's Sketches from an Island 2 represents a more "exclusive" aspect of the Ibiza island than its predecessor?

Template:Did you know nominations/Sketches from an Island 2 @EditorE, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth:

This was sourced to the paywall article[5] and AGF accepted with the explicit question " I'm assuming the source used the word "exclusive", so I put it in quotes here and in the article (please correct me if I'm wrong)" Looking at the review from other sources [6] and [7], it seems that the source does not use the word "exclusive" at all. I have pulled the hook and will reopen the discussion. Fram (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Huh? If you had access to the source and could verify that the word isn't in the source, why didn't you just remove the quotes and leave the hook in prep? Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point for me, and illustrating why I don't do this, not with this hook and not with the others. In this case specifically, there has been further discussion at the DYK nomination, making it clear that not only was I right that the word was not in that source, but the nominator had also completely misunderstood the sentence he based the hook on: removing the quotes would still have produced an incorrect hook. By simply "correcting" the hook in situ, this would probably have remained unnoticed, or else some of the same people complaining that I should simply correct the hooks would then complain that I had produced an incorrect hook. @Gatoclass, EdChem, Cwmhiraeth, and Montanabw:. Fram (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly pointing up the futility of the AGF tick. I have the feeling that even if I waited for the page creator to answer me that the word "exclusive" was not in the source, I wouldn't have been able to pull out of him the truth about the whole quote, which you were able to do only because you managed to find the article online and were looking right at it. To my knowledge, DYK reviewers are not required to go searching for online versions of paywalled sources cited in an article. Maybe we need to rethink this AGF idea? Yoninah (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

1. I had nothing to do with this nomination, promotion, pulling, etc.
2. Pulling from a prep is much better than pulling from the main page, so it's good you acted at this point rather than later.
3. Whether or not you are right in this case does not prove that all your pulls are correct, and some of your pulls are for trivial issues which could easily be addressed.
4. As I have said, several times, some of your pulls have been about serious issues and undoubtedly correct, I readily admit this. Can you admit that some weren't?
5. I want better reviewing, fewer issues, and a less contentious DYK. Do you want to work constructively towards any of those?

EdChem (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for totally missing the point. "some of your pulls are for trivial issues which could easily be addressed." Yes, and this seemed to be one of those (just remove the quotes, not even the need to actually change anything fundamental!) Turns out that it wasn't a trivial one, and that the hook was incorrect even after the quotes would have been removed. When I find an error with a hook, it is often not clear how far-reaching that error is; removing the hook and reopening the discussion to get further input (collaboration, you know?) is the solution, not unilaterally "improving" the hook which would here (and in enough other cases) not have produced a correct hook either. I pinged you to make this clear to you, not because you (or the others I pinged) had anything to do with this specific hook. Apparently this was in vain. Fram (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

But since you had access to the source Fram, you could surely see the hook was incorrect, so you knew what the right course of action was, and took it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I explicitly mentioned in my section here that the hook was AGF accepted. So, I removed an erroneous hook from the preps, reopened the discussion, and explicitly indicated why I had no problem with the hook having been accepted by the reviewers. But apparently even this is somehow uncollaborative, wrong, unconstructive, and what else. Fram (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read any such accusations over this hook removal and I certainly didn't make them. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Not from you, my apologies if it came across as if I accused you of these, I meant it as a remark about others. I got a question about why I didn't correct it in the prep (this after that the DYK discussion had concluded that the remainder of the hook was wrong as well), and then Edchem spectacularly missed the point and claiming that "some of your pulls are for trivial issues which could easily be addressed." in the very section where it is demonstrated why this is a bad idea, while learning me how I should behave. Fram (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Fram, I note that you completely missed that I expressed no position on this specific hook. Also that "some of your pulls" does not imply *this* pull. I could respond to all that you write, but I recognise it is pointless and that you seem to like to get the last word, so go on believing in your own righteous perfection, throw some more disdain at me, and continue frustrating progress on your purported goal of improved DYK reviewing. EdChem (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah you missed the point again! This buried-head, defensive attitude that many DYK regulars have adopted, I.e. "No problem here, just some nit picking admins trying to own the place" nonsense is obfuscating the real issue. Too many errors are getting through too many stages of DYK to the main page, be them trivial or fundamental. The sooner you all woke up to that the better. I'm sure we've all get better things to do than rechecking everything that goes through Preps, we need to get the job done right first time round. Until then, some of us will certainly continue to pull hooks for even trivial issues, just for the very reason that Fram has illustrated twice or more in recent posts. Get used to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you missed the point again completely. Please explain how I am to know which errors are serious enough to be pulled, and which ones are trivial ones that should get corrected in situ? You may take the hook discussed here as an example. Fram (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at your examples of how to deal with errors in the preparation areas. Oh wait, you have never pulled a hook from preps, and edited the preps twice in 2016 and not at all in 2015 (none of these to correct factual errors). Fram (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Slow down updates (redux)

So I mentioned this before, probably six times. I propose we slow DYK down to one set of eight per day. Just a quick glance here shows that DYK updates were late four or five times in the past week, and that's with 7 hooks twice a day. We had a 5-hook set a couple of days ago because of the number of errors. Many sets are seeing errors currently. To enable this project to continue to be viable for main page inclusion, let's go to 8 hooks once a day. And we should all dedicate more time to re-reviewing the promoted hooks before they hit the main page because right now, too many errors are making it to the queues and the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, how do you propose making the math(s) behind this proposal work? Below is a table showing the number of nominations that were received for each list date (this differs from the list at Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count which shows the number of nominations that are still open for each date):

Number of Submitted DYK Nominations by Date
Date	# of Noms	Date	# of Noms	Date	# of Noms	Date	# of Noms	Date	# of Noms
July 11	15	July 17	8	July 23	9	July 30	8	August 5	15
July 12	15	July 18	10	July 24	18	July 31	11	August 6	8
July 13	6	July 19	15	July 25	13	August 1	11	August 7	10
July 14	11	July 20	14	July 26	10	August 2	11	August 8	15
July 15	13	July 21	11	July 27	17	August 3	10	August 9	7
July 16	15	July 22	13	July 28	12	August 4	13	August 10	7

This means that over the last 30 days we have received 351 nominations (an average of 11.7/day). This figure ignores the 42 nominations currently in the Special occasion holding area. Additionally, the dates highlighted in color are still open for new nominations. This makes the 11.7 nominations/day a low ball figure. Your proposal will allow the promotion of 8 nominations/day. What do you propose doing with the 3.7+ nominations/day that can not be closed due to the arbitary limit which you are proposing? --Allen3 ^talk 20:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well firstly, it's not an "arbitrary limit", we used to post 3 x 8 hooks, then 2 x 8 hooks, now 2 x 7 hooks (which in reality has become 2 x 6 or 2 x 5 hooks) per day. I'm afraid this project is too fascinated by a potential backlog. It's nothing to do with that. It's about quality on the main page. Honestly, if we had 10,000 hooks in backlog but no errors going to the main page, that'd be just fine. I've already dispelled the myth that this DYK project is to encourage new editors. On a brief analysis, DYK nominators averaged well over 5,000 edits so the "let's post crap to encourage new users" argument is shot. One idea is to raise the bar of quality, thus reducing the slack quality of most DYK nominations. This could be done by asking for reviews to ensure a B-class article, or lengthen the update requirement. It's pretty easy to slow down the nominations, I'm surprised you didn't think it through before such a naive post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

More on this: WP:WIKICUP: it appears that DYK is a soft touch there with several editors having dozens of competition-based DYK points. This is, of course, a side issue, but the rush to get DYKs posted to gain points for some arbitrary contest is also unhelpful, particularly when the editor who assembles most of the preps is one of the competitors. Little wonder they've got points for 53 posted DYKs thus far. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Your unpleasant comments are quite unnecessary. I do not promote my own hooks and I am not competing in the WikiCup, merely participating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

They're hardly unpleasant. Just true. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Final question for you Allen3. Since you're keen on tables and stats and Capital Letters, please run your analytics over the number of contributions and date of account registered for the proposers of the current 200+ DYK backlog. I would be very interested to see how many of them are genuinely new editors. And how many of them are racking up as many credits as possible for other reasons. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Some of your later points there sound somewhat rude, The Rambling Man, which perhaps does not help in achieving consensus here.

