Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 387: Line 387:
== Terrible DYK on main page right now ==
== Terrible DYK on main page right now ==


.. that Wan Laisheng's teachings on martial arts pre-dated Bruce Lee's by about 50 years? While not technically incorrect, this is a very poor DYK. The detail has nothing really to do with the topic. The only reason Bruce Lee is mentioned in the article is because he happens to be famous; it's totally attenuated from the topic, it's not "about" the individual, and the fact is actually not even directly mentioned in the article but is just an implicit observation from itsa text. Moreover, the detail of fifty years cold have been any other range of time, because this is a petty randow detail. It's not as if these are two terminal ends of some period measured from the first to the most recent iteration. It's just a rather weird detail that raises only ''because' the article decided to mention Bruce Lee, probably because he is very famous as a martial artist. Indeed, the detail abut his "teachings" would imply that he was a renowned teacher or martial arts when he was not (as opposed to the article's subject). He was a renowned movie star. Bad all around.--[[Special:Contributions/108.14.111.128|108.14.111.128]] ([[User talk:108.14.111.128|talk]]) 18:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
.. that Wan Laisheng's teachings on martial arts pre-dated Bruce Lee's by about 50 years? While not technically incorrect, this is a very poor DYK. The detail has nothing really to do with the topic. The only reason Bruce Lee is mentioned in the article is because he happens to be famous; it's totally attenuated from the topic, it's not "about" the individual, and the fact is actually not even directly mentioned in the article but is just an implicit observation from itsa text. Moreover, the detail of fifty years cold have been any other range of time, because this is a petty randow detail. It's not as if these are two terminal ends of some period measured from the first to the most recent iteration. It's just a rather weird detail that raises only ''because'' the article decided to mention Bruce Lee, probably because he is very famous as a martial artist. Indeed, the detail abut his "teachings" would imply that he was a renowned teacher or martial arts when he was not (as opposed to the article's subject). He was a renowned movie star. Bad all around.--[[Special:Contributions/108.14.111.128|108.14.111.128]] ([[User talk:108.14.111.128|talk]]) 18:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:29, 13 October 2014

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut


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.

Increase to 3 sets a day?

The backlog is now over 300 noms with 54 hook approved, and there is no backlog in the queue. I say it's time to increase the number of sets per day to 3, as 300+ noms has typically been the point when an increase would be made. Thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth posted something similar here a couple of days ago in Hook accumulation. It probably is about time, especially with the final push for the Wikicup underway, and the normal post–Labor day increase in nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to look into this, and although there hasn't been much discussion I agree with Blue and Bloom. Just don't recall where the bot's adjustment page is... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The critical figure is the number approved, not the number of noms. I agree that 300+ is excessive, but experience has shown that 54 hooks is only enough to fill two prep areas! There is no way that we can sustain three per days with that approval rate! Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 54 approved = 2 prep areas? Do you mean 2 sets? 54/6 = 9, so assuming some duds there should still be at least 7 or 8. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Haven't we been putting 7 hooks in a set? 54/7<8. I think we should wait a little while before going to 3 sets per day. We will likely end up going to 3 sets for a while and soon find ourselves unable to fill prep sets far enough in advance to put them into the queue before the bot is telling us the queues are empty. It is annoying seeing the page run sporadically. Let's wait until the backlog is larger so we can keep on our schedule.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's been 7 hooks per set, but that can easily be reduced to 6. And with a backlog of over 300 (now 335 to be specific), I don't see why anyone should be advocating waiting longer to increase to 3 sets a day, especially when there are 71 approved hooks already. That's enough to build 10 sets of 7 hooks each. At the rate we're going at, it'll take 5 days for that to be used up (not to mention the additional approvals that would take place within those 5 days). Rule of thumb has always been – reduce to 2 sets when under 200 noms; increase to 3 sets when over 300. The time for an increase is now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of noms should not determine the throughrate, as Hawkeye explains, so if that ever was a rule of thumb it shouldn't be. I too think that 2 sets a day remains an appropriate rate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have me, Crisco, Bloom and BlueMoonset for increase to 3, and Tony, Hawkeye and Nikkimaria preferring to stay at 2 for the time being. Much as I'd love to tweak, I think it might be prudent until a couple more opinions have weighed in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, your vote counting is irrelevant to the current situation. Hawkeye didn't actually specify whether there should be 2 or 3 sets a day, and stated his concern when there were only 54 approved hooks. There are now 62 of them, not to mention the fact that all four prep areas have now been filled. That, along with the 3 queues, covers at least the next 3.5 days, if not more. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is pretty clear that Hawkeye7 said 3 per day was too much. I don't think WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is relevant here. We are trying to determine a collective consensus on what to do and there is certainly not a consensus to move to 2. It really would be no more helpful for me to bluelink CONSENSUS that it is for you to bluelink NOTDEMOCRACY. There is just not a consensus to go to 3 right now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Hawkeye: The critical figure is the number approved, not the number of noms. I agree that 300+ is excessive, but experience has shown that 54 hooks is only enough to fill two prep areas! There is no way that we can sustain three per days with that approval rate! Unless I'm blind, nowhere in that statement does Hawkeye say he's in favour of staying at 2 sets a day or that he's opposed to three sets a day. Taking his quote within the context it was given, he says we can't sustain 3 sets a day "with that approval rate". Since then, the number of approved hooks has increased to 64 (and would've now been over 80 approved had not all 4 prep areas been filled today). That's an increase of more than an entire set. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your claim that NOTDEMOCRACY is not relevant is simply inaccurate, since the way you derived "consensus" is by counting votes. You previously stated, That still only makes 5 ayes and 4 nays (with TRM below).) If that's not vote counting, then what is? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the delay? I still see hooks being pulled here and there at the same pace they were back when there were 3 sets a day. Hence, the claim correlating slow pace with quality control is iffy at best… —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't talking about solely the main page. If you haven't noticed, there's been threads like "Queue1 problems" and "Pulled Perce Wilson from Queue5". The end result is exactly the same – inferior noms by inexperienced users. Slowing down the entire DYK process with slogans like "No need to rush" repeated ad nauseum is like putting a band aid on a bullet wound. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If hooks get pulled prior to main page …" – they shouldn't have to pulled at all. The fact that they are even promoted to the prep areas and then to the queues in the first place is the real problem. Insisting on 12 hour cycles is merely a temporary solution to a much bigger problem (another band aid on a bullet wound). We all know you want to completely overhaul the DYK system. That's fine. But repeating your opinion ad nauseum each time doesn't make it an iota more correct. Create an RFC instead and we can start some meaningful, constructive reforms from there. And BlueMoonset confirmed what I had been suspecting all along – 3 sets a day is indeed the norm. So why don't we go back to 3 sets and see how it pans out? We can always change back to two when we run low on hooks or when there's an increase in the number of pulled hooks. For someone who staunchly advocates necessary change, it's hard to comprehend how you can simultaneously be so resistant to it, especially when this change here to 3 sets has become very much necessary. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think two a day is appropriate too. No need to rush, and the quality is increasing slowly but surely as more people have time to visit the queues before they get to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our purpose here is to choose a rate of consumption (hooks per day moved to main page) and a nominal number of noms approved-but-not-yet-run-on-MP (including those in prep or Q -- let's call this the approved reserve) -- matched such that, while the approved reserve will always fluctuate, the probability of its reaching zero on any given day is very small.
  • Right now we've got 340 noms on the board, 80 in "approved reserve". For this discussion only the 80 has any significance. (If anything the 260 "excess" tells us large numbers of noms are stalled for unknown lengths of time.)
  • A sample of 28 hooks promoted in the last week suggests that the average time from nomination to approval is (believe it or not) about 19 days, with a standard deviation ("give or take") of about the same amount. (Those who can remember their elementary statistics without painful PTSD relapses should take a moment to think about what that last bit implies.)
  • Here's the complete data (days from nomination to final tick) -- it's a highly variable process: 0,0,1,2,2,3,3,3,5,5,6,4,7,10,11,20,22,23,26,31,33,32,35,38,44,41,56,62
  • How to translate this data into the right rate of consumption, approved reserve, etc. (not to mention what we consider an acceptable probability of running dry on any given day) is complex. However, if we move to consumption of 3*7=21 hooks per day, then the current reserve of 80 is only 4 days' worth. From the data, only about 25% of hooks are approved in 4 days or less. Combining this with the recent nomination rate of about 9 per day means that....
  • Wait a minute.... The rate of nominations (9 per day) over the last month has been insufficient to sustain even 2*7=14 promotions per day, much less 3*7=21 promotions per day. That alone tells us that we shouldn't go to 3 sets per day, and that even 2 sets per day may be risky.
  • I'll complete the above lecture when 30 days of nominations rises to the 21 needed to sustain 3 sets per day. Until then 2 sets per day is the absolute max unless we want to find ourselves running out sometime in the next few weeks. Then that stupid DYKbot starts bugging us, and then my violent fantasies of bot-o-cide begin to return, and...

