Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

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

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

LavaBaron's editing restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off topic-discussion

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

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

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

Query on editing restrictions

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

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

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

#4 is struck per discussion. Deryck C. 13:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Mexican politicians

Here's a comment regarding the currently trend of posting one Mexican politician per set, from an uninvolved editor. Some feedback the project should listen to I suspect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• So basically the question is if there is a bias in what someone choose to write about, which there is a natural bias/preference of course - we only write about what we personally want to write about since it is voluntary. That is the same bias anyone has as a voluntary editor, not sure that is a unique DYK challenge, nor if there is actually anything that range done short of topic bans (I am not advocating this, that would be to punish someone because no one else covers a specific topic). Now if an individual user has a POV they were pushing that would be different.  MPJ-DK  22:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. Everyone writes about their area of expertise and, as in this case, keeps writing on the same subject in abundance. I think that TRM has identified a way to avoid this overexposure, though, and that is by not running same-subject articles in every set, or even in every other set. Yoninah (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Having a long spate of hooks (Mexican politicians, wrestlers, whatever) on a subject for which there is no current event or anniversary can be seen as undermining the credibility of DYK, the main page or even Wikipedia itself. All new content should be welcomed, subject to notability criteria of course; we just need to find a way of reducing the frequency of hooks on any one such subject. Yoninah is right. Perhaps this is best addressed by an expansion of the rules. Edwardx (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Having a "filter" adds to the credibility of DYK? Interesting take on such a restriction. DYK isba subset of what people are adding each day. The subsection consists of layers of "unwritten" filters already 1) those that even know that anyone can submit a DYK 2) those that then care to even try 3) those that can navigate the rules without quitting, 4) those who are willing to.do DYK and finally 5) Those willing to put up with bad attitudes and flaming hoops to jump through in certain cases. That is keeping the variety down, those who have "cracked the code " on DYK are repeat custokets, those that don't do not come in at all. MPJ-DK  19:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have to confess that I don't understand some of what you've written there. My original post was simply to highlight the fact that someone outside of the project, and by the looks of things, a normal reader, was dissatisfied with the endless Mexican politician parade that has beset DYK for some weeks now. The articles are sadly dull, the hooks similarly, this is a "by the numbers" exercise which really isn't going to be enjoyed by our readers. If DYK wants to draw in new editors or encourage the development of new articles, it needs to vary what it posts, and not just in a set. Let's put a moratorium on Mexican politicians, perhaps allow one every four days, and work around it that way. With the Star Trek three-dayer coming up, that gives the project plenty of time to get some hooks ready that aren't just run-of-the-mill minor Mexican politicians. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• That's okay, neither do I (rimshot). And actually, the question was "why only living Mexican Politicians?" not "why so many?". There was no outside concern about the volume as such, only why they were all on living politicians, which is a matter of selection bias - not topic bias.  MPJ-DK  20:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Easy solution then, as embellished by my point below, stop selecting them! Or at least slow down the rate so it's not becoming "dull Mexican politician bio ticker". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• So build a new rule based on a misapplication of one question by one person? Seems like an over-reaction and again not appropriate to the actual question that was asked.  MPJ-DK  20:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, I'm not interested in continually crafting more and more arcane rules into this already creaking machine. Just use some common sense and stop promoting endless hooks about dull-as-dishwater Mexican politicians. And while it may not be 100% aligned with the original question, we've evolved the discussion since then so I guess it's time to catch up with the "other" problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• As opposed to United States politics? India's buildings, religion and culture? Classical music? Food? Military? Insects? If you look at Wikipedians by number of DYKs you'll probably find most of them concentrated on their specific area of interest. — Maile (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

To give another example (@Gerda Arendt:) Max Reger, a notable but not exceptionally so composer (one can easily name 20 contemporaries who are a lot more known than Reger, from Debussy and Ravel to Sibelius and Richard Strauss); (linked part of a DYK hook on 4 May, 6 May, 9 May, 10 May, 11 May, 12 May (pictured), 13 May, 15 May, 17 May, 18 May (pictured); then a gap, and then; 16 July (pictured!), 21 July, 22 July, 26 July, 27 July, 1 August, 7 August (pictured!), 16 August, and then today (plus 1 in the nominations, again with picture!!)

