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 381: Line 381:


:::HAHAHA. [[File:Rolling on the floor.gif]] --'''[[User:Jakec|Jakob]] ([[user talk:Jakec|talk]]) ''' 23:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
:::HAHAHA. [[File:Rolling on the floor.gif]] --'''[[User:Jakec|Jakob]] ([[user talk:Jakec|talk]]) ''' 23:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

== Protected edit request on 17 November 2014 ==

{{edit protected|Template:Did you know/Queue/6|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Queue 6 has three red links in the credits due to typos/moves. Could an admin please fix this.
<!-- End request -->
'''[[User:NG39|<span style="color:blue;">NG39</span>]]''' (Used to be '''NickGibson3900''')<sup>'''[[User Talk:NG39|<span style="color:red;">Talk</span>]]</sup>''' 04:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:EP --> — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 05:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|NG39}} Also, next time you might get a quicker response posting on [[WP:ERRORS]]. Best — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 05:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Actually, ignore that - posting here appears to be the right place for items in the DYK queues. I was thinking of items in the main DYK template. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 05:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


== Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers ==
== Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers ==

Revision as of 07:20, 17 November 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.

Informal tracking of the stats

Unhide to see a few months' history of available hooks and backlog size

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/nom stats

Backlog (again)

It's been very hard lately to put together decent prep sets with as little as 15 approved hooks at a time. Even now as I write, there are only 25 approved hooks for 360 nominations, and if I start reviewing them to build a prep set, I'm sure I'll invalidate a few. I'm wondering if it's time to nullify the exemption from QPQs for non-self-nominations. Anyone who wants to get an article onto the main page should help reduce the backlog, not add to it. Yoninah (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of your suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an issue as long as we ensure quality reviews are still conducted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-self-nominators will have to do the same QPQ as everyone else. If they do a shoddy job, their nomination won't pass. Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want do some reviews. I'm also participating the GA Cup, writing some new articles, working part-time, and applying to grad school. So I'm planning to do some reviews, but I need to balance my time.--¿3family6 contribs 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for consensus

Should we change the rules to require that non-self-nominators also submit a QPQ? Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support In times like these, then I would say that we should trial this proposal until the end of the year then drop it for a few months when the WikiCup starts and compare the difference. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for all non-self-nominators. I could see requiring QPQs for, say, someone who nominates a GA that they promoted but didn't write. But to require it for everyone I think will come back to bite us in that the number of nominations will drop considerably and the project will lose content to put on the main page - as bad as having a backlog is, at least it means there are nominations to put on the main page. I'd support an alternative proposal such as a backlog drive (like the one going on for GAs right now - which actually might have contributed to the high volume of nominations here) to reduce the backlog.--¿3family6 contribs 15:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify Is the proposal that (a) there's no difference between a self-nom and a I'm-nominating-someone-else's-article nom; and (b) everyone still gets to make 5 noms for free? EEng (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarifications: (a) Anyone who nominates an article, whether he wrote the article or is nominating someone else's work, must submit a QPQ. The goal is to reduce the backlog of unapproved nominations, not to penalize people who are trying to promote newbies' work (besides, frequent nominators get medals, just like article creators/expanders do). (b) As for the 5 noms for free, until now that rule has applied only to self-noms. We would have to decide if it applies to nominators of other people's work, since these non-self-nominators are generally people familiar with the DYK system and with writing hooks, so why shouldn't they review QPQs too? Yoninah (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support the basic idea no matter what, but I think it'll be easiest to just say everyone gets to make 5 free noms for free, but drop the distinction between self-noms and not-self noms. EEng (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I don't see why no reading of the opposite of what you said contradicts ... what? What you just said is, essentially, "Support. This is a bad idea." EEng (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that, as I must have been distracted when I wrote that, and I have struck the incorrect grammar accordingly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think nominations made until this change is official would be subject to the old rules. EEng (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't add another rule just because of backlog, leading to generalization of all non-self-noms. We can beg for more volunteers rather than ask for another rule. What happened to hard work nowadays? --George Ho (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of votes come from veterans of DYK or involved editors. It's time for more comments from uninvolved. --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, right -- it makes no sense that those doing all the work put some kind of brake on the free ride. Very selfish indeed. EEng (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Heritage Mosaic pulled from main page