[My own idiotic comments struck -- see below. Lecture to resume presently...]

EEng (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • EEng, your figure of 9 nominations per day is about half what it should be. Since the beginning of August, there have only been 7 days where the nominations have gone below 14 per day, and 6 have exceeded 21 per day. (Note that I'm not counting the days that are still filling under Current nominations, but even there only the two most recent days are below 9.) If you're basing your count on the List of DYK Hooks by date, that table doesn't count already promoted or rejected nominations, so it's useless for determining the rate of nominations.
  • In fact, the average rate of nominations in August was 17 per day. At a promotion rate of 14 per day, the number of waiting nominations will increase, as indeed it has been doing. For the first seven days of September (and the September 7 total of 18 nominations can still increase over the next six hours), the average is currently 18.85 nominations per day. If we stay at 14 promotions per day, our backlog will continue to increase, and it's enormously high already. If we increase to 18 or 21 per day (in three sets), then our unprecedented backlog will start to decrease. We can always back down to 14 per day later if we start running out of approved hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to grab this trout by the tail and give EEng a quick whack!
Arggh! I'm an idiot! I did exactly the stupid thing BMS guesses above that I did. Please, I beg everyone, help me expiate my sin! Whack me with the trout provided at right.
BMS, where did you get the full noms-per-day figures? Are they hidden somewhere? Also, can you give separate figures for (still in review vs. approved vs. rejected)?
I'll resume the above lecture after my ego has recovered somewhat (though the conclusion remains that 2 sets/day is the maximum prudent rate of consumption -- I'll just have to use some ∑s and δs and ∫s and stuff). EEng (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I used the brute-force method for nominations: took T:TDYK into the editor and counted the number of templates per day. A bit of a pain, but it works...so long as someone hasn't decided to clean out the promoted/rejected ones in order to reduce the loading time of the page. (This was last done on July 27, so it wasn't an issue for August or September.) I did have to go back into the page history to check August 2, which had been deleted entirely since all its hooks had been promoted/rejected, but that was an easy diff. Unfortunately, I can't give separate figures for the still in review vs. approved vs. rejected, and the one problem with the brute force method is that it doesn't know about special occasion hooks that were removed from their original date. There aren't a lot of them, so they wouldn't have significantly changed my numbers. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up one point BMS makes: the number 300 has absolutely nothing to do with this. That large number means only that there are a lot of noms stuck awaiting approval, but the only thing to do about that is crack the whip on reviews. Unless and until those noms end up in the "approved reserve" (as I call it), this has zero to do with the appropriate "consumption rate" (as, again, I have called it). [Lecture resumes]

  • BMS' nomination figures clarify things marvelously. His number of 17 noms/day includes a few that will end up rejected/withdrawn, but on the other hand it looks like nomination rates have been going up recently, in desperation let's just call it 17 noms arriving per day. That's somewhat more than what's needed to sustain 2 sets of 7 = 14/day, but not enough to sustain 3 sets of 7 = 21/day. So an alternation between 2 sets/day and 3 sets/day is the right strategy. But of course we knew that already.
  • The question, then, is when to trigger the switches back and forth. If we switch to 3/day right now, the approved reserve will start at 4 days, and rapidly become 3, then 2, then 1 -- then suddenly we'll be having an emergency debate on going back to 2/day again. That's no way to run a railroad.
  • Let me suggest two really nice, round numbers which are easy to remember, and safe against the approved reserve running dry -- but not excessively so: 100 and 150. That is:
  • Keep running 2 sets/day until the approved reserve hits 150 or above.
  • At that point switch to 3 sets/day, until the approved reserve hits 100 or below, at which point we go back to 2 sets/day.
  • Notice the trigger points are such that drift from 7 days' reserve up to 11 days' reserve during the 2/day period ("on the way up"), then from 7 days' reserved down to 4 days' reserve during the 3/day period ("on the way down").
  • I know these numbers will seem excessive to the "rushers", but the key number in the above is the minimum 4 days' reserve. I submit that 4 days' reserve is really the least we should want to plan to have ever.
  • This yields a very stable process with changes to the # sets/day only every few months, and we would never, ever run out of hooks. If we can agree on the 100/150 trigger points now (at least provisionally) then we don't have to have a debate every time -- when the approved reserve hits a trigger point, whoever notices that can just change the bot parameter, no questions asked.