However, what is wrong with there being a backlog? Surely a backlog means that nominations have to wait for longer, and therefore there is more time for nominators, reviewers and others to improve nominated articles, improve hooks, and spot any problems. For example problems like the serious ones I found with Template:Did you know nominations/Jasbir Walia (not currently approved nor has ever got as far as Prep).

Once the backlog grows to 10,000 nominations or some other suitable number, then all nominators who wish to do so can add to their nominations a count of the number of other, previously approved nominations, that they personally have found sufficient problems with to halt the movement to the front page -- regardless of whether the halt was temporary or permanent, and regardless of at what stage in the process after an initial approval it occurred. The hook whose nominator has found and fixed most problems then moves to the front of the queue, and so on. We then also get to see whether people who find most problems also produce the most problem-free nominations. As well as introducing considerable incentives to keep the main page error-free. MPS1992 (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Not rude, just honest, and a wake-up call to some of the folks here who are simply playing the dumb card. I like the idea of hook promotion by merit though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Another idea is to just have one more layer of article approval; split prep set building from article promotion. People like TRM or Fram (or any of us, for that matter) could do promotion, essentally reviewing all reviews and then once they are "blessed," then they'd be put in an "officially promoted" pile or page. From there, all the prep builders would have to do is to build the prep sets. In all honesty, a double review is really what a lot of people are doing at DYK/N when they pull approved articles, so maybe we should just make it official. Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Building up a big backlog is a poor idea because then you'd tend to have a big lag between the main work on an article and its scheduling on the main page. You see this with FAs currently. For example, today's FA was promoted in 2010, which is over six years ago. The main editor in that case is still active but that's often not the case when you have such a long interval. It's better to keep a balance between the rate of nominations and their scheduling so that a big backlog does not accumulate. Andrew D. (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• That is fine, we can just have anything not appearing on the main page within two years of its approval, become ineligible. So things would drop out of the back of the backlog. This would help incentivise "hooky" hooks rather than poor ones, or greater efforts to fix other hooks. MPS1992 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think we want to build up that kind of a backlog. One thing to consider, though, is if some articles just need to be failed for DYK if they languish without being fixed within, say, 30 days of nomination ... sort of a "sorry, not ready, but try again when it passes GA" sort of thing. It's hardly a "new" article when it was submitted last May. Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with DYKs having to wait, even years. There's no deadline. But in any case the clear and most obvious way ahead is to increase the standards which would have two benefits - a reduction in the number of nominations that are passed, and an improvement in the quality of the articles being posted. Attempting to compare this to TFA is meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I really don't think building up a backlog like that is a good idea. TRM is right, there is no deadline; but you cannot expect an editor to sustain interest in something for that long (or even to stick around on Wikipedia for that long...I hope and plan to be active in two years time, but who knows what RL will throw my way?). If we want to make the math work out, why not change the update to 8 hooks/18 hours? That's 12 a day, very similar to the number we have right now; but it would let things hang around longer in the preps and queues, and reduce the admin workload of promoting from the prep areas by 33% instead of 50%. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Vanamonde, so far as I know, the bot process is designed on a 24-hour clock cycle: the bot homes in on having at least one promotion a day occur at 00:00 UTC, and will start moving in 15 minute chunks per promotion to get there. Every 18 hours would mean pretty constant movement back and forth. There might be a way around this—DYKUpdateBot owner Shubinator would know how it could be accomplished if it is feasible—but unless there is, we're pretty much set for one or two (or three or four) promotions per 24 hour period. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Ah well I'm not well-versed in the technicalities; if it can't happen, that's unfortunate. It was just a thought, because the numbers work out fairly well; and I'm very reluctant to set up a process that makes a backlog essentially part of the design. Vanamonde (talk) 05:34, 12 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 #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) 21:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Prep 2 filled, ready to move. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Not ready: I had to pull one hook, and I'll be swapping the lead hooks in prep 2 and 4 in a few moments, since I believe the prep 2 lead should be saved for September 8. We'll need a new quirky hook for Prep 2 at some point... BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• I added a Chinchilla, then. So if you want to save a Gene Roddenbury hook for Sept 8, why wasn't it moved down there in the first place (and why is it now in Prep 4?). But whatever. Montanabw^(talk) 23:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC). Also, I am going offline for a while, so if this one doesn't work either, someone else needs to fix it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Prep 2 is now all set to go; admin needed. Montanabw, it appears that the Pan Am/Roddenberry hook was in two places at once, then; it was definitely in the special occasion section when I checked before writing my above comment. I moved it to prep 4 to quickly get it out of the way in case there had been some subsequent agreement to run it sooner that I didn't know about; that not being the case, I'll be pulling it back to the special occasion section in a few minutes. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• OK, that was weird. I presume it's all been fixed now. Other than the new drama below. Montanabw^(talk) 02:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Problematic hook/image combination

Boy with variegated squirrel

The current DYK set contained the following hook and the accompanying image/caption:

• ... that a form of encephalitis that killed three people is believed to have been caused by a virus carried by their pet variegated squirrels (pictured)?

This seemed to imply that the boy pictured was among the three people killed – particularly given the failure to indicate that the animal on his shoulder was merely an example of the species, not one of "their pet variegated squirrels".
I changed "(pictured)" to "(example pictured)" and switched to a different photograph from the article.
Can we please be more careful about this sort of thing? In general, it probably is best to avoid using an image of a person unrelated to the hook, but it's especially ill-advised when he or she could be mistaken for someone mentioned.
Based on Template:Did you know nominations/Variegated squirrel, it appears that the hook originally proposed related to the general concept of pet variegated squirrels spreading a virus, but its wording was revised without any discussion of how this might impact the context in which the image was presented. Pinging Cwmhiraeth, Kevmin, BlueMoonset, White Arabian Filly and Montanabw. —David Levy 00:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we got there. One way or the other. Yay. I think. Montanabw^(talk) 02:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The point you make is valid. If you look at the template you will see that the hook proposed and approved there does not include the word (pictured), and that this was added by someone in the prep area.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it mandatory to note (pictured) in hooks with images? Montanabw^(talk) 08:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I understood that that was no longer the case. Often the picture's caption is self-explanatory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That hasn't been my understanding. It seemed to vary a bit after the new format was introduced, but later settled down with some form of "pictured" in the lead hook, whether there initially or introduced by the prep set builder. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hook corrected in queue3

• ... that Prisma uses a neutral network and artificial intelligence to edit pictures?

