Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Crisco suggested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbor-treeish break

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

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

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

<rubs hands gleefully> So far we seem to have

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

Can we take it a bit further?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how about:

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

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

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

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

The current wording is as follows:

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

I can probably accept something like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your wish is my command:

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

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

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

Let's take a break while GC thinks about it

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

Should it be made clear that articles with unexpanded headers will be rejected? It said that in the original text, but it's not specifically stated here. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, howzabout "must":

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

EEng (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Prose quality

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

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

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

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

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

Defining the purposes of DYK

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

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

DYK aims to achieve the following five goals:

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

DYK is not:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Sorry to be a wet blanket but

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEng, you can't rewrite history. DYK has always been about new content. [1] is the earliest surviving set of DYK rules that I can find, dating from September 2004, which states: "This section is only for items that have been listed on "NEW PAGES" since the last update of DYK." A 72 hour limit was soon imposed [2], which was eventually lengthened to the current time limit. So in fact DYK is doing now what it has always done for the last decade, and the mission statement simply reflects that. What you're saying amounts to making a fundamental change in the project, which - let's be realistic - isn't going to happen. Prioryman (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Are you denying that there has been a continuous decade-long association between DYK and new content? The very first DYK from April 2004 ([3]) links to the new content page. The very first archived version of a predecessor of this page (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 1) repeatedly talks about new content criteria. There's simply no reasonable doubt that new content was intended to be showcased right from the start. Prioryman (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bravo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More updates please!

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

Bergman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though vividly stated, there was no sarcasm. Her good faith I don't doubt, though if you look at [4] you'll see that the courtesy isn't returned. And if you read back in that same thread, you'll see one of the many reasons I have no hesitation in saying that, more often than not, Orlady's comments in matters of controversy bring serious doubt on her judgment. Don't hold your breath for her answer to my challenge to back up her "understanding" of my earlier comment. EEng (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Still waiting for substantiation from Orlady of the ridiculous thing she said I said. EEng (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

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

Prep 4

"Disturbances"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asia Minor

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

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

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

Homage to Cezanne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{DYKrev}}

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

Hook

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

Article

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

Comments/discussion:

{{DYK review checklist}}

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase

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

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

Rush

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

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

Symptomatic for this problem is a note at the top of Template:Did you know/Queue, which Gatoclass added some months ago and now doesn't want it to be removed again without further discussion.[5] As we have seen time and time again, the problem isn't "overdue updates to the main page" (one new queue every 24 hours would still be acceptable, so we have quite a good margin), but "rushed updates to the queue" to avoid DYKupdatebot and the likes. Removing an instruction that institutionalizes this rush and its accompanying problems is a small step in the right direction, but sadly even this immediately gets reverted. Fram (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

You guys will need to get consensus to remove the note as you did here.[6]. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

As an example, you filled the queue from Prep 3 on 13:23[7]. This prep was filled on 11:11, so just two hours earlier[8]. In those two hours, two hooks were pulled and replaced, most others were adjusted; the prep area finally had been stable for a full 24 minutes before you moved it to the queue. That's rushed in my dictionary. Fram (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More input requested

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

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

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

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

Seriously?

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

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

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

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

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

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hook removed from main page

I removed a hook from the current main page[11]. The hook was sourced to a website in the article, but the current research seem to contradict that information.

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

This 2012 handbook on all cuckoos states that "both parents carry out nesting duties, but perhaps more by male". The website used to reference the original hook gave as its own reference "", but the copy I found online for this bird[12] does not include the "male only" information. Fram (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hook not removed from main page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do realize, do you not, that the real meaning of this use of escape is something way different, no? EEng (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

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

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

Now in Queue 4:

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

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

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

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

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

Don't forget to put the key under your pillow this time. [13]. EEng (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC) (broom, mop, whatever!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queue 4 nonsense

I have to run out, but someone please look at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great minds think alike