Informal tracking of the stats

  • Not to worry, there will be plenty of opposition to a suggestion of 1 set/day with 300+ active nominations. For me, I'd want to see total nominations at fewer than 150 and a single-figure nomination rate before entertaining the extreme suggestion of a single daily set. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BMS, you're a smart guy (or gal -- never did know which). But you keep missing the point. It doesn't matter how many noms are awaiting approval -- all that matters is the size of the approved reserve, because we can't put noms-awaiting-approval on the MP. EEng (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I'm not missing the point. I'm just aware of more variables. We can vary the size of the sets up or down, which allows for fine tuning; if we had (say) 45 approved hooks in the reserve, we could still easily fill two sets a day, since approvals will continue to occur. At the moment, you're one guy (or gal?) with a new theory that's suddenly the be-all and end-all, while there's years of DYK experience that you're apparently unaware of. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of experience can change the fact that we can't post hooks that haven't been approved. That there are many hooks still awaiting approval is no help at all, unless you think that, when you've bounced a check, you can show your bank a lot of IOUs people have given you and they'll tell you everything's square. EEng (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming normal, non–lecture-format debate

  • No need to delay. The whole purpose of a backlog is to build up enough noms so that we don't run out. Unless this wasn't the case before August 2012, having three sets a day has always been the norm since I've been nominating DYKs. Reducing to two sets is only utilized as an emergency measure when we get below 150–200 noms. Now that we're at over 300 noms (and 81 approved), the backlog has clearly served its purpose already. Time to return back to normalcy. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if "normalcy" is posting garbage to the main page and getting dozens of error reports and allowing hooks to be re-written on the fly while contributors sleep. Slow it down. Current is good. Your version of "normal" is simply not good. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I replied earlier above, I still see hooks being pulled here and there at the same pace they were back when there were 3 sets a day. It makes no difference whether it's 2 or 3 sets. The end result is exactly the same – inferior noms by inexperienced users. Hence, your claim correlating slow pace with quality control is iffy at best… —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The numbers do not agree with your observations. Compare the one-month periods between 11 June and 11 July (3 sets/day), versus 19 July and 19 August (2 sets/day), at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Removed: 44 pulls for a month of 3 sets/day, 5 pulls for a month of 2 sets/day. Granted there are likely other factors contributing to this, but it would seem there is in fact a very strong correlation in recent months between higher run rate and higher pull rate. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no point in comparing stats when you skew them to your favour. You conveniently left out April 2014 (which was 3 sets a day and only 13 pulls) and February 2014 (also 3 sets/day with just 14 pulls). And there would be no pulls for a month of 0 sets/day. So the stats you provided are basically meaningless, because it's obvious the more sets run, the more pulls there will be. Correlation does not imply causation. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is of course why I said only that there was a correlation. I chose the stats period from looking at the history of rate changes - selecting a period of one month starting the day after the most recent change to each rate - before looking at the removals list, so your accusations of deliberate skewing are out of line. Please dial it back a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[Y]our accusations of deliberate skewing are out of line" – let's see. You claim that the "numbers do not agree with [my] observations". Then, you choose a one-month period with 3 sets that is a complete anomaly (there's no other way to describe it) to all the other DYK months in 2014. But you don't disclose the two months with 3 sets that do agree with my observations (and rebut the anomalous month example you gave). When I (correctly) call this out as skewing the stats in your favour, you call my accusations "out of line". Reality check – the only thing "out of line" here is your picking and choosing stats that suit your (and TRM's) argument but don't give the full perspective of the actual situation. It presents an incomplete and inaccurate one-sided picture which, if I hadn't probed deeper into these stats, would have misled others to believe that your argument was correct. Clearly that's not the case. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I still see hooks being pulled here and there at the same pace they were back when there were 3 sets a day. It makes no difference whether it's 2 or 3 sets" as a claim is not compatible with "it's obvious the more sets run, the more pulls there will be", nor is it compatible with recent data. If you want to look at larger trends to get the "full perspective of the actual situation", it is indeed obvious that more sets per day equals more pulls, not to mention more late-update warnings. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Bloom6132, I make my observations based on the number of ERRORS and pulls I'm seeing. Subjectively it seems that the quality has increased substantially and that I rarely have to attend to major DYK errors on the main page. This is because there's more time for some of us to wander past the queues because the mad rush to cycle DYKs round has slowed a little. There is absolutely not one single advantage to rushing these to the main page. So you would claim "backlog!", I would suggest this is a good investment in the future of DYK. Keep allowing us time to make sure the quality is on the increase, and continue the education of those reviewers who clearly have something to learn about quality control in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as only a sometime contributor to DYK (I have maybe about 50 or 100 — we temporarily had the record for most hooks in one article at one time — I thought a whole day was good. Running them through just to get them out of the line doesn't do the articles justice in terms of visibility. Who (and how many) is looking at these articles on the midnight shift {{yes, I know we are global)? I daresay that most people don't constantly monitor the main page. I understand the need to move the queue, but that can't be the only consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this were some sort of perfect world, every article would get its own little feature on the main page. It isn't. DYK is set up to give a brief, hopefully memorable mention for a variable number of hours on the main page. It isn't ideal that it can't be a whole day, or even necessarily half a day—I've had some hooks that were up for six hours, when we had to go to four sets a day—but the hook is there and can be seen by anyone who stops at the front page for that period. If we don't "run them through" at the rate they're coming in, then eventually we have 400, 500, or more hooks backed up—300 was a rare event in my experience until very recently. Something has to give if we aren't to have an ever-inflating backlog: either we have to bar the door to newcomers, or increase the flow of hooks going to the main page. Three times a day was the standard when I first started coming here, occasionally varying to two or four times when necessary. We write articles, nominate them for DYK, and take our chances as to when and how long the nomination will be seen. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush. 12 hours for a hook is a fine amount of time as it allows most of the world an opportunity to see it and those who contributed to enjoy the fact they can see it on the main page. The reserved turnover rate also allows queues and prep areas to be patrolled more thoroughly and reduce the errors (and major embarrassments that DYK has provided Wikipedia in the past). Slow and steady, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not meant as an implicit criticism of the administration of DYK. I simply wanted to suggest that there are countervailing considerations, and y'all have to do the best you can to weigh them in the balance. But assuredly there is a balance and a trade off no matter what you do. That's all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the nomination increase is caused in part by the Stub Contest that is running in September, as the rules for stub expansion make every entry eligible for DYK as a 5x expansion (unless they've appeared before), and if the competitors are new or reviewing each other's entries as QPQ the number of unreviewed hooks would go up (I've done extensive research into this by imagining it as a cause; it's a poissin distribution with a standard deviation of a T-test; there, statistic that!). I don't see any reason not to go to three sets a day if the queues and prep areas are kept full, but since it seems that swapping between 2 and 3 sets a day requires days of debate rather than a flick of a switch, it is probably best to stay with two. Belle (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one that may need to be pulled until the facts are straightened out.