Template:Did you know nominations/Prisma (app) @Ayub407, Daniel Case, Montanabw, and Maile66:

It doesn't use a Neutral network (evolution), it uses a Neural network which is a completely different animal. I have corrected it in the queue, not pulled, everybody happy? I would be too, if only we had more preps and queues without such errors. Fram (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel a bit embarrassed now. Thanks for fixing it. Ayub407^talk 09:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, well, thank you Fram for correcting this. It's not the kind of knowledge that everybody has, so good that your radar was working on this one. — Maile (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Fram (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fram:Thanks as well. I had read "neural network" when I reviewed it originally ... that's why a second pair of eyes is always good. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK Improvement ideas

So first of all I believe that there is always room for improvement, no matter who you are, how long you've been doing something - and just because "that's how it's done" doesn't mean that's how it has to remain. I have seen various comments about the DYK being "broken", "poor" etc. but very few suggestions on how to fix the issues, I see some here and there but nothing seems to gain any traction or actual constructive discussions that lead anywhere. The main suggestion I have seen is to cut down on the rate, but there are other things that could be done, below are a few things I am just throwing out there - all of these are suggested to help keep errors off the main page which really should be the driving force behind all improvement initiatives.

• Require a higher entry criteria for DYKs than the 1500 character level - more work and care put into the articles we feature the more work and care goes into the hooks, it's a bigger investment in the article, hopefully they are willing to put the same investment into the DYK process.
• It is okay to fail DYKs - I see very few outright fail here, most DYKs are either passed, issues are fixed or they're withdrawn due to AFDs but in general few are outright failed. I think we need to accept that it's okay to fail stuff, not everything belongs on the front page.
• Institute a "quick fail" rule - perhaps if you miss the mark on 3 of the criteria it's immediately failed, if you cannot be bothered to read the rules then why should we work with them to bring them in line? Harsh maybe but it would allow the reviewers to focus on those where people actually bother to read the rules.
• A "Staging area" - right now hooks go into the prep, then the queue, then the main page - if we introduce a point BEFORE prep there is more time where hooks are assembled before they hit the main page, it would allow more time to give them closer scrutiny. I am pretty sure neither Fram nor anyone else just roams through the various DYK hooks on the nomination page. If they're put in the staging area we know what's coming to the main page in 4-5-6 days and allow potential issues to be addressed prior, instead of a last minute pull.
• I think I mentioned it before, but demand more accountability from a QPQ - disqualify the QPQ if issues are found with the review or if it's just cursory or lacking. If it is supposed to be an "entry fee" of sorts we should make sure it's actually done correctly
• Don't be a douche - if issues are found with your hook, work with people to solve them instead of whining and crying, be responsive, people are trying to help get your hook correctly on the main page.
• Don't be a douce part deux - Assume good faith (at least initially) when a mistake slips through, it's most likely not an evil plot to subvert Wikipedia or make millions of dollars off that sweet front page exposure. Repeat offenders who do not show any sign of at least trying to help fix the issue and learn from their mistakes can get the AGF aspects nullified.

• So in conclusion, there are plenty of things we can do to improve the process if we choose to do so, I would invite anyone who has serious, constructive suggestions for improvements to come forward, an open discussion is the only way things will ever change.  MPJ-DK  14:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Staging area" - This has been mentioned before in a different context; that is, it would be easier for promoters to see what's been approved, rather than having to scroll through all nominations. Mentioned in the context that you have here, I think it is an excellent idea. It would take setting up a separate page; and perhaps a bot that would move anything marked "approved" to that page. Conversely, if a turn-around tick or any other of the template icons appears below the approved icon, the bot would similarly move the nomination back to the unapproved main page. Shubinator, Intelligentsium, is this possible with a bot? I recall BlueMoonset could see some drawbacks to the idea, but can't remember the details he once listed. If this could be worked out with the assistance of a bot, it might...and I say this with a grain of salt...ease up on the tensions of good faith editors who are frustrated about the un-noticed errors that end up in prep/queue/on the main page. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Applause and confirm - Don't be a douche, parts I and II - — Maile (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support "demand more accountability from a QPQ - disqualify the QPQ" But in theory, it's already supposed to work that way. I don't want to second guess promoters, but they do run up against whining that could be "Don't be a douche, Part III". — Maile (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Quick fail - should not apply to genuinely new nominators. It's hard to find all the rules, scattered hither and yon. But for nominators who have been around for a given period of time, yeah. But we really need to show some slack for new nominators, especially if they're new to Wikipedia altogether. We should try hard with first-time nominators. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• The fact that they are scattered all over the place could be addressed too, make it easier to know what the guidelines are, thus easier to comply with.  MPJ-DK  15:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. Often mentioned, and nothing happens. Did you know/Onepage goes back to 2009 and was abandoned by 2010. At one point, and I forgot which editor, was going to revamp that page, make it all-inclusive. But before that happened, the editor departed DYK. Good-faith people try to demand quality not stated in the rules. Others want to evade infractions because of their interpretation of wording in the rules. It goes on forever. Maybe it's time we revisited what are we trying to accomplish? — Maile (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Maile66: Your statement about Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage being abandoned by 2010 isn't quite right - that page transcludes various other DYK subpages, some of which I just updated recently after seeing the Nomination as per DYKPN thread above. Pppery (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Pppery Here's good little project for you, since you seem to like helping clean up DYK pages. You misunderstood what I said. Onepage was once an attempt to consolidate all the rules. That particular page was abandoned in 2010. However, you might want to take that on and see if you can get everything on there, yet keeping it as brief as possible. Good luck with that. — Maile (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose DBADII without a formal brightline, ideally a specific number, that constitutes "repeat offense." Otherwise we're in the situation we are in now in which some editors are sanctioned for a specific number of errors while others are not sanctioned for the same number if they are willing to first ritually collapse into quivering masses of gelatin in the face of the majesty of one of the Celestial Immortals (AKA admins). We should use judicious, objective, and logical standards in determining what constitutes violations; not the Caligula Code. LavaBaron (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• So LavaBaron thinks it is okay to be a douche to DYK nominators? Things that makes you go hmmmm. Oh and you do realize that we only make assumptions when there has been no confirmation of a fact, if someone demonstrates bad faith, petulence and a total ability to not get the point we don't have to assume anything, we already know what it is - there is ample proof of in your case, you were sanctioned not because of a few errors but because of how you deal with them. The repeat offence is not number of errors, but an inability to actually respond to them constructively and trying to not repeat the same errors over and over again. I am totally aware of the fact that several on my hooks have been brought up here, hell someone suggested topic banning them, but I respond like an adult and fix what's wrong instead of getting defensive.  MPJ-DK  21:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. "Staging area" is pointless - the prep area IS the staging area, we don't need another one. QPQ accountability - I proposed last year that any time a hook is pulled, the QPQ is cancelled and the reviewer has to supply a new QPQ. This is an absolute minimum level of accountability IMO but even so, the proposal got no support then. "Quick fail" - I have long been a proponent of quick fail for articles which violate copyvio/paraphrase; the user should get one chance to fix the issues and that's it, but again, I couldn't get support for this on the several occasions I have brought it up. As for a more general quick fail - the objection to this is that it would be very arbitrary without some sort of review process, and adding a review process might just make more work for everybody rather than less. "Don't be a douche" - a solution looking for a problem IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I ask out of genuine iignorance, how long is a hook in the prep area before it hits the queue?  MPJ-DK  15:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Basically, a hook set stays in the prep area until an administrator promotes it to the queue. Admins are supposed to approve a set before moving to the queue, but it seems to be a feature more honoured in the breach than the observance. Preps are often just moved into the queue when they are completed. But apart from approval, how fast a prep set makes it to the main page depends on how many completed sets in front of it and how fast the set display time is - with six preps and six queues, and with a 12-hour turnaround, the last prep will take six days to make it to the main page, the first three days. If no other sets are in front of a prep set and it is promoted to the queue, it can go to the main page immediately. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. So in theory if the que is kept full it'll sit in line for about 5-6 days? sounds like that does not always happen, which leads to rushing and higher potential for something slipping through. I'd be happy to help build prep areas, if we need them full then we get a better chance of catching something while it's stitting in line. Perhaps getting more eyes on the hooks while they wait would help keep the problems off the front page. Would it make sense to do a "replacement" set? if a hook is pulled from the queue we have some lined up that are vetted? Or if the preps are always full a replacement hook should be easier to come from, take it from the last prep (say "4") and perhaps tag it to show that a hook has been removed? Perhaps we have the process in place to prevent some of it but we're not using it as it was intended?  MPJ-DK  16:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the process IMO, the main problem I think is that the final approval phase before moving to the queue is sometimes skipped, or not done thoroughly enough. It's not exactly surprising that it isn't - it's quite hard to verify seven or eight hooks at a time, it usually takes me half an hour to an hour when I am active in the queues, and clearly, not every administrator has the time, patience or commitment to do that, including me much of the time. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe part of it is putting too much on the last review, if we have 1) the DYK review and 2) the Prep builder review tightened up more then the Admin review at the end would have a higher level of quality to start with = Less problems that can even slip through. I think clear rules in one place would help tighten up the initial DYK review and perhaps more experienced editors keeping an eye out for potential review issues.  MPJ-DK  16:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The initial reviews need to be better, no question IMO. We can't put any further burden on prep builders - they have enough to worry about finding and building a balanced set without being expected to comprehensively review every hook. Gatoclass (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The staging area is very important. Without it, an admin would would have to build the set, and we would run the risk of a partially built DYK if the bot came along and moved it while it was still be assembled. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (or was it Fram?) did suggest earlier to reduce the amount of hooks that have to cycle through Template:Did you know per day. I think this proposal merits consideration as an adjunct to the "staging area" proposal, partly so as to not cause a delay. And as for the implementation of "staging area", I wonder if one could lengthen the time a hook stands in prep somehow. (As a sidenote, I always took it for granted that the DYK reviewer needs to vet the whole article not just the hook, and that said "vetting" includes checking article and hook claims against the sources. I'll admit though that other articles linked in the hook being a problem is something new for me.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I certainly have advocated a reduction in rate (and an increase in entry quality) and Fram has probably done similar. Problem here is that there are very few people who accept that there is a real problem with quality and reviews at DYK. Until they make it to the first step of recovery, there's no going forward. Tragic really. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break and random thoughts