Nothing here was against the rules, and yet this seems excessive. Getting the same composer on the Main Page 18 times in 4 months, three times with his picture added, is unbalancing DYK. Some rules to restrict the numbers of DYKS per topic and per period would be useful. Fram (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Per topic? Unless topic is defined as narrowly as "related to Reger" then putting the kibosh on another composer seems counter productive to me. A "Topic limit" would first have to define what a topic is, too wide and it is too restrictive, too narrow and it is pointless. And I agree with Gerda, balance is an inherent challenge when dealing with people writing out of desire and not because they "have to". If we were talking about guidelines for how to space topics out so specialized subjects don't generally run back-to-back that is a different matter.  MPJ-DK  16:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Rules Creep coming to an IMAX theatre near you! See for yourself as Wikipedians get lost in a maze more diabolical than any horror film ever made. The screams! The head banging rages! The bugged-out eyes and gasping for breath! — Maile (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 is Reger year, see [1]. We had a lot of Britten in 2013 and Sibelius in 2015. The Wikipedia Main page has not been balanced since I observe it, just look at the percentage of hurricanes and mushrooms among the TFAs, and sadly more battles than peace treaties. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if featured articles were spread evenly across the range of subjects, but they aren't. We have to work with what we have, and we schedule TFAs as far as possible in accordance with the proportions of each subject within the available pool of featured articles. This has been explained about a thousand times before, but the same old complaint still gets trotted out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Brian, I think we agree, I didn't complain, just observe that due to the personal interests of us editors it will not be "balanced". I tried at least to "promote" a composer who is celebrated worldwide this year, not my brother ;) - I was ashamed when I saw how few of his compositions were covered in an article. Any help with the biography is still welcome. Cassianto, may I remind you of what you said on the talk? - If you want to listen, a YouTube link is on top of my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 is not only Reger year (according to whom?), but also Satie-year, Dutillieux-year, Menuhin-year... And a hook like "... that Max Reger's Zwölf Stücke, Op. 80, for organ contains nine pieces composed in 1904 and three from 1902?" fails the "interesting" aspect rather badly.

Actually, and in all seriousness, WP:TFA is often criticised for featuring "too many video games!!!!" or "too many mushrooms!!!!". I could be wrong but I believe that a regular there (Brianboulton) keeps tabs on the overall numbers of FAs in rough categories and also overall numbers of featured FAs, to check that, proportionally, they are approximately equivalent. In other words, that the TFA selection reflects approximately the number of FAs that are within that broad category. DYK could use that kind of approach, rather than just saying, well hey, we have three hundred hooks about dull Mexican politicos, let's feature one per set, our English-speaking audience are bound to be interested in minor and inconsequential Mexican political bios once (or twice!) a day for a year or so... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I keep a table here, updated each month, showing how we're doing in terms of proportional representation at TFA. The theoretical aim is that at the end the year the right-hand column will contain all zeroes, which is unlikely to happen, although we'll try to get near. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't we just use the "interesting to a broad audience" provision to keep some of these hooks off the main page? Some arguably fail the "interesting" criterion to start with, and a law of diminishing returns suggests that each successive hook in a relatively short time frame will be even less interesting. Edwardx (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• There are a couple of Mexican politician hooks that are sitting and approved - if someone wants to give them an "is this interesting" assessment it'd be appreciated.  MPJ-DK  21:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  Sadly, the "this is interesting" brigade died a death when people like EEng stopped contributing here. Regardless of methodology, at least he and other like-minded editors were mindful of the fact that DYK should never be "DYK that A is a footballer who played for B during the C-D season?" (or, in this case "DYK Pablo Dominguez was a politician for the ABC party who won a seat for the DEF party"). Yes, hookiness is subjective but nine times out of ten, reviews are not bothered by that. Hence we have a backlog of Mexican politicians to come.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"When Mexico sends its hooks, they're not sending their best. They’re not sending Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators. They’re not sending the corporate CEO grilled on the witness stand. They're sending hooks that have lots of problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good hooks."– EEng
The preceeding Fence will naturally be paid for by those pesty Ostriches. ;-)  MPJ-DK 