I saw a hook in one of the prep areas that says "that upcoming film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon II: The Green Destiny is the first film to be released on Netflix?", but I have already seen 2 of the films on Template:Netflix that were released on Netflix.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: This source says that it is the first feature film to be released on Netflix. Perhaps that is what the hook means to say? --Jakob (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be pulled. The change may even make the hook uninteresting. It needs to be rejudged, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can BlueMoonset look at this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. The sourcing isn't definite that this will be the first feature film released directly to Netflix ("will likely be the first one released"), and when the nomination was approved, the article had three bare urls, which are not allowed for DYK-nominated articles. I think the hook wording is problematic as well, as Tony notes, though I doubt the fix will be uninteresting as Tony posits. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar hooks

In Prep 6

  • ... that despite the upper reaches of the Crooked Run being acidic due to acid rain, the creek is still considered Class A Wild Trout Waters?

In Prep 2

  • ... that despite being infertile and acidic, Little Crooked Run is considered to be Class A Wild Trout Waters?

I don't think it's a good idea to have two so similar hooks only a day apart. Could we at least split them up a bit more, if we don't change one? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the latter hook is not the one that was approved, despite being promoted, I'm going to pull it. (Crooked Run started out with a different hook, but the acid was suggested by the reviewer. Such is luck.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed one from queue (been there, done that)

Yet again, I have removed a hook from the queue for factual errors.

Template:Did you know nominations/Maxwell and Tuke, @Peter I. Vardy, Carabinieri, and HJ Mitchell:. Extra ping for User:7&6=thirteen, your name doesn't seem to work in the "Ping" template!

Nope, it was the fourth-tallest, not the second tallest, both the Mole Antonelliana and Ulm Minster were higher. And of course the Washington Monument, which is perhaps less of a building, but still... We have useful lists for these kinds of things, e.g. List of tallest structures built before the 20th century. I noted that 7&6=thirteen sourced the hook, and proposed it, and that no one actually accepted it before it was promoted by Carabinieri, so at least one step of the review process was missed here.

I note that the incorrect claim seems to be one that is repeated often in the UK, e.g. in GSCE's[1], but that doesn't make it correct of course. Fram (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not check the factual accuracy of the added statements (about the rankings of the building). WP:Truth. Hypothetically, if I had, I would probably have taken the oft-repeated statements from WP:RSs at face value, and they are in the article. I took them at face value. Wile the Washington Monument is a man-made structure, I don't know that I would classify this obelisk as a building. I did bring up the procedural issue of the review process to User:Carabinieri as to the change in the hook, as I thought there might be static.
The original proposed hook is still absolutely reliable namely:
This from the Washington Monument article: "Upon completion, it became the world's tallest structure, a title previously held by the Cologne Cathedral. The monument held this designation until 1889, when the Eiffel Tower was completed in Paris, France." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps when you tried to close it was impeded by someone's comment that went beneath the "Do not write below this line" line. I've moved that. 7&6=thirteen (☎)
I was the one who moved the nomination to PREP. I reviewed the alternative hook suggestion. This source appeared to confirm the fact. Obviously, I wasn't aware of those other buildings. I felt that the original hook wasn't very interesting, because without that additional information it just stated that "architect X designed buildings Y and Z".--Carabinieri (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That "architect X designed one of the most famous buildings in Britain" (or any other country) is quite interesting if you ask me. But that only goes to demonstrate that "interesting" is subjective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it strike anyone as odd that the article body opens, "The Blackpool Tower Company was founded by London based Standard Contract & Debenture Corporation in 1865, when it bought an Aquarium on Central Promenade with the intention of building a replica Eiffel Tower on the site." -- ? EEng (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another hook removed from the queue

Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Lippe @Oceanh, Cwmhiraeth, Carabinieri, and Casliber:

I start to wonder where people get the idea that the quality of DYK has improved and less problems occur. I have now removed from Queue 2