• Assorted comments: If the prep area is supposed to be the staging area, it ain't working -- they are usually empty and being filled under a time deadline. A "staging area" of all approved hooks would be better, both for a second review and to save prep builders a LOT of time finding approved hooks to add to the sets! But first off, to address the queries of MPJ-DK, the prep sets, in reality, can sit for anywhere from 10 minutes to 6 days -- if all the DYK update queues are empty -- a frequent occurrence, then a prep set has to be quickly filled and promoted. Hawkeye7 is right that once hooks are in the queue, automation kicks in, and so building last-minute sets right in the queue (aside from being an admin only job) is not ideal. Second, Gatoclass is correct that the work of building prep sets does in fact preclude doing a full second DYK review of every hook. It probably takes at least an hour for me to build a prep set if I review every hook, and that is still with a cursory review. To be honest, I will speed up the process by scanning for hooks that are from "known" contributors, or known reviewers, or ones that have been promoted a long time ago and can be presumed to have had any issues already addressed by someone like BlueMoonset. But ultimately, the ENTIRE article is supposed to be reviewed by the first DYK reviewer. (But like Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've never heard of a requirement to review anything other than the bolded new article) But these are also the least experienced reviewers, so errors will happen; the qpq requirement was initiated to address the problem of languishing reviews, but it is a little scary and daunting when you are new at it. (To be honest, it was qpq that brought me here originally, I'd never have dared to have touched a review without it). So, basically, to address the concerns of Fram and The Rambling Man, I don't think there actually is a dispute that there is a problem with the quality of some DYK reviews, the problem is that new articles are being created and nominated at a pretty good clip, most are eventually improved enough to make the cut, and so how do we resolve the dilemma? Too much of a cutback and we could have stuff languishing for months the way it does at GAN. Too little, well, the quality problem. So, at the end of this tl;dr, my suggestions are:

1. We need more volunteers to work these behind the scenes areas. I suggest expanding qpq so that more experienced reviewers could gain qpq for fixing the problem reviews or building prep sets, not just the initial review.
2. "Experienced reviewers could be defined -- maybe those with 20 or more DYK reviews (?) (not a new userright, maybe just award them a userbox with a link to the qpq check page so anyone can see that they are legit). To avoid gaming the system, any review that was pulled won't count to the 20. (no other penalty, though, we all make mistakes sometimes)
3. Prep sets should be kept full at all times. Or at least, the combination of preps and queues should always be kept at at least 6 sets. This way, the folks who like to do double-checking have the time to do so BEFORE they hit the main page.
4. The staging area should be created. Might take some tech, but it would make the job of building preps much faster, making it easier for #1 to happen.
5. Here's how I think a staging area could work: The tick that approves hooks should just move those hooks to the staging area, where people like all of the above second-lookers (BlueMoonset, et. al) can review in one place. The turnaround or other appropriate tick could also, via bot, automatically send an article out of the staging area.
6. The staging area would also become the home for the special occasion holding area, making it easier to remember to put up such hooks on time.
7. The turnaround-ticked articles could go to an "additional review needed" area -- perhaps a new page, or just at the bottom of DYK/N, where those who care -- or experienced reviewers -- can easily find them and they can specialize in fixing the problem children. (Maybe even earning a qpq credit that way; I'd do that!)
8. Create a ONEPAGE that is current and merge all the other scattered stuff in there. The unwritten (and hidden-written) rules are daunting to anyone new
9. The penalty for a bad qpq should not be "losing" it, too draconian for new reviewers, and discouraging. The frequent flyers are noticed; we can discuss consequences that don't bite newbies.
10. No "quick fail", but maybe a new rule that a hook that has been under review for more than 30 days and not approved is failed. The disappointed editor does have a second chance at GAN. (The clock doesn't start until a review begins, and if the reviewer abandons the review, the clock can be stopped so a new reviewer can step in.)

Just my thoughts. Sorry to write a book here Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A quick thought that I've repeated a few times, as you note new articles are being created and nominated at a pretty good clip so let's increase the bar for quality before nominations are declared good to go. This will reduce the number of items in the backlog and improve the overall quality of the items being posted in the first instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Special occasion request for August 15

I have been working on another of my true-crime articles related to the anniversary of the event in question: Murder of Janet March. Monday is the 20th anniversary of the day she disappeared and is believed to have been murdered by her husband, so I would like it to run then.