See [1], but briefly the hook made no sense and I'm surprised this wasn't picked up earlier, in particular during the nomination.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original hook wasn't specific about what the tiles were affixed to. I don't understand why the very small change I suggested, which makes it unambiguously correct, is being fought. Can an admin please look at this objectively and restore the hook with my suggested change? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't check the hook, and having opposed a similar previous Sutton hook, I'm not really uninvolved. But if, as you say, this is "the standard method which is used for creating large mosaics.", then your hook is not really interesting, surely? "This mosaic was glued with the standard method" is hardly a captivating or interesting hook. Fram (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not "my" hook; I merely suggested adding three words, and I haven't even read the article other than the relevant paragraph. What you say about the interest level actually had occurred to me. I was reminded of a hook which I had suggested long ago for some insect. The fact was something extremely interesting, but it was true not only for that specific species, but for every member of the genus. I thought it would still make a great hook because it would be an interesting fact unknown to everyone but experts on a small group of insects. Similarly, the methods used to construct large mosaics are not known by most people, and, as long as you don't word it the way you paraphrased it, the hook fact could be somewhat interesting to people unversed in the intricacies of mosaic construction. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I shouldn't have said "your" hook. Apart from that: using flour in glue is not really unusual (outside the world of mosaics I mean), so I don't think it is as interesting to many people as you do, but that's just opinion of course, not fact. Fram (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a novice, I thought the hook was interesting, but the description didn't make sense to me and I suggested an alternative. The page creator added a link to the article but not to the hook to explain it better. When I saw it in the Queue, I thought it should have said "flour-and-water glue", but it was too late for me to do anything about it. Yoninah (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my original hook suggestion, but when it was suggested by Serten, I agreed it was really intriguing, as the vast majority of readers would obviously know nothing about mosaic installation. Whether or not it is often done that way is neither here nor there as I see it; the fact is that it would seem interesting to many people, and intrigue them enough to make them click on the hook. Everyone else involved in the nomination agreed, either openly or tacitly. So, it was a bit disappointing to find that the hook had been pulled. Even if the hook alone did not enable people to completely understand all the ins and outs of the installation process, they would soon find out by reading the article, given that I had inserted a wikilink to Wheatpaste for "flour and water glue". And now that Yoninah has helpfully recast it as "flour-and-water glue", it is even clearer. So, my conclusion is that the hook should be re-run, but this time with the wikilink to wheatpaste in the hook as well as in the article, in order to satisfy any concerns. So, it should now read:
A P Monblat (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that's identical wording to the one that was pulled for making no sense. You can't affix tiles to an outside wall with flour and water, not unless you want them to come unaffixed at the first rain shower. The article explains it better and says something different in doing so. A hook is meant to hook readers because it's interesting, not because it's so obviously wrong that readers have to visit the article to understand what it should say.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnBlackburne is absolutely right of course. I realised my mistake soon after my edit, and was going to amend it, but he beat me to it! The correct hook incorporating the helpful suggested addition by User:Mandarax reads as follows:

A P Monblat (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I agree with Fram that the hook is not really interesting, as it just describes a standard way of doing things.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything has to be out-of-the-ordinary to be interesting. In this case the "ordinary" is little known about by the general public and intrinsically interesting. Besides, the only reason this hook was pulled was that, as it was not very specific, it could be seen as being inaccurate. No-one was ever claiming that the method was non-standard, merely that it would be unknown and intriguing to many people not well versed in the art of mosaic creation. I am sorry that the hook contained a problem, but it was seen by several people and finally approved; and, now that it has been corrected, it should be reinstated, I feel. A P Monblat (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification: when I said it was "a step in the standard method", I was referring to the practice of using some kind of water-soluble adhesive. I have no idea if a flour paste is standard or not. For all I know, it may be highly unusual. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point there from User:Mandarax. But, either way, it was an interesting idea for the hook from User:Serten, and is now completely clearly expressed. I think it should be reinstated - who is able to do this? A P Monblat (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would be a great shame to lose this interesting article from DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A statement like " You can't affix tiles to an outside wall with flour and water" is as OR based as plain nonsense. I have been participating in actual research about such agents and can confirm that e.g. oysters on rifts use water solvabe sugar variants to hold against sea spray, tides and waves and they are not washed away at all. DYK kills itself with such naive behavior. We have been here before and I start to loose interest. Do as you like. Serten (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Serten: (and others). Yes, I agree that this is disheartening. The "powers that be" re DYK seem to have forgotten this article and hook. User:Stephen pulled the hook from the front page after 5 hours, but has not reponded to the message I left on his talk page. Despite you and several other users (eg User:Mandarax, User:Martinevans123 and User:Yoninah) being upbeat, the DYK for the article seems to have died a death. Hopefully I am wrong...we shall see. A P Monblat (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To editor JohnBlackburne: To editor A P Monblat: Compare Template:Did you know nominations/Piganino and Template:Did you know nominations/Mariam al-Mansouri. Seems its the new DYK normal. Serten (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This idea of pulling hooks from the main page because they don't make sense to some people (but they did make sense to others during the review process) is alienating DYK contributors faster than our laundry list of rules does. I am going to be bold and reopen the nomination, in the hopes that a new hook can be found and this good article will run its full 12 hours on the main page like every other. Yoninah (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing proposed hooks isn't always a good idea

I removed a hook from queue 3. Template:Did you know nominations/Mother (video game) @Czar, Maury Markowitz, Yoninah, and Casliber:

According to the article, the source, and the proposed hooks, it was Itoi who made a pitch, and Miyamoto's reaction to that pitch made Itoi cry. Fram (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who proposed this hook and marked it as reviewed at the same time has now responded at the nomination page. Apparently I not only have to find the problems people create by proposing factually incorrect hooks and reviewing their own hook, I also have to pick another hook, review it, and put it straight into the queue, instead of dropping the above note here and letting the normal process take over. Fighting fire with fire is sometimes a good solution, but not here... Fram (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral was parish church

Unrelated to this hook, but in the same queue, we have

I have not removed it, as it is correct, but we can get any more boring? Cathedral history has only two options: either it existed before the diocese was created, and then it was usually a parish church, or the cathedral was only built after the diocese was created. Having a cathedral that first was a parish chruch is an utterly common occurrence. Just looking at the first ten Philippine cathedrals, the same can be said for Antipolo Cathedral, Baguio Cathedral, Balanga Cathedral, Basilica Minore of Our Lady of Charity, Caloocan Cathedral, Cathedral of St. William the Hermit, Cubao Cathedral and Imus Cathedral. Only Cebu Metropolitan Cathedral and Daet Cathedral were a cathedral from the very start (i.e. constructed after the diocese was established).

A hook should highlight something special, noteworthy, quirky, catching: not something commonplace as this. Fram (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and always have done but the general theme here is that anything which is nominated will eventually be featured, regardless of how dull it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tintype and crime

Another hook from the same queue:

Again, not removed, not factually wrong, but what a strange way to put things! "Rubens produced thousands of paintings focusing on oil on canvas and fat women?" Tintype is her medium, her style, crime is her subject. Fram (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That also looked odd to me when I promoted it. Could you change it to:
... that Deborah Luster produced over 25,000 tintype images focusing on crime? Yoninah (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But she created more than 25,000 images, and many of them were tintype: were there actually more than 25,000 tintype images? Something like "25,000 images, mostly tinype, focusing on crime", would that do? Fram (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And it should definitely be "more than" and not "over". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how much we tweak it, the hook fact isn't even cited inline. Do you want to pull it (it's on the main page now)? Yoninah (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, yes, but we are already down to a six-hook set, and I fear that some people would make a drama of having a 5 hook set... I changed it to "... that Deborah Luster produced more than 25,000 images, many of them using tintype, focusing on crime?", even though I'm not totaly happy with it either. Fram (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram, Yoninah, and The Rambling Man:ALTX ...that Deborah Lusters latest work, One Big Self, draws from over 25,000 photographs, mostly on tintype, portraits of prison inmates? ~ R.T.G 15:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible BLP problem

Template:Did you know nominations/Heather Stewart-Whyte, now in Prep 6

  • ... that due to a pregnancy-induced hospitalization during her second marriage, model Heather Stewart-Whyte lost custody of her children from her first marriage to Yannick Noah?