The hook fact is sourced to an 1876 book, which I can't access at first sight. However, more modern scholarship (not Wikipedia, but actual good sources) dispute the 1504 birthdate of Cristóbal de Mondragón (and the corresponding age of 91 at the time of the battle), placing his birth in 1514 instead, or as uncertain 1504/1514. This would make him 18 when he joined the army, not a rather late 28, and 81 when he lead the battle, not the rather extreme 91. Online available sources for the 1514 date include this onethis, thisthisthis... Note that the Spanish Wikipedia also lists his year of birth as uncertain, 1504/1514[2]. Apparently the wrong date of 1504 was corrected to 1514 as early as 1906[3], but over a hundred years later this error is still being retold, and now almost graced the main page of Wikipedia. Please, if you have a hook that is based on a 1876 book and which makes a rather remarkable claim (not impossible, but unlikely nevertheless), go the extra mile and try to find out whether this is still supported in more recent sources. Fram (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I assume good faith when I review articles. In this case the source is not on line and the fact that he was 91 years old at the time, which is repeated in the Wikipedia article about him, is not easily verifiable. What a good thing it is that we have Fram to go that extra mile and show us all up! How dreadful it would be to propagate this (questionable) falsity through DYK (a 12 hour appearance) while leaving the articles concerned unamended for eternity! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It probably isn't easily verifiable because it isn't true? It wasn't too hard to check though... but your sarcasm is noted. No idea why you bring up good faith, that wasn't questioned at all, and I don't think there was any bad faith involved with the creator or nominator. But if by "assuming good faith" you mean "blindly following the article", then you are a) incorrectly using WP:AGF and b) not really fit to review articles for DYK. As for your last sentence: if you can't see that getting something removed from the DYK queue (where it gets a massive amount of views in the 12 hours) is urgent, while correcting the articles is much less urgent, then you need a better perspective. And if you can see it but choose to ignore it for rhetorical purposes, then please cut it out as it only reflects badly on yourself. Fram (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have told me before that I am a bad reviewer. By good faith I mean that the process of bringing this article to GAN and having it reviewed there mean that I can accept its content without having to question it, but I can see I expressed that concept badly. As a matter of interest, do you plan to amend the articles? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've put another hook in Q2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is DYK, not FAC. We simply don't have the resources to give every nominated article that kind of scrutiny, and we rely on volunteers who are more often than not unfamiliar with the subject area. And even if we did have the resources to give every article FAC-level scrutiny, it wouldn't be an effective use of those resources. DYK's purpose is to showcase, for 12 hours, a selection of new content that's of a reasonable quality. Yes of course we should try to ensure that those articles are of sufficient quality and that the hooks are accurate, but it's not reasonable to expect DYK reviewers to know that there are conflicting sources on an issue they known nothing about. While it's commendable to remove (possibly) inaccurate hooks from the queue when discrepancies are uncovered, it is unreasonable to criticise DYK reviewers/pre-builders/administrators for not uncovering it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not asking you to give the article FAC scrutiny. I'm asking people to give the hook, one bloody sentence, FAC scrutiny. If that is too much too ask from you, then don't review or promote articles. If that is too much too ask in general, then just shut down DYK. Please don't use strawman arguments to defend your position though. Fram (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are of course free to propose that DYK be shut down. Liberal use of bold text and dismissing other editors' comments as "strawman arguments" is not going to make your argument stronger. It's my opinion, and one I would wager is shared by many of those involved with the DYK process. Now, in this specific case, the fact was added to an article by an editor who presumably believed it to be accurate; it was nominated for DYK by a second editor, approved by a third, and moved to the prep by a fourth. It sat in prep 6 for nearly 20 hours, where five other people made edits to the set before Cas moved it to the queue. All that scrutiny and it still made it to the queue.... There are two possible explanations for that: 1) that all 10 of those editors are incompetent and should not be allowed near the encyclopaedia lest they trust what appears to be a reliable source, or 2) that we're all human, that we all make mistakes, and that in this particular case the (possible) error was not easily spotted, especially by non-expert volunteers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing in your reply indicates that your original argument (about FA-quality checking of the article wasn't a strawman). Just like your "ten people checked the set" argument is a strawman (or at least a fallacy), since there is no indication that those 10 checked for accuracy or checked all articles, they may have checked for grammatical errors only, or only those topics they take an interest in, or whatever. However, the people I pinged are the ones that explicitly approved the hook. And of course, going from "should be more diligent in checking hooks" to "are incompetent and should not be allowed near the encyclopedia" is also some dubious rhetoric. Anyway, I'm a non-expert volunteer, and I spotted the problem easily. But of course one can't expect such things from people who believe that fact-checking one line is such an impossible task and too much too ask. No wonder so many problematic hooks make in into the queues and probably onto the mainpage as well... Fram (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram, how do you think a layman would have known that this person's date of birth is disputed? I would guess that maybe one in a thousand DYK nominations happens to be reviewed by an expert in the relevant subject matter. For the other 999, this project does not have the resources to find experts to review them. So the laymen reviewing nominations are naturally going to verify the hook based on the given source, not on their own knowledge of the subject or other sources about the subject. Also, at the OP, we're pulling a hook every few days instead of a few hooks a day. I'd call that an increase in quality. --Jakob (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes. In this case, the hook was sourced to a book which looked reliable. The reviewer didn't believe that being 91 years old was impossible, and may not have thought to find other sources or even known where to find any other sources that disagreed with the year of birth, particularly since a GA review should have checked all the sources as good as possible. Antandrus has a nice essay on this, with a similar problem that people get Antonio Vivaldi's birthday wrong due to using bad sources. An expert (or someone knowing more about the subject) spotted the problem, pulled it from the queue, and the error was fixed. So, we've avoided a bad hook and a trip to WP:ERRORS. End of story. Who's for a nice cup of tea and a sit down? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what gives everyone the idea that I'm an expert on the subject. I never heard of the man or the battle before today. Common sense, inbred curiosity, some basic searching skills, and some feeling of responsability for what we showcase on the main page. That's all it takes. Fram (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if you charge in like a bull in a china shop, the odds are less that people will learn those skills off you, rather they'll just get upset or annoyed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TBF, Fram's tried many different approaches, and none of them seem to be working well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fram is absolutely correct here. What we need is an "extraordinary hooks require extraordinary sourcing" line in the DYK rules to address this. The initial hook claim was extraordinary, and it should have been checked further. Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think Fram really deserves the grief he/she is being given. This error was somewhat difficult to catch, since it was backed up by sources that appear reliable. So kudos to Fram for catching it. Clearly, the lesson here is that everyone involved (myself included) needs to be a little more diligent in ascertaining whether hook facts are true. I've been guilty of missing a false fact during a review myself (see above), so I'm definitely not pointing fingers, but I vow to try and do better in the future.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

Can an article that was previously approved in DYK be nominated again in DYK after passing the GA status? Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two appearances on DYK are not allowed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not as the bolded blue article. You can mention it as often as you like if you find a new related fact, look at Template:Did you know nominations/Louisa Venable Kyle, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ancoats Hall, The hook is wrong, please check your facts

Ancoats Hall is/was on the main page, I created it but knew nothing of any nomination here. The hook is wrong. It was not built to house a museum of any sort, it was a replacement residence for the old hall and used as such for many years. Please check your facts, preferably with someone who has actually read the article. J3Mrs (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, thanks. Template:Did you know nominations/Ancoats Hall. @23W, Poritrin, and Hawkeye7:. The article makes it very clear that the hall was demolished and rebuilt, and that it was much later used as an art museum, but indeed doesn't say anything indicating that it was "rebuilt as an art museum". So, after all the hooks that were recently removed from the queue, and my request to have a little bit more quality control (and for which I got quite a backlash from some people here), now we have one that got on the main page. One that wasn't even supported by the article, never mind some sources. Good going... Fram (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there's a bot in the works, designed to notify users when someone else nominates an article which they wrote. I thought it was already operational long ago, but upon looking into it, I see that, although it may be ready, it won't be online until about a month from now. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, some editors have such a low opinion of DYK, they might well delete such bot posts as "rubbish" without bothering to read? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could change the nomination template to require a signature from the nominator. That would notify (via Echo) any other editors whose usernames were linked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, cause obviously the thing that was the major problem here was that the article creator wasn't notified... While it isn't a bad idea to improve such notifications, ignoring the fact that a clearly incorrect hook made it to the mainspace, hot on the heels of different hooks that were pulled rom the queues for similar reasons, is much more harmful to DYK. Fram (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't ignoring it, but my time machine is out of service at the moment, so I can't go back and prevent it from happening, though I will do my best to prevent it from happening again. Now, maybe the reason that you get a "backlash" is not anything to do with DYK, which is run by editors who do their best but are fallible, but because you're an arsehole. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've given you a well-deserved NPA warning for that on your talk page. I don't blame people for being fallible, but for making up excuses in the style of "we can't do a FA quality check on every article" when all that was asked was a better check of hooks. As seen here, and way too often before, this is sorely needed. I'm glad to hear that you'll do your best to prevent this from happening again. That's all any of us can do. Fram (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can do the proverbial with your NPA warning for as long as you insist on berating good-faith but fallible editors while contributing nothing. Your last two sentences seem to imply that you recognise that that approach is unhelpful, so perhaps we can leave it at that and agree to take a more constructive approach in the future? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for confirming that finding errors and preventing them from reaching the main page is "doing nothing" in your book. A great start for the "more constructive approach" you proclaim to want. The only editor I berated was the one that indicated that checking hooks was too much effort. The others I asked nicely to be more diligent. I have no plans to change my approach to this. Fram (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about not waiting for 'bots and just requiring DYK nominators to manually notify article creators? It's not hard: DYK rules already limit qualifying articles to those with a recent, thus obvious, creator or expander(s). There is no good reason why this can't be done, and done from today.
It won't solve the problem of bad hooks, but it would help. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to decrease to one set per day