With the recent string of Mexican politicians, and to a lesser extent the Mexican wrestlers, never since the (still ongoing?) drumbeat of Pennsylvania creeks and streams have we had such an extensive run of hooks, day after day, calculated to make readers say, "Jesus! I'm so tired of reading about [fill in blank]!" I'll say again we should be taking only 1/3 to 1/2 of submissions, based on a straight gut-feeling vote on "interestingness". EEng 21:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• A-Hem, Mexican wrestling shows thank you very much, I have not done a lot of wrestler bios recently ;-) If I am being held up as an example I would like it to be for what I actually did ;-) Re: "We should only be taking 1/2 of submission" - I do want to repeat a statement I have made weeks ago It is okay to fail a DYK - GAs and FAs fail every single day, but very few DYKs outright fail - they either get abandoned or someone retires, very few end up with a "thanks, but no thanks" fail.  MPJ-DK  22:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• So based on comments by Mr. Rambler hisself catching up with the "other" problem, what is the actual suggestion here? I see some go "topic restrictions" and some go "space them out" and others say "Be less boring"? So to some as long as they're interesting they can go every day, others are okay with mundane as long as they're not a daily thing. Is that where we're at? the cross-roads of "Boring" and "regular"?  MPJ-DK  22:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• To start with, I've just sent back Marco Antonio García Ayala. No one could reasonably claim that that hook is interesting. Edwardx (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: I think the problem with the Mexican-politician-in-every-prep-set started when we didn't have enough hooks to fill two daily prep sets of 7 hooks each. That problem has been solved with our new cycle of 8 hooks every 24 hours. The slower burn rate has also led to an increased in reviewed hooks, now over 50 (from just over 30, as I remember it was before). As a promoter, however, you are the last line of approval for a hook. If you think it's dull, don't promote it, and write something to that effect on the nomination template. So many reviewers just pass things automatically to get their QPQ. We have to make DYK hooky again! Yoninah (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think a 1-in-3 for Mexican politicians when we actually have several approved Mex-Pol hooks would probably be okay for frequency - just like that one time there were like.... oh I don't know 70 IWRG wrestling show hooks we had the same challenge, fortunately, sanity has prevailed and there are not as may IWRG show hooks to choose from so the regulation of how often they appear on the main seems to have self-regulated (Well that and if I build six preps fully then they will not have any of my hooks in them).  MPJ-DK  01:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• When Donald Trump is president, he's going to build a wall to keep uninteresting hooks out. And In The News is going to pay for it! Uninteresting hooks will be sent back to their nom pages, and will have to reapply! There will be no automatic path to the Main Page! EEng 01:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• While @MPJ-DK: is quite right that it should be okay to fail a DYK, even on the "interesting hook" criterion, I also think some awareness of this on part of the nominators is in order. Many editors here, myself included, work on strings of closely related articles. In these circumstances, we need to remember that not all of them are DYK material. For instance, I have created a number of articles about snakes in the genus Lycodon, but I nominated only one of them here: because only one of them had material in it that was more than pure routine. This is not to say that those articles are worthless: of course not. Boring Run-of-the-mill short articles on obscure topics are absolutely necessary: they just may not be suitable for the main page. Vanamonde (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately DYK has long been the Special Olympics of Wikipedia: everyone's a winner! No one can bear to pass judgment or hurt anyone's feelings. EEng 06:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem really is, who decides what is interesting and what is not? Perhaps one person would find 10% of hooks uninteresting, while another, 50%. There's a lot of subjectivity with regards to this criterion, not only because people differ in what they find interesting, but because "interesting" is hard to define in concrete terms. Probably the easiest standard to apply is to ask oneself whether the hook highlights something unusual. Common, everyday or mundane events obviously fail that test, so that is one thing at least reviewers should be on the lookout for. Gatoclass (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Who decides? Editors who want to participate decide. It's subjective? Editors make lots of subjective decisions. But unlike almost everything else we do at Wikipedia, it's not a question of getting something "right" -- it's just a question of gut appeal. I've said this a million times: just vote on the hooks, and the top X vote-getters are the ones that appear on Main Page. EEng 07:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

EEng, we barely have enough reviewers to keep up with the backlog. Where are we going to get a committee to !vote on each and every hook? This is just not practical IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the "hookiness" vote is the first step, which would effectively reduce the backlog by rejecting DYKs that aren't actually interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How to quickly and easily decide which hooks are interesting, and cut review workload in half at the same time

That's right, TRM. Gatoclass, I don't get it. You and I had this exact discussion not even a month ago. Don't you remember? I'm pasting this description in from that discussion:

"Interesting" hooks are selected, [clarification added:] from among incoming nominations -- all this happens before the normal review process -- with no discussion, no consensus -- just raw vote counts based on gut reaction, like this:

• Every day, 21 hooks are randomly chosen to be gathered in a set to be voted on.
• Everyone gets to vote for up to 7 of these. When the day's votes are in...
• The bottom 7 are struck permanently -- too unpopular.
• The middle 7 are marginal -- unclear if they're interesting enough. These are returned to the main pool so that sooner or later they end up in a new set of 21 to be voted on. (These 7 don't move as a block, they just all go back into the pool to swim around again until one by one each ends up in a new voting-set-of-21 selected from the whole pool.) This might happen to a given hook two or three times, but every hook eventually ends up either in the top 7 or the bottom 7, deciding its final fate.
• The top 7 hooks are "interesting", and pass on to the usual stages of review etc.

This produces 7 interesting hooks per day to go on to the review stage. Assuming about 1 in 7 doesn't actually pass review, that gives us 6 per day to go on the main page. (Yes, 6. We're only going to run 6 DYKs per day.) The beauty of this is that we eliminate 1/2 of the noms right at the door, before any significant brainpower at all is spent on them -- nothing more than the gut, "Wow! That's interesting!"

Obviously the specific numbers are adjusted according to the rate at which noms are coming in and the actual # we want to run each day.

EEng 21:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly this is a sea change for DYK who have traditionally pretty much guaranteed to run every single nomination, regardless of whether it's of any interest. I am certainly in favour of the principle of jettisoning dull hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• My response to this proposal is the same as it was last time EEng, which I will now repeat for your benefit: while I sympathize with your vision of more interesting hook sets, I don't believe a process like this would significantly improve them. If you look through the DYK archives, you will occasionally see a standout hook but most are pretty run of the mill no matter how you cut it. A very small number of hooks are genuine dogs, but far less than a third, so under a process like this, you would be penalizing a third of nominators quite arbitrarily in order to get rid of the occasional dog. Not a very fair or efficient process IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a third, it's half, and your worry about 'penalizing nominators' is at the heart of what's wrong with DYK. This shouldn't be about rewarding people or being fair, it's should be about getting good content onto the main page. If someone doesn't want the heartbreak of their nomination being rejected, they shouldn't nominate dull hooks or zillions of hooks on the same subject. This process isn't inefficient, but rather highly efficient since it kills half the nominations right at the door (of course, that proportion can be adjusted) thus releasing brainpower to do actually effective reviews on those left. The point isn't to eliminate 'dogs' but to select the best -- honestly, I'd kill 2/3 of moms, but I'll settle for 1/2. EEng 08:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

EEng, arithmetic is not my strong point but last time I checked, 7 was a third of 21, not a half.

And besides, hook interest is certainly not the only criterion by which nominations are judged. There are contributors to DYK who are able to supply excellent, FA-quality nominations who couldn't write a decent hook to save themselves. One also has to consider the quality of underlying articles, people who spend ten minutes writing a stubby 1500 byte article that happens to have a slightly better than average hook should not be getting preferential treatment over those who are submitting FA-quality content with slightly under-par hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• In the described scenario, out of each set of 21 hooks, 7 are rejected and 7 accepted; thus an equal number are accepted and rejected i.e. 1/2 are rejected, 1/2 accepted. The 7 returned to the pool don't count.
• DYK is for decent articles with interesting hooks, not really good articles with crappy hooks. If your first hook is rejected, you can renominate with a different hook. (Ask a creative friend to craft a new hook.) But sooner or later, to get in the door you have to have a better-than-average hook. I know this may amaze you, but I start and develop articles even though for one reason or another I don't expect them to appear as DYKs; to be perfectly blunt, people who lose their motivation if they can't get a DYK barnstar aren't likely to have any idea how to create quality content anyway, because good writing springs from a love of writing, not from a love of the spotlight. If you only get in the spotlight half the time, that will motivate you to do better. This is Main Page, remember? -- not the Special Olympics.

EEng 12:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

EEng, if 7 hooks go back to the pool, that means only 7 out of 21 hooks have been rejected. You appear to be even worse at arithmetic than me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain this using an analogy not entirely unlike the DYK process itself (stupefying boredom, the feeling that you must have done something awful in a past life to deserve punishment, the degradation of pointless busywork, etc.). Suppose you;re in hell, where you sit on a couch in front of a TV on which every channel shows nothing but Formula 1 racing for eternity. In front of you is a huge jar of jelly beans, and the punishment for your sins (in addition to watching Formula racing for all time) is to eat them.