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

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

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

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

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

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

What is pictured

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

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

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

I don't think in absentia is needed at all. However, there is a problem with that hook because there is no citation in the article to say that Gauguin is represented by the Cézanne he had once owned; the only source that mentions his representation [14] in the painting says he is represented ("evoked") by works of his own that appear in the painting. Belle (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

The additional citations do not explicitly state that Gauguin is represented by the portrait he used to own; they mention that he used to own it, the interpretation that he is represented by it is a leap in the hook. The Musee d'Orsay piece explicitly says he is evoked by his own work in the background of the painting. Belle (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Argh, you're right! When I read the source now, I don't see what I thought I saw when I read it earlier. I don't have a lot of patience for the flowery language of art historians and art critics; I was trying to add footnotes to the sources that the art-minded folks among us were relying on. I suppose the hook could say that both Cezanne and Gauguin are represented in absentia by paintings, including a painting by Cezanne that Gauguin once owned. But please don't take my word for it! BTW, this looks like a good source about this painting (not currently used in the article). --Orlady (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reworded it to something dullish but correct, but it might be better to pull it. Belle (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Apparently (but note my short attention span when it comes to art criticism) the idea is that this is a group portrait in which these men are represented even though they are not present in the flesh. I find the term in absentia very fitting in that context (it seems similar to Trial in absentia or In absentia health care). --Orlady (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but this isn't a context where we would expect the person to be present. We add in absentia to trial and health care because the expectation is that the person would be present in these cases. This use is analogous to saying "In A Beautiful Mind, John Forbes Nash is played in absentia by Russell Crowe". We wouldn't say that because the expectation is that he wouldn't be there. Belle (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A quick question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we might justifiably be concerned about the quality of eleven QPQs done in a short time (by anyone other than you, Gerda, of course). EEng (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but this may have been regarding non-self noms. Thanks, Matty.007 10:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Ya know, that gives me an idea. A lot of the ego and preening at DYK might be eliminated if self-noms were abolished. Let actually interesting facts, from articles of any age, be nominated for DYK by editors not involved in those articles, and stop this charade of putting lipstick on new-article pigs. EEng (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

[15] goes very nicely with a tiny bottle of Lea and Perrin's, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Now quite overdue; admin needed to check and promote set to the queue so the bot can pick it up for the main page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

We're low on reviewed hooks right now: only 15 of 188 are approved for promotion, and no queues and only one prep set are filled—we can barely fill another two preps.

As most of the last list has been reviewed, I've compiled a new set of 39 older nominations that need reviewing. Thanks to everyone who reviews.

• May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/One Million Plan
• May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Video gaming in Bangladesh
• June 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Welcome Rotonda
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Allan Kournikova (two articles)
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Cushing
• June 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Francis Hill Coley
• June 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Principality of Nitra
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/John V. Farwell & Co. (two articles)
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Frank J. G. Cunningham
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/John Johnstone (East India Company)
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Sri Temasek
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Adrian P. Thomas, Scenes of a Crime (two articles)
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Su Rong
• June 21: Template:Did you know nominations/John W. Hair
• June 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Ilie Moscovici
• June 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Make U Bounce
• June 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Bangladeshi nationalism
• June 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Big Smo; Kuntry Livin' (two articles)
• June 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Bahrain–United Kingdom relations
• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Fenix Rage
• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Reserve Police Battalion 101
• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/John N. Cole
• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Jalen Brunson
• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Leaning Tower of Toruń
• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Fanny Bullock Workman
• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/The Night We Called It a Day
• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Botticelli (politician)
• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Trijata
• June 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Khar Bii
• June 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Hope in Front of Me
• June 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Forever After
• June 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Devasena
• June 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Crusis Women's Choir
• June 26: Template:Did you know nominations/The Boat Race 1997
• June 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Aaron Carapella
• June 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Zaccheus Mason
• June 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Bear's grease
• June 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Lebih Indah
• June 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Paratropis tuxtlensis
• June 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Woodworth Personal Data Sheet
• June 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Sisitsky

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done But preps are empty again. Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

FOR GOD'S SAKE MAKE IT STOP! EEng (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead hook, prep 1