I know this is cutting it close, but the queues for that date have not been put together yet, so I am asking if someone can review it before then. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I just did a review. I like Alt1, but it's up to the promoter. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I've promoted it to Prep 5. Great work, by the way. 97198 (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

• ... that José Alfredo Torres Huitrón is the son of a former mayor of Ecatepec de Morelos, the city he represents in the Chamber of Deputies?

Raymie we need clarification on this hook. Prep 1 is the next to be promoted to queue, so the sooner the better. The article says his father was "municipal president of Ecatepec between 1994 and 1996 and also served as a local deputy." I don't see the word "mayor" anywhere in the article. Can you clarify, or adjust the hook? — Maile (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

For lack of an answer here, I just swapped the Huitrón hook with one in Prep 5, in case Raymie is not online. This gives Raymie another 12 hours to correct that hook before Prep 5 needs to be promoted to queue. — Maile (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that. "Municipal president" (presidente municipal) is the formal title of all mayors in Mexico. In eswiki "presidente municipal" redirects to "alcalde" (mayor), and our article on the term mentions that some English-language sources translate the term as mayor. Raymie (t • c) 02:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: In Mexico, "municipal president" is the formal title of a mayor. They're the same thing. Raymie (t • c) 02:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• ... that just over four months after Pagano made his in-ring debut for AAA, he will main event Triplemanía XXIV, the company's biggest show of the year?

MPJ-DK "he will main event" seems awkward and missing something like "appear in the". I'm not familiar with wresting terminology. Can you clarify? — Maile (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• You could go with "will work the main event" or "appear in the main event" or even "wrestle in the main event" i guess "main eventing" is a little lingo-ish and informal.  MPJ-DK  20:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 11 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 #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) 22:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Bio overload

We have a high proportion of approved bios to other kinds of hooks at the moment—virtually all of the Olympics hooks are bios, and there a large number of Mexican politicians in the mix as well. At the moment, Prep 5 and Prep 6 have only bios, with two Olympic and two Mexican politicians each; this is about as unbalanced as you can get. There are a fair number of bird hooks ready to go, and a few other non-bio hooks as well; Prep 1 has four bios and three other hooks.

I'm going to start moving a few hooks around, and then see about getting a slightly better mix of bios and non-bios. If anyone else can help (give me about 30 minutes to do the initial moves), that would be great. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a crapload of bios I'm about to drop so I'll sit on them in the sandbox for now to alleviate the backup. LavaBaron (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Could promoters also check for tenses in the Olympic bios that are being sent to the main page. I've fixed about a dozen for phrases like "upcoming games" (amongst plenty of other things). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

As someone who mainly focuses of sports biography gnoming, this sort of thing is frequently a problem for sports bios, particularly when it's Olympic sportspeople whose, somewhat understandably, only get attention every 4 years. I'd also keep an particular eye out for similar problems with the 2012 Olympics section of Australian sports bios, but that's speaking from experience.Red Fiona (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

For example, we have Stephen Milne (swimmer) who is currently on the main page, who has won a silver medal for Team GB yet whose article still says he is due to compete in the men's 400 metre and 1500 metre freestyle events, as well as the 4 × 200 metre freestyle relay which I tagged as out of date 24 hours ago before the item was posted. What are you all doing here? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably becaus it is as you say, an overload. When you have an event like the Olympics, editors are streched to maintain the new bio articles made that didn't exist before, and more focus is given to creating articles rather than maintaining them. Not to mention that new articles don't have many watchers or links. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:06, 12 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) 10:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

August 14 hook needs promotion

A reminder that not all special occasion hooks are for the Olympics, and we have a few August ones placed before the Olympics section, so be sure to check everything up through the Olympics section. Right now we have Template:Did you know nominations/Great Turnstile awaiting promotion for August 14; since the London wikimeet starts at 13:00 that day, Prep 3 would be ideal for that purpose. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Andrew Davidson: it is now the lead hook in Prep 3, and if that Prep gets filled and promoted to Queue 3 in time, it should appear on the main page at the exact time on August 14 that the London Wikimeet happens. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Does DYK want to have quirky hooks or not?

The following discussion 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.

---

So, today we had:

... that the British Olympic swimmer Stephen Milne studied in Perth, and trained in Perth?

I reviewed the hook and article in reasonable detail, and found the nomination to be mildly amusing and interesting, as writ. A single whinge at WP:ERRORS from werldwayd followed by a backup from Sca has resulted in a DYK regular Gatoclass folding over one of the fundamentals of DYK, the hooky hook. It turned into:

... that the British Olympic swimmer Stephen Milne studied in Perth, Scotland, and trained in Perth, Australia?'

What a shambles. Millions of people study in location A and train in location B. Point was the gift of Wikipedia's formatting made this somewhat interesting. Does this project have any guidance, i.e. make the last hook of the set a quirky one, to assist with issues like this? The hook was splendid and now is just bland and unappealing. Well done to those involved in reducing it to mindless trivium. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, the change was requested in the section for Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day even though it concerned DYK. I agree that it was a pointless change that degraded the quality of the hook and should be not done or reverted if there is still time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Errr, yes I preferred the original too. What happened there? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass folded, as I noted. I guess the main thrust of my point is that if we decided to dedicate the "quirky" hook as the last one of each set, let's do that and indoctrinate it in the many arcane legislations that govern DYK. That way at least there's some response to this kind of response and lame reaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: There's Supplimental Rule J7: "Consider picking at least one funny or quirky hook if there is one available and putting it in the last (bottom) slot of the update. Just as serious news programs end on an upbeat note to bring viewers back next time, ending on an upbeat or quirky note rounds an update off nicely and encourages readers to come back next time for more." Does that help? Perosnally I always feel that hooks should never be changed just because one person doesn't like it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, we want quirky hooks. That set already has a quirky hook in the final slot, or at least I think someone receiving a gold medal four years after they competed is quirky. I agree that the Perth hook was fine as it was and also quirky (no reason not to have more than one in a set). What happens at ERRORS is the purview of admins and in addition to needed fixes and pulls we've had some suboptimal edits to DYK hooks on the main page that were out of our control. It's unfortunate, but it happens, whether said admin works at DYK or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