Now and then an imp comes in to add a bean to the jar, so during the day it tends to fill up. To keep it from overflowing, Satan periodically reaches into the jar with his accursed hand and draws out 21 jelly beans. 7 of these he forces you to eat (i.e. are judged interesting and pass to the next stage of the DYK process); 7 he throws into a fiery pit (i.e. they're rejected); and 7 (for some reason) he puts back in the jar. He does this every day. Now, what proportion of the beans eventually end up in your gullet? Half. What proportion end up in the fiery pit? Half. The 7 that go back into the jar don't count, since their fate has been postponed for a while. Do you see now? EEng 13:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Deary me, what a macabre imagination, I didn't think DYK was quite that bad. But in response to the substance - if you start out with 21 jelly beans, and throw 7 away, you still have 14 jelly beans left, whether you decide to eat them all today or put half of them back in the jar for consumption tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, EEng is right, you eventually will feature about 50% of the hooks and dismiss about 50% of the hooks. Imagine, with easier to handle numbers, that you start with 145 hooks (and that for the sake of the example, no new hooks are added), and each day you feature 5, drop 5, and put 5 back into the holding area. After 10 iterations, you have featured 50, dropped 50, and put 50 back in the holding area. So far, your 33% seems to be right. However, now you again take 15 hooks a day from the holding area, for 3 days: you have featured an additional 15, dropped an additional 15, and put 15 back in the holding area. You can now do one more iteration, and end the series with 70 hooks featured, 70 dropped, and 5 still in the holding area. Eventually, by adding new hooks, the "featured" and "dropped" numbers will get closer and closer to 50% each. (I would also support a system as propsed by EEng or something similar) Fram (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is that the rate of consumption has to equal the rate of production. Historically, we have had a usual rate of 21 "jelly beans" per day, so if you "eat" 7, reject 7 and put 7 back in the jar, then your rate of consumption is only two-thirds of the rate of production and you have a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You can adjust the # accepted, rejected, and returned to pool so that the total matches the rate moms are coming in. EEng 16:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, I still think the idea is a non-starter, for a host of reasons. Gatoclass (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please list them so we can discuss them in detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well for one thing, I hate to see perfectly good jelly beans go to waste. Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well they'll have been rejected for not being perfectly good. Got to get out of the mindset that every nom should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and one gets a bellyache from eating too many half-chewed, hurriedly swallowed jellybeans. Gatoclass, given that the explicit goal of this proposal is to have fewer DYKs appear each day, do you have any other objection? EEng 07:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to stand by what i said last time this was proposed. As the late great Margaret Thatcher once said; No, no, no. As i have to keep saying, interest is a subjective thing, it is not up to the DYK regulars to be the self-appointed guardians of what runs and what doesn't. It would also lead to enforcing systematic bias whereby the hooks would be mostly Western focused based on the majority of DYK contributors !voting. Trust me, this is not a good idea. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

it is not up to the DYK regulars... Each day a bot could invite 100 random editors to vote, so it wouldn't be DYK regulars voting. And Margaret Thatcher was a mean, abnormal creep. Are there any objections not equivalent to, "We should just run everything nominated"? EEng 08:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Inviting randoms is not a good idea (were you going to build a bot for that?). Mostly they would either ignore it through disinterest or view it as WP:SPAM or WP:CANVASS. Not to mention they will again still vote on personal opinions. Hooks should only run if they are verifiable, if they can't be then they won't run. That's the system we already have and it works well. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, inviting random people is a great idea, and the RfC bot would work perfectly. All your criticisms could be equally made about the way people are invited to RfCs.
• the system we already have... works well. You must be kidding.
• Personal opinion? Of course it's personal opinion. It's supposed to be personal opinion, because "being interesting" is a personal evaluation. Suppose with 1000 votes (100 people each voting for 10) spread over 21 candidate hooks...