Preparation area 1 has "... that no one knows who created "The Lord in Heaven" as the lead hook. First of all, that image is not used as an image in itself in the Ko e Iki he Lagi article. That flag is embedded in Template:NIU, which is inserted in that infobox. Secondly, the article is about a song which happens to be the national anthem of a country. I'm not even sure why the flag image should be the lead hook for a song, even if the image were in the article. This article is a small section on the history of the song, with the rest of it being the song's lyrics. WP seems to see lyrics as quotations Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. For whatever reason, the song lyrics are included as "readable prose" with a DYK check, but there is no sourcing in the sections for the lyrics. Courtesy pinging nominator The C of E. — Maile (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're concerned, remove the hook from the prep set and reopen the nom page. There's no reason for every hook issue to be discussed here just because it's already gone to prep. If after discussion on the nom page there's still a broader issue, then the matter can be raised here. EEng (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Admin needed to examine and promote Prep 3 to the queue; this is now a few hours overdue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

In Prep 3 right now...

...the word millionaire appears to be misspelled. EEng (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for wasting my time just now. I was wondering why you didn't just fix it yourself; I'll know better next time. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you weren't amused. It was a calculated risk. (BTW it's in Prep 2 now, for any not in a dyspeptic mood who want to look.) EEng (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK from the other day now up for deletion

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice coincidence!

I see that we have an Argentine and a German hook on the main page right now. Was that planned for the World Cup final or just coincidence? Nathan121212 (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We have two German hooks ;) - Weib, was weinest du was no comment to a game, but part of our successful concert. Was it planned that they stay extra long? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Passed DYKs

Hi, EEng added Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count to the DYK nom page, but personally I can't see much benefit. I presume it's for prep builders, but on the nom page it looks crowded and messy (to me at least). You can read which hooks are passed on the prep page, then click on the date in the table of contents on the nom page, it's meant to be simple for new editors, and this isn't really helping them as much as saving only a few minutes. Thanks, Matty.007 15:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that this template doesn't belong on the noms page. Not only does it slow the loading of a page that can be very unwieldy anyway, but it distracts from the TOC, which includes the same links, plus links to important sections (including instructions for submitting a nomination and the holding area for hooks with special date requests) that page visitors need to be able find easily. The template was added to noms page once in the past, but was removed after discussion on this page about the issues that its inclusion created. Rather than having that same discussion all over again, I undid the edits.

I expect we may hear that the template was added to the noms page because of something I said. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't take credit for this good idea, Orlady.
• I've restored it so people can see what it looks like while we discuss.
• Personally, in promoting hooks to preps I find this has made things much easier, as it allows one to zoom in immediately on a date with at least one GTG hook. Since often the first, second, and third GTG hooks one sees aren't usable (has / doesn't have an image, messes up the balance, it's your own hook so hands off) it's much more convenient to hit the browser's BACK button to jump back to the scoreboard and move to the next date with an approved hook, than to jump to another page showing the scoreboard, note the date, jump back to the nom page, find the date in the TOC, realize that you kind of forgot which date it was, go back to the page with the scoreboard, realize that you forgot which date was even the date you already looked at but the approved hook there was a US hook and you don't want a US hook, get up and have some coffee to stimulate your brain...
• The argument that the scoreboard adds to page load times is typical nonsense from people used to opining on things they know nothing about. Parser profiling of the hook count alone gives CPU and real time of about 0.15 seconds, compared to 12-15 seconds for the actual full page.
• There's nothing wrong with leaving it this way for a week to see how people like it. If those who build preps don't feel it's useful after a while, then of course we can remove it.