We're now down to bare bones and it appears we've had a recent upsurge in pisspoor reviews resulting in a number of hooks being removed. I suggest we resort to one DYK update per day (as per TFA, TFL and TFP). I had some hope that the quality was improving, and I still believe it is, but we don't have anywhere near enough hooks in prep or queues to sustain two sets a day for the moment. Sorry WikiCup guys, rushing things through just isn't working. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – "I had some hope that the quality was improving" – that's not what you said a few days ago when you pompously proclaimed that "DYK has stablised nicely with an improved quality of late". Basically, you made one claim in order to get DYK down to two sets a day, and you're now doing a complete 180º and claiming the exact opposite in order to further decrease to one set. Could you please make up your mind and decide which argument you want to stick with? And with regards to your claim about the WikiCup – prove it. You did the same thing in July's Signpost when arguing with J Milburn, and you're doing it here again. Substantiate your claims, show us your evidence or shove it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The one thing I will say right away is, where are all the hooks?! Once again your hysteria is obnoxiously and toxically destroying any logical discussion. I haven't reversed any position at all, I've just noted a sudden "upsurge in pisspoor reviews" (perhaps you hadn't noticed, just look at the previous four or so sections here!). You're making yourself look more and more idiotic by the post, but hey, perhaps that's something you've striving for. You've excelled. (P.S. I didn't argue with Milburn, I stated my position, he, like you, didn't like it. Get over it, the rush for points in contests is clouding several people's judgement!) (P.P.S. As User:EEng asked you, what's this big dog thing you have with rushing hooks through? What's the point of it? What are you trying to achieve? Why are you so freaking angry about it all? I'd suggest it'd do your health some good to just chill out a little...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the quoted statement comes across as a contradiction...because you omitted "and I still believe it is", thereby distorting its meaning. —David Levy 20:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem with DYK is The Rambling Man. No, I don't have any evidence. No, I don't have any arguments. Stop asking me for reasons and evidence. Get over it. I'm just stating my opinion, man. No, of course I'm not being divisive. Just chill out. I'm not arguing with anyone. It's The Rambling Man's Fault. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work Milburn. I never attributed the issues at DYK to any single editor. In fact I just want quality output. That relies on the numerous editors who regularly pass pisspoor quality hooks. I'm not starting the discussion all over again. Your "input" is disappointing, but just as I expected from someone running a competition designed to rush mediocrity to the main page. A pity really, it could be so much better. Similarly your "input" here could have been helpful and effective, but no, it was just childish, cynical and ultimately harmful. DYK is currently dying (once again) and all those screaming for something different are doing absolutely nothing about it. Other than screaming. (As for evidence, see above, pulled hooks a-plenty, as for arguments, see here, reduce the throughput, improve the quality... what, Milburn, are you actually trying to say?) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here and elsewhere, you have asserted, without trying to provide any evidence or argument, that whatever problem you choose to say exists at DYK is the fault of the WikiCup. You have then refused to provide any evidence and argument (and even brushed off the possibility of engaging in reasonable discussion- "I didn't argue with Milburn, I stated my position, he, like you, didn't like it. Get over it"). My point, which, unsurprisingly, you've missed, is that what I said about you is exactly what you say about the WikiCup. When I say it, you respond with BLOCKCAPS and call me all kinds of names. When you say it, others have got to "get over it" and "chill out a little", and our motives are questioned. I really don't care what you have to say about DYK, but your insistence that everything is the WikiCup's fault is bordering on the obsessive. J Milburn (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've actually said that WikiCup makes the situation worse, that's all. We've already agreed that we disagree on this, why you keep trying to restart an argument with me is odd, bordering on an obsession with me. I don't like it, stop doing it or I'll call the Wiki Police. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We haven't agreed anything of the sort. You've asserted, I've pointed out that your assertion is baseless. If you don't want me to keep challenging your baseless assertions, stop bringing it up, especially in such an arrogant way ("Sorry WikiCup guys, rushing things through just isn't working.") J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We haven't agreed that we disagree? Then why are you continually disagreeing with me? You're starting to make no sense at all. I think you need to remove yourself for a while to calm down. Or better still, review some DYK hooks! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't tell me what I have and have not agreed to, and don't tell me what to do. Again, if we disagree, it's because you make baseless assertions and then will say anything to avoid actually backing them up. If you're not going to provide any evidence or argument, stop with the sniping. J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had counselling about this and it seems like you need it too! Just relax and stop denying the sky is blue! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm saying is that you haven't provided any evidence/argument for your claims and that you'll do anything to avoid doing so. Especially given the you're now suggesting that I need counseling rather than actually addressing the issue, I don't think this is particularly controversial. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    J's right – you've just been smokescreening the issue all along, claiming people need to "relax" and "calm down" (as if you know their emotions) and using that as a illogical reason to dismiss their arguments and proof. Meanwhile, you operate with the deluded notion that we need to provide diffs for claims we didn't make, while you can make any false unsubstantiated claim about DYK and the WikiCup without a shred of evidence. It's good that you went for counselling because it is clear that you are in desperate need of it. You've exported this discussion elsewhere to an AFD I started, where you blatantly lied about how an AFD cannot lead to the renaming of the article (Truth: the third sentence of WP:AFD clearly lists it as one of the options). It's quite evident that the discussion here is causing you to personalize this issue and is clouding your judgment elsewhere on completely unrelated matters. For shame! —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does WP:CIVIL apply to the DYK talk page? If so, can we please cut the personal crap and get back to discussing the actual proposal? I'm interested in learning more about both sides of this debate before making up my mind. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps Milburn and Bloom can just talk about the situation rather than snipe at me personally. Right now we have just two complete queues in preparation for the main page, while we've have had at least four hooks pulled in the past few days. Things are not looking up and the suggestion to slow down the queue (despite the personalised sniping) is intended to help keep DYK running. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rambling Man that the quantity and quality of prep-ready hooks is way down. Most of our good reviewers have disappeared. I find myself tagging many nominations that have been approved but that still have issues. I don't know anything about managing the number of daily queues, but I am distressed by the downturn in quantity and quality. Yoninah (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototime: See my comment above beginning "Here and elsewhere". My comment is of exactly the same structure as The Rambling Man's continued, well, rambling, but, as you rightly point out, it's ridiculous. Why, then, do we continue to take him seriously? God only knows. J Milburn (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TRM [J]ust talk about the situation rather than snipe at me personally – we've been talking about the situation all this time; you haven't. You've labelled me "idiotic", called J Milburn "childish, and yet you still try to play the WP:CIVIL card? Hypocrisy at its finest! (P.S. You stated your unsubstantiated position, J asked for proof and you smokescreen'd the issue as usual) —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about. What evidence is required to let you know that if you run out of hooks, you can't update DYK twice a day? That doesn't take a genius, does it? There's no evidence required for that, no smokescreen, and yet you continue to screech and yell and stamp your feet. There are several other editors here who put quality over quantity, it's just that you and Milburn are not among them. That's fine. All part of life's rich tapestry. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make assumptions about me, that's completely unfair. The evidence I want to hear is the evidence for how this is all the WikiCup's fault. If you don't have that evidence, perhaps you'd like to stop the sideswipes? J Milburn (talk)
Diff where I said "this is all WikiCup's fault" please! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only mostly the WikiCup's fault, I'd still like to see evidence. If it's neither all nor mostly the WikiCup's fault, why do you continue to poke fun? You made a snide comment about the WikiCup in your Signpost piece, and you make one here. Why? J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat: Diff where I said "this is all WikiCup's fault" please or pipe down and retract it. (By the way, try a search on WikiCup on this page, you might find a surprise!) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear God. Do you enjoy being this obtuse? I didn't say you said it was all the WikiCup's fault. I said "The evidence I want to hear is the evidence for how this is all the WikiCup's fault." The way you take great pleasure in swiping at the WikiCup suggests that you think the competition is at least partly to blame for whatever problem you feel exists, so perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence of that, retract your comments or just shut the hell up? J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to invoke superpowers! Check out the folks here, gagging to increase the rate so they get more WikiCup points! It's obvious. I don't want you to be embarrassed by the whole thing, if you'd like to take a moment to reflect that's fine! Anyway, quality is down, those involved in WikiCup want the rate in increased. These are simple facts. Whether there's a relationship between them, hey, I'll leave that to the independent observer. In the meantime, please remain calm! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? One person who has commented in this thread is currently participating in the WikiCup, and that person did not once mention increasing the rate, nor mention WikiCup points. I am slightly embarrassed, but that's only because I assumed there was actually something behind your weird statements- I now see that you're just deeply, deeply confused. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remain calm Milburn, seriously. No confusion here! Up the rate for the WikiCup!! Keep the rate low or lower it for quality!! Simple, diametrically opposed views (i.e. we can at least agree that we disagree, as I said earlier!). Simple! Have a great Sunday. (P.S. try reading the "page" not the "thread"! It may help you with your ongoing embarrassment issues!) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TRM's fantasy: current WikiCup participants advocate an increase the rate at DYK to maximize points.