• the top 7 get 150, 120, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50;
• the next 7 get 45, 40, 35, 30, 30, 30, 30
• the bottom 7 get 25, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 15

...do you honestly think it's unreasonable to judge that the top 7 will be far more interesting to our general readership than will be the bottom 7? (Remember that, under my proposal, the top 7 are accepted, the bottom 7 rejected, and the middle 7 are returned to the pool to be voted on again another day). If XYZ Snacks Corp. has developed 21 nachos flavors, but only wants to bring 7 to market, they ask a sample of people. Of the flavors that get rejected, is there one that someone, somewhere would have liked? Yes. But we shouldn't try to be all things to all people; that's what DYK tries to do now, and it's exactly why it's such a slagheap of low-quality material.

EEng 21:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A slagheap which is perpetuated by the regulars who don't see any problem with posting detritus to the main page. I'm bemused, amused and depressed, all at once, by the sad "by the numbers" approach in which the DYK regulars have become entrapped. Apparently, there's no problem, and apparently, even if a solution was proposed, it would be far too dangerous for DYK and its regulars (and its "new contributors", average edits = 10k+) to contemplate. Change is bad, noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because the random 100 you ask (assuming all are interested in getting involved, which won't happen), they may well have 80 Western and 20 Eastern and the Western interests will be given precedence in DYK. And of course people get invited to RFCs because its an area they have edited in before, this proposal is just random indiscriminate bot invites. All DYKs should be treated equally as they are now so a wide variety of subjects are showcased while also ensuring there is none of that systematic bias that Wikipedia so often gets accused of. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If only 10% respond on the average, then we ask 1000, to get 100. Interesting is interesting, no matter what culture it's from. Instead of running stuff that people actually want to read about, you want to push stuff in front of them they won't click on anyway (as shown by the voting). What's the point of that? EEng 22:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's utter bollocks. If DYK doesn't suffer from systemic bias, why have there been dozens of Mexican politicians and hundreds of streams in Pennsylvania featured? Why have trivial Lucha Libra wrestling hooks been featured? It's nothing more than pure systemic bias (and bogus DYK criteria - every hook gets its chance!) that allows these hooks, in their vast numbers to proliferate. A very narrow variety of subjects are usually featured, day in, day out. To claim otherwise is nonsensical, and yet another symptom of problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Peaks and troughs. They come and go. There may well be a spike at one point but then it goes quiet again. For example in March/April we had a large number on Welsh Churches (and Welsh articles in general) but that went back down after a little while yet no-one complained. Every hook should deserve it's chance to be showcased, regardless of what us regulars think about how "interesting" it is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• EEng, I thought the "explicit goal" of this proposal was to have better hooks, not fewer, that's certainly the impression I've had from everything you've said prior. But if your goal is simply to have fewer hooks, I don't see any merit in that proposal at all. Gatoclass (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Better is achieved by fewer -- taking the better 50% of those submitted. As mentioned already, it also cuts the number of noms reviewed by 50%, making quality reviews easier to achieve. EEng 10:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So the goal is better after all? I'm glad to hear that, but as I've tried to point out to you in the past, throwing out half the hooks just in order to get rid of the occasional substandard hook is not only a very inefficient means of achieving the goal, but also very unfair for all those whose rejected hooks are virtually indistinguishable in quality from the accepted ones. Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Our "interesting" problem isn't the occasional substandard hook, it's that most hooks are ho-hum at best. Ideally a hook should be something which, if you were riding in a car with someone, you'd actually speak up and say, "Wow! Did you know...?", not just mutter to yourself, "Oh. Uh, ok...". Most hooks can't meet quite that standard, but maybe we can get close. If you want to adjust the numbers to reject just the bottom 25%, I'd be happy with that too. And what's inefficient about it? Nothing's more lightweight than straight voting. EEng 21:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Reading over the parts of this portion that's not bad attitude and vitriol I am still not sure what the improvement this will bring. Looking at it I see one thing "Reduce the number of hooks" - What does that do? I don't see what sort of improvement that would bring? Put 21 gold bars up for vote we would still lose 7 gold bars, put 21 turdballs up for a vote and we'd promote 7 turdballs. I am not seeing how this improves the quality of the actual hooks?  MPJ-DK  00:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The laws of statistics virtually guarantee that there will be gold and turd in any set of 21 being voted on. Reducing the number of hooks lets us offer only the best, and the time and attention that would have been spent on reviewing the worst noms can now be used to make more effective reviews of the smaller set of better ones. EEng 01:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Random people voting does not in any way ensure quality in the ones that are selected. This seems a lot of work to set up and go through without it actually ensuring the quality. Quality is not a numbers game, the review quality of a hook should be increased, no matter if we have 10 hooks sitting in line or 100. This does not ensure that we'd have any less hooks pulled from prep, queue or the front page as far as I see it.  MPJ-DK  03:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The main goal of this proposal is to increase the quality of hooks (in terms of their appeal to readers) by running only the best 50% (or 30%, or 70%, or...) instead of 100% of what arrives on the doorstep. The reduction in the number of reviews required, and likely consequent improvement in review quality, is just a bonus. EEng 03:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, there would a vote before they're reviewed? or am I reading this wrong? I am all for emphasizing the fact that not everything will run, I have been stating that repeatedly, it is okay to fail a DYK nom.  MPJ-DK  04:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like I didn't make that clear enough (now clarified way above in the original proposal). By voting on "interestingness" absolutely first, before any reviewing, we save a huge amount of work. EEng 06:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Then I am totally against this, there is no quality improvement in this, perfectly valid hooks that meet all other requirements than "boring' could be rejected for hooks that may be "interesting" but fails a bunch of other issues.  MPJ-DK  12:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem still to not understand. Once they pass the interesting vote, they'd go through the same review process they do now. EEng 22:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No I understand that they would be reviewed again - we could end up with 7 hooks for articles that are not long enough, not sourced, up for AFD, in poor English and not actually have any hooks for that day? I see this as an unnecessary complication.  MPJ-DK  22:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you still don't understand. Incoming noms go into a "preliminary pool", and it is from this preliminary pool that, each day, 21 are randomly chosen to be voted on for interestingness. The bottom 7 vote-getters ("uninteresting") are permanently out of the running. The middle 7 ("borderline") go back into the preliminary pool and will someday be randomly picked again to be voted on. The top 7 then go on to a "review" pool (equivalent of the current nominations page) where they undergo the usual review process. But they don't stay together as a set or anything like that -- they just swim around individually in the review pool as they do now, in various stages of review. Prep sets are assembled the same as they are now: way down the line by choosing from among reviewed, approved, noms.