In general, I don't think it is wise to put contentious BLP hooks on the main page. In this case, I see that the source[2] states:

"Difficulties with the pregnancy forced Stewart-Whyte to spend a lot of time in hospital and Noah set out to win custody. Stewart-Whyte's son Stephane was born that August, but in November 2001 a British court put the two girls in Noah's charge, insisting their mother should have access."

I don't see how the hook supports the "poor mother, evil father" cause-and-effect hook: A-and-B-and-C-and-D (the source) is not the same as A-caused-D (the hook). Fram (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I totally agree with Fram. Speaking as a lawyer, I would note that custody decisions by a court are caused by weighing a multiplicity of factors, and this piece of evidence would be only a brick in the wall. So causation is controversial, and the sources are marginal and would have to be stretched to support the hook.
The more fundamental question is: why do we want this hook on the main page at all? Her personal life is at best a footnote to her career, at least in an encylopedic setting.
The original hook was far better and more interesting: ... that model and former wife of Yannick Noah Heather Stewart-Whyte appeared on back-to-back September Vogue Paris covers? The alternate hook is not particularly well sourced, and reads like a tabloid headline. Let's go with the hookier alternative. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with above and concur with original hook suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further agreement. Use original hook. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Original hook now used in Prep 6 per above discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we don't need to be using negative facts about real people, especially when much more interesting and much less potentially damaging facts are available. Thanks for the fix, BM, and thanks Frma for raising it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw "back-to-back September Vogue Paris covers", I assumed that it was a weekly magazine, and she was on the cover of consecutive issues during a single month of September. But checking the article and source, I see that it was actually two consecutive Septembers. I guess you could sort of say they were back-to-back Septembers, but does anyone else think that referring to "back-to-back" covers is an odd use of the term when there were eleven intervening issues? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how into fashion you are, but The September Vogue Paris could be described as the most important fashion magazine issue of the year or at least one of the big four, if I understand fashion correctly (which may not be the case). I know in the US the September Vogue which has all the back-to-school fashions is always the biggest issue of the year. The WP:FASHION people should be consulted on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought everybody knew it was a monthly magazine. The September issue is very important. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea there was anything significant about the September issues. It would have made for a much better hook if it had indicated the importance. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • TonyTheTiger, there was a clear consensus here that the best thing to do was to substitute the original hook—also your creation—for the ALT1 hook, rather than pull it altogether. Once a template is closed, this is the place that discussions are supposed to happen—or on the template's talk page, something that almost never happens—and promoted hooks in preps or queues that have issues end up here. I'm sorry you weren't notified of the discussion; I came in late. However, your insistence that the ALT1 hook was somehow "preferred" is contrary to fact: neither hook was singled out in the course of the nomination, and based on the discussion here, you and Hawkeye7 seem to be in the minority in terms of preference, and definitely on the wrong side of BLP. If the reviewer had been more competent, only the original hook would have been approved in the first place, given the BLP issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BlueMoonset, How many of my hooks have had issues that have needed to be resolved once they were in a queue or prep area? Probably more than a dozen. Every one of them before this one was resolved on the DYK discussion page. I have never heard of a hook being an issue and not returning to the original DYK discussion page. Even in cases when a discussion was posted on the DYK talk page, a link pointed the discussion to the DYK talk page. I do not contest that when choosing between the unmodified original and unamodified ALT1, the consensus here was for the former. That is obvious. However, the promoter preferred the unaltered ALT1. My use of the term preferred was a statement of which hook was preferred by the promoter. Obviously, there was a preferred hook by the promoter. Your statement that there was not a preferred hook, would only be true if you believe the promoter randomly chose one of the two. It is extremely odd to hold a discussion about a problem hook without pinging the nominator, the reviewer or the promoter. My point is not that the unmodified ALT1 should have been put on the main page. My point is that it is normal to seek commentary regarding possible modifications of a problem hook. Clearly, the common course is to discuss whether there are any modifications of the preferred hook that would be acceptable. I am just shocked that this all happened without the nominator, the reviewer or promoter and without even going back to the DYK discussion page as every one of my prior problem hooks has done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of your previous issues must have been so severe that they required the hook to be pulled. Some users get very upset when their hooks are pulled, so whenever possible it's considered preferable to resolve it here instead. Discussions of hooks which have not been pulled and are currently in Prep or Queue should always take place here. They would never take place in a closed nomination, and, as BlueMoonset said, a nomination template's talk page is almost never used; in one case, a user was criticized for using that talk page (and I doubt they'll ever be back). If there's an issue with an already-promoted hook, it's better to get input from more users by posting here. Ideally the nominator would be pinged, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. When you've got an active nomination, you should monitor not only the nom page, but this talk page, the Queue page and, after it's on the MP, WP:ERRORS. As for the hook that was used, I found myself puzzled by the comments about how interesting it was. Maybe it was interesting if the reader was already familiar with aspects of it, but for me, I saw it as "that a model I never heard of, who was married to someone I never heard of, appeared on two ordinary covers, strangely referred to as "back-to-back", of a magazine I never heard of". I'm not surprised it got "very low page views". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandarax, That is a new one. Pulling a hook is just a temporary thing. I have never heard of the rule "Be sensitive to nominators and pull hooks only when necessary". I have been watching discussions on this board about how bad things have gotten in the last 2 or 3 months that so many hooks have needed to be pulled, but I have never heard of discussions on how bad people's feelings are hurt when their hooks are pulled. Can you point me to one of these discussions about how bad peoples' feelings are hurt when their hooks get pulled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to waste my time trudging through the sewage of this page's archives for, really, no reason. Feel free to search the cesspool for yourself if you must. Better yet: realize that what I said was merely an aside about one reason that a hook may be discussed here rather than pulled; instead of unnecessarily and inordinately focusing on it, just ignore that sentence and simply recognize that for whatever reason, it happens. Nobody ever said there was a "rule" about it. Actually, I've decided to strike the sentence, not because it's wrong, but simply to end my participation in a thread which I find just as boring as that hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 42 oldest nominations that need reviewing, nearly half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 19 that have been waiting over a month at the moment, and the second has 11 waiting for at least three weeks. The remaining 12 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, only 22 nominations are approved, leaving 295 of 317 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