EEng (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The only issue with restoring it is that it is against Bold Revert Discuss (but that's nothing major). The thing is, the nom page is for the nominators, the prep page for the prep builders. Mixing the two will invariably confuse the people nominating and building preps, nominators now go onto the page, there's ~3 screenworths of irrelevant information, this for the tens/hundreds of nominators we get a day. What's wrong with prep builders having two tabs, one on the table the other on the noms page? This benefits 10 people maximum, and is detrimental to many times that. Thanks, Matty.007 20:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I placed the scoreboard and the TOC side by side so this doesn't add to the # screens/ amount of scrolling. As for BRD, this isn't disputed article text being discussed for potential additional to an article; it's a layout change to a project page, and the best way for people to see what it looks like is for them to see what it looks like. Again, why not just leave it a week and see how it feels? EEng (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

BRD isn't just for articles. If you want to nominate an article, you have to scroll past several screenfuls (still) of irrelevant info, newbies will not have a clue what it is or what it's for, and "Did you know ... that in the "List of DYK Hooks by Date" you can click on the date in the left column to be taken directly to that section of noms?" is what the table of contents is for. And it still only benefits a minority. Thanks, Matty.007 10:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Didn't we pull it from T:TDYK partially because it was forcing the page to reload before taking readers to the correct section? I'm still having that problem, and on my connection I really don't want to accidentally force that page to load again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Previous discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not this was true at the time of that discussion, as of now the date links in the scoreboard are identical to the corresponding links in the TOC, so they must behave identically. My guess is that there are certain ways to get to the giant nom page via a url different from the url in the TOC/scoreboard links, so when you subsequently click on one of those links the browser doesn't recognize it as being the page it already has, and thus the reload. EEng (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• They were the same then too. Read jcgoble3's comments there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I made a demonstration edit to the template fixing it (immediately overwritten by the bot) and then posted on Shubinator's talk page requesting that he/she update the bot to incorporate that fix. jcgoble3 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've made the corresponding tweaks to the bot, should be good now. Thanks for providing the example code. Shubinator (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Shubinator, that works great. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've made a prep set but have to go out now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done I promoted it to the queue, thanks once again Crisco. Gatoclass (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Admin needed: this is badly overdue. Two preps are waiting for promotion at the moment... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Overdues are not that critical ATM however, as we are now down under 200 nominations. Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP in Prep 1

While I have no end of contempt for this kind of pretentious bullshit masquerading as art, I am concerned about the Milo Moiré hook now in prep 1. While I have no doubt that the quoted condemnation is genuine, I am guessing that (sorry to say) there's also commentary that's positive, and I'm not sure it's appropriate to highlight one point of view. It might be a more fun hook anyway to contrast opposing view e.g. "... the Hamburger Topping called X's work 'groundbreaking and boundary-challenging' while the Frankfurter Sauce called her 'absurdist and ridiculous'" or whatever. EEng (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I find myself agreeing with EEng. We've got DYK Rule number 4, point 1, which is also agrees with this view. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• As the author of the hook, I can see the 4.1 issue. I recall thinking that even though it was a BLP, this particular subject would be unlikely to object. Alas, I can find nothing particularly positive from any WP:RS critic. How about adding something along the lines of "... and "makes Lady Gaga's 'vomit artist' look tame". Edwardx (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pulled from prep and nom reopened. EEng (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing and ALTs

I thought I'd try something new. We quite often have reviewers carrying out a full review but not signing the nomination off because they've suggested an ALT hook. Then, for various reasons, the review lies around ignored for ages. Since the prep builders get to pick the hooks and normally change them anyway, and the hooks usually get another going over in the preps, I've decided I'm going start passing the nominations even if I suggest an ALT (provided it would pass anyway of course, I haven't gone completely off the rails). The prep builder can then choose whichever hook they think is hookier, and if anybody else wants to object to my ALT hook in the meantime they still can (though it seems unlikely you'd want to get in an argument with the 2010 Southern Area Chinese Burn Champion; that's not a real championship, though if it was I bet I'd win). This should push a few more nominations up to "ready to promote" status.

This has been a public service announcement by Belle's Reviews (est. 1980) "The cheapest reviews at the tastiest prices. Or the other way round" Belle (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think that's how it was when I first started at DYK in 2011. The "If you suggest an alt you shouldn't review" unwritten rule seems to have started in late 2012 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  Ok, I thought I'd try something old...Belle (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)