Fact: No one here is calling for an increase. We're voting on your ludicrous plan to reduce DYK to one set a day. I have not used the argument of maximizing points as a reason to increase, nor am I interested in doing so – evident in that I'm hundreds of points out from the top half (and thousands of points out from first) with less than 3 weeks remaining. And I'm the only one from the WikiCup opposed to your plan. Others who oppose – BlueMoonset, The C of E, Daniel Case, Andrew Davidson – are not part of the WikiCup. Consensus has flatly rejected your deluded proposal. Time to move on. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fact, if there are insufficient hooks to go to the main page, the rate should decrease accordingly. If you wish to review more then please do so. It is beyond question that WikiCup participants want an increase in throughput. Check this page and its history. Denying it is simply a demonstration of ICANTHEARYOU. "No one here is calling for an increase"? Just a matter of weeks back it was "about time we went three times a day" or more desperately "why not go from seven hooks to eight?". Short and defective memory. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those in favour of increasing the rate include three of the remaining seven WikiCup finalists. We also have quotes such as: "It probably is about time, especially with the final push for the Wikicup underway" & "(I must admit to a WikiCup-related vested interest here :-) )" (directly with relation to increasing the rate of hooks), and that's just on this single talk page. Those in favour of calming it all down and seeking "quality over quantity" include many long-term editors, none of whom participate in WikiCup. Now then, take that as you find it. I couldn't care less, and I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your contest cronies, but simply put, there's a group who want to push items to the main page as quickly as possible (with no reason why) and there's a group who wish to push items to the main page after a serious amount of consideration and review (to reduce ERRORS and trips to ANI to explain the various offensive and appalling hooks that made it to the main page). I know which group I'd prefer to be part of. And I know that a contest designed to get people to win as many points as possible no matter what will always result in a shortfall in quality. If you need that to be explained, perhaps you shouldn't be running the contest. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: at the moment, there are enough approved hooks to fill all the remaining prep slots, which would in turn cover the next three days. There's no need to change the frequency just now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when (if) the approved reserve (sum of the hooks in Q, in prep, and in the "verified" column of the scoreboard) drops below 50 (we're at 54 now). I continue to champion the following very simply protocol:
  • Below 50 hooks: 1 set per day, until the # hooks climbs back to 100, when we return to 2 sets/day.
  • Above 150 hooks: 3 sets/day, until the # hooks drops below 100, when we return to 2 sets/day.
This gives a very stable, self-correcting system that "wants" to run 2 sets/day, and "wants" to have around 100 hooks in reserve at any given time (that being about 7 days' worth of hooks). And it ends all this arguing. EEng (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While obviously not the intent, this would effectively set specific numerical targets (with rewards for meeting them and punishments for falling short), thereby encouraging DYK participants to prioritize quantity over quality (either to increase the updates' frequency or to prevent it from decreasing), particularly when a deadline looms. —David Levy 05:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I understand. You're saying that as the reserve begins to approach 50 (from above), people will start to favor quantity over quality, to avoid hitting that mark? Yes, I can see that. But won't the same thin happen (and in fact we've certainly observed it happening) with greater intensity when the reserve approaches or hits zero? The purpose of the auto-adjust feature is that it makes sure there's always a few dozen hooks available, so that in assembling preps we're never in the position of holding our noses as we scrape questionable hooks, approved just minutes prior, from the bottom of the barrel. EEng (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're in agreement that failure to maintain a reasonably large pool of approved hooks is evidence of a need for adjustment. But I disagree that it would be helpful to set precise numerical thresholds at which rewards or punishments (from a DYK contributor's perspective) are triggered.
Basing the update schedule upon periodic assessments of DYK's current state (with both quantity and quality considered) encourages overall improvement. Basing it upon raw numbers would encourage editors to hastily replenish the hooks when fifty or one hundred remain and the clock is ticking.
In other words, editor performance should dictate the update schedule — not the inverse. The general concept that the level of output is a factor is very different from the concept that "we weed to approve seven hooks within the hour...or else!". —David Levy 15:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have plenty of articles up on the nominations page, they just need reviews. There is no need to drop the number of sets. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that as though reaching the nomination stage is the important part (and the review is "just" a formality). Such an attitude can only exacerbate the quality control problem discussed above. —David Levy 11:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an ordinary nominator/reviewer, I would just like to say I find it very challenging to find a nomination for my QPQs that does not require a complete rewrite or is a full GA article that would take days to review. The review process is exhausting and I can understand why things fall through the cracks. Even when one tries to do a proper job with the best of intentions, it is hard to see the wood for the trees and easy to miss mistakes or just stop at a "good enough" review (although it isn't really, and I admit being guilty of this). I don't recall it being this hard before, something is broken. It seems too simplistic to blame the reviewers completely. What is their incentive after all? I only see a stick here. HelenOnline 09:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely the incentive is a QPQ review which means that the reviewer gets to see their name (well, their DYK) in lights on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but that doesn't address the quality of the review or tackling nominations requiring extra work. HelenOnline 09:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, which is why the tough ones just get left to linger for weeks and months. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be par for the course all over Wikipedia. Either have a massive backlog or a load of half-assed reviews. Pick one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the two, "have a massive backlog" seems preferable. If maintaining the current pace necessitates tolerating "a load of half-assed reviews", reducing the update frequency is the only acceptable course of action. —David Levy 11:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, things are slow enough already. Maybe we could have a separate queue for the WikiCup-related noms? Not all of us who are frequent nominators are participants in that, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind saying why you think "things are slow enough"? I mean, what is the necessity in pushing as many DYKs round the main page as possible? We don't do that with other parts of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There doesn't seem to be any numerical evidence to support the proposal. In any case, it's not clear that having a bigger backlog would improve quality. One might equally argue that, if weak stuff is getting through, it's better that it not be on the main page for a full day. Andrew (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No strong opinion on reducing the number of sets, but there does seem to have been an increase in hooks being pulled recently if Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed is accurate—we're 10 days into October and already half as many hooks have been pulled as in the whole of September and more than in the whole of August. This suggests to me that something needs to be done, but I'm not sure that reducing the number of sets would actually improve quality control. I don't want to create a blame culture, but reviewers need to carefully check the hooks, and prep-builders and admins need to check things for themselves (or ourselves, I've failed to catch things that I should have recently) rather than relying on the first review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too, but that will not solve the problem at hand. Whether a hook is pulled from a queue, or a prep area, or simply marked for re-review on the nomination page, the effect is the same: another review is required. QPQ will never deliver enough reviews to reduce the backlog of unreviewed hooks! What needs to be done — the only thing that needs to be done — is for the people commenting here to go and review 20 or 30 hooks each. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have we got the rush to push more and more hooks to the main page? Why is this part of the main page different from all others? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that isn't "the only thing that needs to be done". Simply increasing turnover won't address matters of quality.
    It's insulting and fallacious to imply that persons not directly involved in maintaining DYK have no right to criticize. Each of us chooses to contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with our interests, abilities and availability. If this proposal were based on a complaint that the rate at which DYK hooks are reviewed is inherently insufficient, "I don't see you pitching in" might be a valid response. But it isn't. The concern is that DYK is attempting to operate on a scale exceeding its manageable capacity. The demand isn't that more content be prepared; it's that poor content not be rushed onto the main page (even if that that means delivering less content). —David Levy 06:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pull or change needed, Queue 3