Over one month:

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

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) 16:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some help please

I hardly ever submit here because I find this place mysterious beyond belief. But I decided to nominate a newly created page I thought was worthy and ended up with a big red mess on the template: Template:Did you know nominations/Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck?) Can someone help fix it? Thanks, Victoria (tk) 17:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a certain irony to a nomination of an article re "Stigmata" ending in a big red mess. I'd fix it but I don't know how. EEng (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for fixing! Victoria (tk) 20:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back and have decided that, if the article which is in the process of being build, is to have image sizes etc., changed just for DYK, and messages left on my page re insufficiently rigorous QPQ reviews, it's not worth the DYK. I frankly haven't the time. So please delete, pull, do whatever is necessary to remove Template:Did you know nominations/Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck?) from the list. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 13:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been closed. --Allen3 talk 13:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think it's really a shame because in fact there's a lot of very good content that gets started but is not submitted to DYK, because frankly this place is not welcoming to outsiders. My advice would be to assume that maybe some people who create content at the FA level do understand what they're doing, and that they should be welcomed and not chastised. Pinging Crisco 1492 to alert that he'll have to find another reviewer for his nom. And btw - the irony of asking me to check for close paraphrasing won't be lost on a few of the regulars here who have been around for more than a few years. And why did the images on our articles have to be so drastically downsized, especially given huge amount of subpar material that comes through this place? Victoria (tk) 13:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Back up. I am flabbergasted that my edits produced this kind of result. I even left a nice note on Victoriaeagle's talk page, encouraging her to stick around DYK! The edits I made to the article, downsizing the images and the reflist, were simply housekeeping changes so the article would fit in most browsers; they had nothing to do with DYK. Regarding the QPQ (Crisco's article), Victoriaeagle's review only covered newness, length, and a note about offline sources. I put a routine note on the review asking for QPQ, close paraphrasing, and inline hook cite checks. I can't believe that these reminders scared someone away. Yoninah (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yoninah, I guess you assume I don't have experience here. Which, unfortunately, is wrong. I do, however, consider myself pretty much persona non grata at DYK. But thought I'd test the system and put up an article (which someone else started), with the hopes things have changed. Anyway, for perspective, a couple of diffs from summer 2011, [3], [4]. I'm Truthkeeper88, btw. Anyway, I tried and don't want to try again, and I don't have time to explain issues of standard image size equal 220px, art articles routinely go above, nor do I want to edit war. Let's just leave it at that. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 22:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re img