If admins (involved or not) just go to change hooks on a whim (which of course they have the power to do), it hardly is indicative to goodwill or trust in those who pariticipated within the making of that hook. If you have something you work hard to make quriky then an admin changes it based on their or anothers personal opinion and not because there is a policy based problem, then it will put more people off. Sometimes it's hit and miss, I know a few (who were not Welsh) didn't like my Sheep shagger hook but thankfully it didn't get changed but I was lucky on that but there should be a clear supplimental rule or guideline stating that hooks that currently run should not be changed unless there is a policy based problem with it or the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of how funny you think "studied in Perth and trained in Perth" is even if wikified to direct to two different "Perths", it is still misleading and pointless. I think the amended version is clear and still remains quite amusing just the same without being cocky. If our aim in DYK is to play mind games on unsuspecting readers, or to make the section a guessing game contest, or a Pokemon Go challenge, be my guest, continue to play practical jokes on them on a daily basis. Me, I'd rather have clarity in our presentations particularly in a DYK context. Having said that, yes, I would have preferred that the original authors of the DYK item were consulted before effecting the change. werldwayd (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Understand the intent, but IMO it didn't work cuz the cognitive dissonance between the two Perths wasn't apparent without further investigation. Sca (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It was neither misleading nor pointless. Perhaps you have no idea how DYK is intended to function. They're called "hooks" for a reason. The resulting "hook" was turgid and utterly boring. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A hook is supposed to arouse the reader's curiosity and entice him to read more. This one didn't work because, as noted, it lacked cognitive dissonance – that is, there was nothing to prompt the reader to say, "Huh?" The attempt to fix it by adding 'Scotland' and 'Australia' didn't work, either, because that gave the game away. Boring in both cases. Sca (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that it was "turgid and boring". It highlighted a curious coincidence - that the subject had a life connection with two different Perths. Not a great hook by any means, but acceptable I think. The original hook, on the other hand, added nothing to the interest angle since it still relied on the same curious fact, it was just coy about which particular "Perths" were being referenced, and that really is an approach likely to test a reader's patience. Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course you disagree. But the fact you didn't get it and then turned something which would make you click on the target to work out what the hell the hook was on about into a completely dull hook which would just get people going meh is problematic. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, I "got it" quite readily - I just didn't much care for it. But I must say I am surprised to now find you endorsing the principle of clickbait. Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Bingo, you "didn't much care for it". So you implemented your personal preference to create a hook which sucked after at least four or maybe even five people had reviewed and accepted it. Bad form. We will need to ensure this kind of personal editorialising doesn't happen again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I see, so now the guy who never tires of lecturing others about how flawed and unreliable DYK quality control is suddenly considers the process inviolable? No, sorry, but it's every bit as error prone as it was yesterday or the day before and you know it. For the record, just one person reviewed the hook before it got promoted. And I didn't follow my "personal preference" here - I don't give a damn about the hook one way or another - I saw two people complain about the hook, agreed their complaints were valid and acted accordingly. That is called consensus and is how things are supposed to work around here. The only revelation to be had from this thread thus far is just how attached a certain other user is to getting his own way when he has a "personal preference" for something. Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. You abused the process and your tools. You made the hook match what you wanted it to be. You should take a bit of time off to reflect on your poor decision making. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I had no idea this –was supposed to be a "quirky" hook because when I changed it it was the second hook in the set. Secondly, two users complained about this hook before I changed it, so it was by no means a "unilateral" change. Thirdly, if this was supposed to be a quirky hook, it was a poor example in any case IMO, because rather than reading as an odd event, it just looked on the face of it like a bad piece of copyediting. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If you had no idea this was intended to be quirky, perhaps you shouldn't be editing hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You said the main thrust of my point is that if we decided to dedicate the "quirky" hook as the last one of each set, let's do that so I was responding to that by pointing out that this hook was not actually in the last spot, which is the spot traditionally reserved for "quirky" hooks. Other than that, of course I became aware when I opened the edit page that the writer had intentionally phrased it that way in an attempt to make it quirkier, but found myself in agreement with the two complainants that the attempted quirk didn't work, and in that respect I concur with the comments about it made by Werldwayd and Sca above. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it would be good practice if tweaks are suggested when a hook is on the mainpage, that admins first look at the nomination page to see what the intent was. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I usually do that, but in this case, it would not have made any difference. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• This was not an error and so the approved hook should not have been changed. Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process...

  — E. B. White

Andrew Davidson, per the standard rules: A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• That rule refers to the process of editing the preps and queues but, in this case, the hook had reached the main page. As a hook progresses through these review stages, the bar for making such changes should be raised. In any case, my view is that the original author(s) should be consulted throughout as they will tend to have the best understanding of the topic. If you don't consult people to establish consensus then you're going to get complaints like this. Andrew D. (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Andrew, the rule is quite explicit about why original authors are not consulted about every such change - it just isn't practical. And the rule has always been interpreted to mean edits to the main page as well as the queue - it would be pretty silly if you could copyedit something in the queue but not after it reached the main page.

In this case however, none of this is really relevant; this was a change made by WP:CONSENSUS - the project's primary decision-making process. Gatoclass (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Then to those involved, please try not to do it again. It ruined a perfectly good hook which, at worst, could have been moved back and put into another set. Perhaps the promoting admin should be warned to not do this again, as it's obvious that despite there being no error with the hook, errors was used to exercise personal preferences of just a couple of editors, against all those involved in creating, reviewing, promoting and re-reviewing the hook. Shambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No, hooks can't be removed from the main page for re-review and returned another day, unless perhaps they have only been on display a few minutes. If a complaint is made about a hook on the main page, a decision has to be made on the spot about what to do with it, and that's what I did, the fact that you apparently want to endlessly whine about your personal preference being overturned in the process notwithstanding. Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm beginning to see one of the root causes of all the issues here. Maybe you should work harder at reviewing the hooks before they go on the main page to ensure they all match your personal preferences despite being acceptable to many others involved in actually doing the work. Gotcha. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You've never expressed anything but contempt for the DYK quality control process or the competence of the "many others" who work keep the process running, but now suddenly their judgement cannot be questioned when it happens for once to align with yours. Excuse me if I sound cynical. Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand. There's a fundamental difference between quality control and abusing tools to implement personal preferences. It's only your judgement that's flawed. The hooks are there for a while before they get promoted to the main page, stop tinkering with the main page to make it please you. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You mean like this? And this? And this? Yeah, I think I'm beginning to see what you mean. Gatoclass (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they were all excellent edits, thanks for reminding me. And not in the slightest controversial. Unlike your abuse. Now then, I'm spending some time today improving Wikipedia, I suggest you do the same or something else, preferably away from the main page. I'll leave the "last word space" (tm) for you just here: ----> The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I would scuttle off too if I'd just been exposed as a hypocrite and a troll. Maybe you could do everyone a favour this time and stay away. Gatoclass (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, finishing with a personal attack? Nice move "admin"! And no, I'm here to stay, to help remove abusive admins from this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Abusive admins? You could start by looking in a mirror. I've yet to come across a more qualified candidate. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Try re-reading the thread. Your change was almost universally unacceptable, both in action and in result. Those of my edits that you linked to were not. It would be much easier if you just admitted that you made a mistake, and apologised for the personal attack. You really shouldn't go about making personal attacks, no matter how upset and angry you are about being called out, you should know that by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks - you mean like this, or this, or this? I don't recall ever receiving an apology for those. So yet again, a case of you demanding standards of others from which you exempt yourself.

I logged on today with the intention of making a positive contribution to DYK, but instead have been distracted once again by a barrage of spurious and hypocritical charges from your quarter. At this point, I feel you've had more than enough of my attention for one day, indeed for any day. Next time you decide to amuse yourself by hurling assorted slanders in my direction, don't be surprised to find your supposed concerns ignored. Gatoclass (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Good. You were lying. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And you are still trolling. Simple as that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And you are racking up those personal attacks while I try to get the discussion back on-topic. What a surprise. Hopefully someone will cap this pointless diatribe in short order. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Good old 'Rambler. Always trying to "get the discussion back on-topic". ROFLOL. Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep digging. Shame you didn't read what all the other contributors had written about your actions. Now can someone close this meaningless nonsense? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I did read what they said. Some thought the original hook better, some did not. Some queried the established process. None but you have continued to hurl hysterical charges, for two days running now, of "abusing tools", "personal editorializing", flawed judgement and goodness knows what else - charges all the more remarkable given that you yourself have done exactly the same things you accuse me of, and "worse" (by your own standards), as evidenced by the diffs I provided above - and all over a molehill of a tweak that you continue to strive mightily to conjure into a mountain. I have always been mystified by your totally unwarranted hostility toward me, but I think your temperamental unfitness for the extra bit is more evident with every successive post here. I think you are the one who needs to stop digging. Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you still digging? Your actions have been seriously questioned here, by several different individuals. You need to look in the mirror yourself. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that you take the commentary on each other to your user talk pages? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 14 August 2016 (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.