What the article and source both say is that cardiac imaging is "usually unnecessary for people...who are having surgery unrelated to the heart" (my emphasis). Heart surgery, no matter how minor, is obviously related to the heart. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled, and Template:Did you know nominations/Preoperative care reopened. FYI @Bluerasberry, Daniel Case, Hawkeye7, and Casliber:. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

  • Re steak burger: Does anyone else share my hesitation that something as common as (what appears to be essentially) a steak sandwich is credited to a specific person via an "appears to be" weasel phrase -- with the source being a "roadside-attractions for the whole family"-type book? EEng (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. In fact this makes very interesting reading, a little more authoritative than a "roadside-attractions for the whole family"-type book. It's by no means a great nor interesting hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of the better-written opinion's I've read, actually, but the point remains. Pull? EEng (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this the more I'm sure this should be pulled, but an admin is needed. EEng (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Now that the previous post has been archived, I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing. Half of these are from July and August, and are way overdue for completion. At present, only 25 nominations are approved, leaving 320 of 345 nominations unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

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) 01:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6 preps

Now that we have 6 prep sets, I wonder if Preps 5 and 6 could be added to the preview that says "See how this template appears on both today's Main Page and tomorrow's Main Page". Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are never satisfied. EEng (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hook wording

Would an admin be able to change "halted on the" to "halted on" in the final hook of the current set displayed? I wouldn't ask but there are still quite a few hours to run on this set. Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) @ 15:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible DYK on main page right now

.. that Wan Laisheng's teachings on martial arts pre-dated Bruce Lee's by about 50 years? While not technically incorrect, this is a very poor DYK. The detail has nothing really to do with the topic. The only reason Bruce Lee is mentioned in the article is because he happens to be famous; it's totally attenuated from the topic, it's not "about" the individual, and the fact is actually not even directly mentioned in the article but is just an implicit observation from itsa text. Moreover, the detail of fifty years cold have been any other range of time, because this is a petty randow detail. It's not as if these are two terminal ends of some period measured from the first to the most recent iteration. It's just a rather weird detail that raises only because the article decided to mention Bruce Lee, probably because he is very famous as a martial artist. Indeed, the detail abut his "teachings" would imply that he was a renowned teacher or martial arts when he was not (as opposed to the article's subject). He was a renowned movie star. Bad all around.--108.14.111.128 (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=629469897"