I think it's appropriate, in an article that discusses a work of art in detail, for the images to be presented at somewhat larger size than usual. What that means specifically should be worked out by interested editors, but let me say I'm astounded by the extent to which most people don't know by now that the preferred way to specify thumb size is not the px syntax (which overrides the user's preferred size) but rather the upright= syntax (which expands or contracts the size relative to the user's preferred size). See WP:IMGSIZE.

uncropped

Also, let me put a plug in here for one of my favorite pet peeves, which is the thoughtless use of uncropped images for the 100x100px presentation on main page. In many cases, what the reader sees on MP would be greatly enhanced if a special cropped version were used (leaving the full image in the article). Case in point, the img seen at right, currently in prep. The article's about a boat, but for some reason 3/4 of the real estate is wasted on a shed and some clouds.

cropped

Compare the cropped version at right. Isn't it about time we asked insisted that imgs to be presented at 100x100 be cropped as appropriate? EEng (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely yes. I put your cropped image in the article and replaced it in the prep. Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the cropped versions used on the MP need not necessarily be used in the article. The image accompanying the Condong nomination is a crop of the image used in the article, as the dancer's whole body would not be very visible at 100px. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, EEng Very helpful of you. I hadn't thought about this, but you are right and I will try to keep it in mind. Iselilja (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing submissions

Like User:Victoriaearle I hardly ever submit here because it's "mysterious beyond belief". I suggested a DYK about Carol McNicoll on 22nd October how do I get it reviewed? Can I help with the backlog of reviewing other submissions? Theroadislong (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Wainwright, current in Prep 5

that Sally Wainwright, the TV writer behind Last Tango in Halifax and Happy Valley, believes she is probably dyslexic?

This concerns me. It's in the source, but it strikes me as trivial and not the sort of factoid about a living person that we should be showcasing. It's fine in the article, where it's given due weight and can be viewed in proportion, but I'd be a lot happier if we had a hook that wasn't potentially negative and based on something the subject said in passing in an interview once. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should have read the nomination Harry. Sally herself does not feel this is a negative comment on herself. If you/we decide that this is negative then I don't see that we have that authority. Are you saying its a bad thing? Says who? This has been hanging around for weeks and the point has been debated. Are you sure you want to debate it again? Victuallers (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Roger, didn't realise it was one of yours. It could be construed negative is my concern. I just wonder what the subject or her friends and family would make of it that of all the facts about her, Wikipedia had chosen to put that one (based on what seems to be a flippant remark in a newspaper article). But I see Cas has moved it to the queue so perhaps it's just me. I'll pipe down unless anyone else cares to weigh in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. It could easily be, as said, just a flippant remark -- "I don't know -- sometimes I wonder if I'm just dyslexic -- I don't read as much as you might think I do" -- something like that. And sometimes people say things in interviews they later think better of. Surely there's something else interesting we can come up with about the subject. EEng (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the queue per the above discussion, and because she claims in the source that she possibly still is dyslexic, not probably like the hook said. Fram (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not just me then. Thanks Fram. Sorry Roger. It's a decent article so I'm sure there are other facts in there that would lend themselves to a DYK hook. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 11:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Proposal to easen the process while ensuring DYK entries fullfill WP requirements

Basic outlook

File:Waldorf Statler Wall Painting.jpg
The balcony

If you complain about the current lag and the sometimes idiotic red tape for hooks and contributions, do something or quit complaining. Possibilities:

  • reduce the amount of DYK per day
  • include GA DYK on a automatized base - just mention that DYK that "Article XYZ has been promoted to Good Article status"
  • instead of the current "cite sourced hook fact" approach, use a "navigate to interesting and stable sourced aspect" strategy. Both is based on WP basic policy and has been used for years, but the hook-fact approach produces unnecessary red tape (the mainpage is about navigation, not containing footnotes) and deters involvement.
  • Allow offsetting selfnominations of regulars either with 3 reviews and or nominations of other authors articles.