Back on topic

Yes, back to the topic at hand. Should the "quirky hook" be indoctrinated into the already-lengthy rule set? I.e. that the last hook of a set can be "quirkier" than the others, which should be encyclopedic in tone? Then, hopefully, this kind of confusion can be avoided henceforth. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Not if it would be seen as mandating a quirky hook. Quirkiness, like humor, is best left to serendipity. Sca (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the wording would be clear enough to state that while not mandatory, if a quirky hook is to be posted, it should be the last in the set. Any competent admin will be able to handle that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

See J7. Gatoclass (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

So how does one pick at least one funny or quirky hook and put them in the last (bottom) slot of the update? There's only one bottom slot. Looks like two quirky hooks was just fine per the supplemental rules. And looks like the supplemental rules need work to cater for where to place the second (or third etc) of the "at least one" quirky hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The idea is that a set can have more than one funny or quirky hook, but that one - probably the best one - should go in the bottom slot. Granted, the clause needs a copyedit, but the point is that the guideline you requested already exists. Gatoclass (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It needs work and it needs expanding to enable the quirky clause to go unaffected rather than be de-quirked, especially if reasonable discussion has been held at the nomination page, that the hook was accepted by a reviewer, promoted by a promoter and moved to the queue by an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I gave it a tweak already to correct the identified flaw. I don't believe we need an addendum prohibiting "de-quirk"ing, that would be instruction creep. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. Some advice to admins who are just about to "de-quirk" a hook because they just don't get it to go and read the nomination would be helpful, it seems abundantly clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

More gratuitous snark. You just can't help yourself, can you?

If you read the supplementary rules intro, it says the rules "describe consensus that has been reached among the DYK community through previous discussions of issues that have come up repeatedly". We don't add rules to proscribe rare or isolated events, or cater to the whims of an isolated individual - if we did that, the supplementary rules would be book-length by now.

Now that you mention it, however, I agree there is a case to be made for recommending reading of the nomination before any substantial changes are made to a hook, or before a hook is removed, because it can help inform the decision. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

If the cap fits. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC) My mistake. I thought this was the getting "back on topic" thread. But I guess you just meant your favourite topic. Gatoclass (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC) You're probably right, admin abuse of tools should be taken to ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC) So it should, if you ever manage to find some. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Don't worry about that!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC) I knew I could rely on you. Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, having read some of those supplemental rules, I'd suggest a wholesale reworking. How the bejesus do J5 and J7 work synchronously, for instance? Looks like a lumbering arcane giant needs streamlining. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction between J5 and J7. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that explains a lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Former featured articles

Eligibility criteria 1e) states

Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. (Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.)

We have a nomination which wants to count the former featured article Richard Feynman as a double even though this was featured on the main page in 2004. Being featured on the main page seems to be ample exposure and it doesn't seem right for an article to go around for a second time. I suppose that the exact wording of the criterion was written before GAs were added to DYK. What now? Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note also that is not the first time that the article has been classed as GA. Should there be a once-only rule (as with new articles) for new GAs, or should any recent promotion to GA qualify (as with any recent x5 expansion)? EdChem (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The key criterion is that the article has not appeared on DYK before. And there is precedent for an article to run on DYK after its second GA promotion. Trinity (nuclear test) was promoted to GA in December 2005 and delisted in February 2008. It was then restored to GA status in September 2014, and ran on DYK the following month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This applies to new articles too. Tiffany Trump was deleted in 2013 but re-created in 2016, and ran in July as a newly-created article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Likewise London Irish Amateur. I think the number of FAs and former FAs that would be eligable for DYK would be in a very small number so I think we can turn a blind eye to any FA related status for DYK purposes. It's not like they're just waiting to flood DYK like the GAs did. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3

... that in a 1931 Prohibition-era raid on the Clicquot Club of Atlantic City, New Jersey, Federal agents "poured several thousand dollars worth of alleged whiskies and champagnes down a drain"?

Perhaps I'm naive and watching Bugsy Malone too many times has made me misinterpret the Prohibition era, but wasn't it the case that this kind of activity was commonplace, i.e. many clubs were raided and had their booze disposed of? In other words, what makes this hook significantly interesting? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yoninah Yeah, it was pretty much routine. Can you make it something hookier? — Maile (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Also pinging BlueMoonset for a hook idea, in case Yoninah isn't online for a while. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-American who is only somewhat familiar with that aspect of US history, dumping thousands of dollars' worth of material down the drain sounds fairly remarkable, especially when the Great Depression was happening. Hook probably more interesting than the fact, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

And speaking as an American, it was fact not fiction. See Eliot Ness for the short history version. The booze being used during Prohibition was made illegally, often in bath tubs (where the term "bath tub gin" comes from) or other make-shift illegal operations. The whole purpose of the government raids was to find illegal booze, destroy it and the business selling it, and arrest the perpetrators. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

As a non-american and the reviewer, I found it interesting that a load of expensive spirits got dumped by the fuzz. Regardless of if it is a simple fact or not, it is still interesting to someone somwhere as we have proof of that right here and as I have always said "what may be uninteresting to some, could be very interesting to others". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh...then I highly recommend The Untouchables (film), and not just because the talented Sean Connery is in it. Prohibition in America was a very violent period of criminal activity. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

But back to the main issue, this isn't a remarkable claim. You can find dozens of images of hundreds of bottles of booze or barrels of beer being destroyed during the Prohibition era. I was going to suggest "... that the Clicquot Club in Atlantic City was billed as the club that "never closed"?" but it turns out that claim in the lead isn't referenced.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the claim that the Feds removed $20,000 worth of lavish Japanese and Chinese furnishings is far more interesting than the fact that they destroyed the booze. So...