In a nutshell: DYK should trigger involvement instead of deterring it. DYK is not about featured content, but about small and interesting articles nevertheless deserving mainspace attention. Allow for start quality but deny infringements of basic policy. Serten (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serten, the statement that "its not our task to challenge GA reviews" is misguided at best, and dangerous at worst. GA reviewers can be excellent, incompetent, and anywhere in between, and it's usually just one person, which is why the original GA RfC made it clear that we were supposed to do a complete DYK review. We've had GA nominations that have had copyvios, close paraphrasing, inadequate sourcing, and so on. Nominated articles have been submitted to GAR and AfD, and have ultimately not appeared at DYK because they flunked the subsequent review there.
I'm also puzzled by your apparent wish to penalize self-nominations in favor of nominations of other's articles. Self-nominations are subject to the quid pro quo review, while nominating someone else's article means that no article reviews are required. It seems to me that this would do more to increase the current lag than any other proposal I've seen. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the GA "automatic hook" ("Article XYZ has been promoted to Good Article status"), it would reduce hook-bickering to a minimum. Let the balcony work on GA, no need for DYK to contribute. You need more reviewers? Attract them! If someones contribution is nominated, you may interest them as well to do reviews. Serten (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I have no idea what you're attempting to propose with an "automatic hook". How would it reduce "hook-bickering" if the hook is bland, unsourced, and so on? Who is "the balcony"? Why shouldn't DYK be involved in checking GAs that are nominated for DYK? (Just ran across another GA with close paraphrasing caught in the DYK review.) As for the last, we have a large number of nominations of other people's articles. Some do stick around and become reviewers, usually because they start nominating their own articles and eventually hit the QPQ requirement, forcing them to start reviewing, which they find they like doing. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The hook for GA would be "Article XYZ has been promoted to Good Article status", I have clarified that in the entry. Thats very easily sourced, however its based on inside WP sources. WP Balcony should be clear now as well. Serten (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Automatic hooks" of the form "Article XYZ has been promoted to Good Article status" are not only boring (imagine two or three such hooks in a single DYK set) but also confusing to anyone not familiar with Wikipedia's internal processes and a blatant violation of MOS:SELFREF. As such they are likely to increase the level of bickering. First will come the education of relative newcomers lacking a basic understanding of DYK and Wikipedia's Manual of Style and then we will move on to discussions similar to those generated by the current system once a replacement hook is created. I also doubt it is possible to create any type of form letter style hook that will not have serious problems that prevent its use in more than a handful of cases. --Allen3 talk 18:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main page is a navigation page and needs a) no sources at all and b) MOS:SELFREF does not apply for navigation. That said, GA articles proposed for DYK still need a short OK and manual putting to the line, as one has to check wether the article really is a GA and the title suits the hook template. Then No bickering is being allowed, no education eis needed (how many newcomers review or write GAs?). Done and dusted. Serten (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Serten, you need to realize that no one has any idea what you're trying to say. Perhaps you can find someone to talk over your proposals with privately, before trying to present them here. EEng (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, I try to explain the abstract background of the changes I propose in the next section. I would already be satisfied if DYK reviews were not trying to repeat ot install a hidden GA review but kept the process simple and apropriate. Serten 23:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Detailed Proposal to easen the DYK process

That said, following changes (new text "big", strike for deletions, comments ion brackets) are suggested

DYK aims to achieve the following five goals:

  • To encourage readers to edit articles that appear on DYK or start their own, thus facilitating the recruitment of new editors.
  • To showcase new and improved content, illustrating to readers the continuous improvement and expansion of Wikipedia's corpus of articles;
  • To highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers;
  • To present facts about a range of topics which may not necessarily otherwise receive Main Page exposure;
  • 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;

* To encourage readers to edit articles that appear on DYK or start their own, thus facilitating the recruitment of new editors.