" ... that in a 1931 Prohibition-era raid on the Clicquot Club in Atlantic City, New Jersey, Federal agents "removed $20,000 worth of lavish Japanese and Chinese furnishings"?" The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't quite have the same impact as smashed booze. "Feds confiscate funiture" has a bit less hookyness than "cops throw around expensive alcohol". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the Feds were probably committing a crime. That's what makes it far more hooky. The cops of that era were forever throwing around prohibited booze. It wasn't unusual at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The operations were part of the United States Department of Justice, empowered by the President and the United States Congress. Individuals and business owners in 1931 didn't really have the legal rights as now. You'd have to get a legal scholar for the details, but confiscation of property as evidence involved in a practice in direct violation of Federal law was probably not a crime. Anymore than it is now when the Feds bust a meth lab. — Maile (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, it's posted now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Hi, I'm back online. In reference to the hook, I had 2 reasons for suggesting it: (1) As @The C of E: pointed out, not everyone knows what Prohibition was about. In fact, most readers seem to be under age 50, and are completely unfamiliar with any American history before their time. (2) I liked the quirkiness of "alleged whiskies and champagnes" in the quote from the newspaper. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's somewhat bollocks, most of us know about Prohibition. Perhaps if you're under 20 you don't. I suspect non-Americans know more about American history than Americans know about non-American history. In any case, the newspaper clip is fine, but it's a shame that we didn't take a chance to educate our audience further by letting them know that the Feds confiscated material that wasn't the alcohol they were dedicated to prohibiting. That was, by far, the interesting part of the article. Never mind, dumb it down, make a "philosopher" into a "sorcerer" if you will. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I find myself in reluctant agreement with TRM here. Pouring booze down the drain was a commonplace during Prohibition, so I think the original hook fails the "interest" requirement. On the other hand, the proposed alt hook highlights a fact that is both surprising and informative. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Preps need to be filled

We have two hours before the next scheduled update, and no complete sets to move to queue. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to slow things down a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: I've filled prep 4, but strongly suggest others look it over and edit as they see fit since it's the first prep I've done. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes, thank you for quick action. I see Yoninah is checking out the set and moving some hooks around to make sure we don't have too many of the same type in one set. So, we don't have a full set in Prep 4. Hopefully, Yoninah is taking care of that. I did slightly alter the hook for This Is the Police to match the wording in the article, which does not mention somebody forgetting to push a button. That's one thing to check for when promoting - the hook has to be stated in the article. — Maile (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Prep 4 complete now. Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 14 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 #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) 22:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

The following discussion 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.

---

... that NASA helped The Martian in its development more than most other films?

Am I alone in wondering what this is really trying to say? It kind of anthropomorphises the film, and then there's the drab "more than most other..." claim. It would probably make more sense and be more succinct to just say that ... that NASA helped in the development of The Martian?. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that "more than most" is too weak and weaselly and that this should be cut. I'd make it even shorter. Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

... that NASA helped develop The Martian?

Yep, succinct, says pretty much the same as the initial hook but in half as many words. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the original hook reads a little clunkily, but I think I prefer "helped in the development of" rather than "helped develop". "Developing a film" means something different than "helping in the development of" so I think the latter avoids the potential ambiguity. Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  It's more the removal of the "more than most other films" flimflam than anything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, whatever, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one way or the other. Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody should ever lose sleep over anything on Wikipedia. I'm just trying to drag the project back to its roots, providing interesting and "hooky" hooks. Something anyone working on DYK should be aiming for. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the mission statement. It's so reassuring to hear that from the guy who was threatening only five minutes ago to drag me to ANI. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually I said abuse of admin tools should be discussed at ANI. Do you think you fit that bill all of a sudden? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No I don't - certainly no more than you. But I think you have little to fear from me on that score - I don't lightly resort to the circular firing squad ironically termed "dispute resolution", there are usually more constructive options.

Now If you'll excuse me, I really would like to try and get some work done today. Gatoclass (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Then be my guest. Someone I manage. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2016 (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.

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) 10:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I filled in Prep area 1, this is my first time completing a prep area I would appreciate it if someone more seasoned than me could take a peek at it and see if I messed something up? Otherwise I think it's okay to go.  MPJ-DK  23:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

There is no inline cite for the hook fact for Serial rapist. I left a note on the page creator's talk page in the hope that she'll add a cite and this won't have to be pulled. Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• How about we move it to a later prep then? Or return it to DYK until resolved? That way we don't risk it going front page with an error?  MPJ-DK  00:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm in touch with the page creator. I'm trying to avoid pulling it. Hopefully the inline cite will be added shortly. Yoninah (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Hmm. It looks like I completely missed the inline cite. It was there all the time. Time to go to bed. Yoninah (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

At-a-Glance how-to for new promoters

Below is a very basic how-to on the mechanics of promoting a hook. It's is not meant to be an all-inclusive primer on all the rules of DYK. — Maile (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hook must be stated in the article, and cited inline at the end of the sentence where stated.
• Images must be freely licensed/Fair-use images are not permitted. DYK lead hook images are automatically protected on Commons.
• Select a hook that has passed review.
• Open the prep area you intend to add the hook to.

1) Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.

2) If it's the lead, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.

3) Copy and paste the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom.

4) Save the page.

• In the DYK nomination template

1) Replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage

2) Replace |passed= with |passed=yes

3) Check in Preview mode - if it was done correctly, everything will be against a pale blue background. There should be no stray characters (like }} ) at the top or bottom.

4) Edit summary should indicate which prep area you are moving the hook to.

5) Save

Limit on Conversations and Chit-Chat in Working Areas (Review Space)

Should there be a limitation on commenting on DYK nominations by persons not involved in the reviewing process? One editor currently has 10 active conversations, generally involving WP:WALLOFTEXT posts, in 10 different nominations by 7 different editors, none of which he's actually participating in as a reviewer. In all the cases these are criticisms of the stylistic presentation of the article and generally don't have anything to do with the DYK guidelines, and in every case they've ground the process to a halt as a tête-à-tête appropriate for the article's Talk page plays itself out in review space. I've reviewed the last several weeks of the archives and there hasn't been a single case in which this reviewer has commented on an article in which he's ever ultimately found satisfaction, though in all cases the articles were ultimately promoted over his continued objections.

He seems to have taken upon himself the role of an out-of-control House of Lords - he can't veto promotions but he can stall each one for 90 days before it gets passed anyway in the exact form it was originally proposed. (BTW - the editor in question is not the rogue admin currently on the loose here whom others have been discussing.)

Question: Should (A) active working areas (namely, the review space) be generally limited to reviewers, promoters, and noms, or, (B) should anyone be able to post about anything that strikes their fancy with relation to the nom? LavaBaron (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Restrict Working Areas to Workers with reasonable accommodation if someone has something urgently salient to add. The reviewing process is highly democratized - anyone can review anything - so this restriction is a very light one. If someone has a serious issue with a nom they can simply insert themselves as a reviewer. LavaBaron (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Whatever. LB's mad about Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Trump_plant_theory, and as I mention there, this is exactly why special restrictions have been placed on his DYK work. Beyond that I think I'll just ping Rambling Man, who I'm sure will say what needs to be said, much better than I could say it, about this nonsense idea that the fewest people possible should eyeball any given nom, so that the nominator can more easily get slipshod stuff onto the main page. EEng 03:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose in general and strong oppose in particular.
  
  While we all appreciate LavaBaron's own work and reviews here, this attempted use of WP:BUREAUCRACY to shut down perfectly valid criticism of his nominations (see here, here, and here) is laughable on its face. LavaBaron is avowedly attempting to avoid substantive points on procedural grounds—claiming he only has to address points raised specifically by self-proclaimed reviewers and not any other editors—and that is not acceptable... not least because he has also already attempted to avoid such points by removing reviewers who have improved his articles (here and here) instead of simply addressing their criticism. It'd be nice if an admin could step in to condemn this general WP:LAWYERing and LB could knock it off and simply address the points being raised. If any comments actually are aside the point, the other reviewers will notice and the check will come regardless.
  
  EEng, if anything, deserves some barnstars. The problem here is fighting apathy, not discussion, and he's a careful reader and a general force for good. He may post some jokes amid the reviews, but he is on topic and improves the process (ALTs, commentary, phrasing, adjustments, perspective), which is not simply a matter of checkmarks and rapid, poorly examined turnover. — LlywelynII 03:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)