(....)

DYK is only for articles that, within the past seven days, have been either

  • created
  • expanded at least fivefold
  • newly sourced and expanded at least twofold (only if the article was an unsourced BLP)

*promoted to good article status Articles may be of start quality, but still need to fullfill the core WP policies. (Comment_ Good articles would be better off having their own, more serious section, but the easiest thing is to include them like this:) DYK mentions recently promoted good articles, if they are suggested for the section, automatically with the following hook: ... that XYZ was promoted to good article status? (...)

a) The hook should refer to include a definite fact aspects of the article interesting to a broad audience.

::b) Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. :4. Within policy – Articles for DYK must conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright.

(...)

* When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones.

  • The hook should refer navigate to established facts and aspects of the article that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than novelty, newness or current events.

* The hook should be neutral.

  • Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.
  • Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates.

* When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content. Serten (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposals have not been discussed so far. Serten (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Archive now"

Is there a special template-tag that can be added to a thread on this page, telling the bot "This thread is done -- archive ASAP." Typically much of this page is discussions of hooks that have already appeared on MP and are now in hook heaven. EEng (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Have a look at the recent edits I have done to this page. Follow the link. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 00:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! It's like the eighth wonder of the world! What a revelation! EEng (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's a revelation, let's reveal what it is: User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor who spends significant time participating in cast-of-thousands discussions (such as this page, ANI, MOS, a high-interest article, etc.) should install this little tool. It's fun and easy, and comes with a full-satisfaction, no-questions-asked, money-back guarantee! EEng (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing meanings

Removed from Queue 6 (lead hook, with picture). Template:Did you know nominations/Hackett Hall McKnight. @Sionk, Maury Markowitz, Yoninah, and Casliber:

  • ... that the Northern Irish architecture firm Hackett Hall McKnight created the Belfast MAC (pictured), described as one of the two "most stunning new British buildings of the century"?

The hook is incorrect, the building has not been described as one of the two "most stunning new British buildings of the century". What the source[5] actually says is that Belfast has "two of the most stunning new British buildings of the century", and the MAC is one of them. So the correct conclusion is that the MAC is one "of the most stunning new British buildings of the century", and one of the two "most stunning new British buildings of the century" which can be found in Belfast, next to presumably other "most stunning new British buildings of the century" in other places. If the source had stated that Belfast had "the two most stunning new British buildings of the century", then the hook would have been correct. "Two of" clearly indicates though that there are more than these two in that implicit list... Fram (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

or ... you could have quietly deleted the words "the two" and saved others extra work. Please try and improve what you find and minimise the corrections required when you find an error please. Victuallers (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I try not to be confrontational here, and I do greatly appreciate Fram's fact-checking after the nomination has been promoted to the prep and queue, but I would also appreciate it if on these minor corrections, Fram could just make the correction and note it here on the DYK talk page, rather than pull the hook and give everyone a figurative slap on the hand. Yoninah (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hosed up nomination

Does anyone know what's wrong with this: Template:Did you know nominations/Bruce D. Smith. Thank you for helping. HalfGig talk 19:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. (It was missing a "]]".) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir. HalfGig talk 20:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something fishy going on

I see that the hook

that although one of the tributaries of Little Catawissa Creek (Stony Run) is unable to support fish life the other tributary (Trexler Run) is classified as Class A Wild Trout Waters?

was approved by editor Chris troutman [6] [oops -- wrong link] [7]. This is a blatant conflict of interest. EEng (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worse. Its a complete bore and even sexing up doesnt help. Serten 19:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
What are you saying??! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHA. --Jakob (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 43 oldest nominations that need reviewing, nearly half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 19 that have been waiting over a month at the moment, and the second has 14 waiting for at least three weeks. The remaining 10 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, only 22 nominations are approved, leaving 331 of 353 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

Over one month:

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

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) 05:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=634193017"