Obviously the parameters (# in each voting set, # passed on to review stage, # thrown out as uninteresting) can be adjusted to change the % of noms passed as interesting, # of hooks appearing on Main Page each day, etc. EEng 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Picking hooks is rather more difficult than picking winners at the races. A recent article that barely survived deletion racked up a record number of page views. Lots of hooks that reviewers have called "boring!" have racked up large numbers of page views. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to see an example of that. EEng 22:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 Ping! EEng 21:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

EEng, DYK is not Wikipedia's answer to Ripley's Believe It or Not. DYK exists to remind readers that Wikipedia is an ever-growing body of knowledge and to serve as a sample of the kinds of topics people are currently writing about. It's also there as an incentive for users to remain engaged in new content creation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to feature the best possible hooks, but many of the topics people write about just don't lend themselves to compelling hooks. What we should be trying to do is ensure that hooks are as good as they can be within the limitations of DYK's brief, and that the really bad hooks - those, essentially, which contain no useful information - get weeded out. One ought to be able to achieve that without scratching fully 50% of the nominations, and without such a top-heavy and arbitrary process as the one you have proposed here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass. The hooks represent our new or improved content and the reader can click on any hook they fancy. They can make the choice of what they find interesting, we don't have to do it for them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Look, this subthread started because Gatoclass asked, "I think the problem really is, who decides what is interesting and what is not?". I proposed a way to do that. But based on the discussion above, I think we'd better just remove the "hook should be interesting" rule, since it's obviously not being followed. EEng 22:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that I don't endorse Cwmhiraeth's comment that "we don't have to do it for them", that is not my position at all and I think it very important that hooks maintain an appropriate standard. What I have tried to say is that DYK fulfills multiple functions, it's not just about finding the most interesting facts available and posting them, if that was the purpose we would abandon the "newness" requirement altogether along with most of the others and just be asking people to scour the encyclopedia for fascinating facts. DYK is about showcasing new content, and the hooks are just meant to be a method of presenting that new content in the most interesting possible way. The other point that perhaps I should be making, EEng, is that to achieve the kind of major improvement in hook quality that you appear to want, we would have to ditch not 50% of hooks, but more like 95%, because there are only ever a small number of standouts, and nobody at DYK is ever likely to accept that. What I think we can realistically aim for then, is the weeding out of genuinely subpar hooks, and ensuring that all remaining hooks are as good as they can possibly be. Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Killing even just the bottom 20% of the vote would go a long way toward improving hook quality. It's like when you decant the sediment off the bottom of a bottle of wine. EEng 07:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree that some hooks are simply not up to scratch and should not be featured, although I wouldn't put the percentage at as high as 20%. I agree that not enough attention is paid to hook quality, but what can be done about that, I'm just not sure. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass and EEng: surely an easy way to do this (or at least, a step that is easy, should have no ill effects, and might work) is to emphasize the "hookiness" rule. I'm not sure where in the guidelines/rules we would do this, but we could a) make it clear that rejecting a hook due to lack of hookiness is okay, b) suggest fairly strongly that the hook should represent a fact that is odd or unusual. We can't come up with any universal definition of "interesting"; but we can say that some facts are run-of-the-mill with respect to a given subject, and others are not. For instance, saying that a racing horse won such-and-such race: or that politician X served as MP; or that species X was discovered in year such-and-such: these are routine facts, and even if we begin to reject such hooks, we should be able to pare down a good few "boring" ones. Vanamonde (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, the great thing about voting is that you don't have to define hookiness -- people know it when they see it. But I'll try your idea, and start tagging dull hooks. I predict, however, that the response will be, "Well, maybe you don't care, but someone, somewhere might think be interested to learn that John Smith was elected mayor of Smallville in 2012, so who are you to judge?", and we'll be back where we started. EEng 18:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So I would expect that a person tagging a hook as boring would then also evaluate alternative suggestions? After all if you care enough to tag, you care enough to do the follow up right?  MPJ-DK  20:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, for now I'm just going about grumpily decrying hooks left and right. Maybe that will motivate people to try a bit harder and, if there's really nothing worth offering about a subject, letting the nom slip beneath the waves. The funny thing is, I can hardly recall an article completely bereft of hookworthy content, if people would just make the effort. EEng 21:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: that's a fair point, I don't expect everybody to jump aboard at once: I just see it as a more palatable solution than many of the others. I too have an issue with voting, but my issue actually has to do with a blind application of "reader interest" as a criterion for how good a DYK entry is. I don't think the worth of an article is closely related to how many views it gets; extending that, I don't think the goal of DYK should be to maximize the number of clicks on our hooks in general: I think we should maximize the number of clicks, after making sure that we have subject matter that has a reasonable diversity and a reasonable importance to Wikipedia. Hence my proposal. Maybe I will break it out into a separate section when I have more time later. Vanamonde (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

But the point of DYK is not to highlight our most worthy content, rather that which is likely to be of greatest interest to a wide enough audience. As for the hook, it's rather like a movie trailer - a good one does not guarantee a good film, but a poor trailer does not bode well. Edwardx (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, my efforts to highly the interstingness rule is meeting with acclaim and gratitude from the vast majority of our fellow editors. [2] EEng 22:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Attitude blurs the message" - revealing a distain for the topic of the DYK is not really helpful.  MPJ-DK  23:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• @EEng: I'm sorry, but I disagree. If we wanted purely to select things that had the "most interest to a wide enough audience," we should stick to entries that are related to western pop-culture and politics, with movies from other countries thrown in for good measure. This is not an approach I am comfortable with. With respect to the example you gave: I think the ALT0 was a half-decent hook. Why? Because the NAACP is for the advancement of colored peoples: and Russians are not commonly seen as people of color. So, within the frame of reference of the subject, the hook is quite intriguing. Perhaps it will not get as many clicks as Tiffany Trump, but DYK is not an online ad agency: we're not trying to maximize clicks to the detriment of all else. We're showcasing new and improved content, so that editors have an incentive to continue to produce new and improved content. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think you're selling our readership short by assuming they're only interested in "western pop-culture and politics, with movies from other countries thrown in for good measure" -- if we voted on hooks like I keep advocating, I think you'd be surprised at how wide are the subjects people are interested in. The boring hooks we get aren't boring because of their topic area, but because the hook's statement says something boring about that topic area. If nominators will find something appropriately interesting to say, the topic area can be anything.

As to the NAACP hook, there's nothing unusual about that at all. Joel Spingarn, an American Jew, was (successively) the NAACP's chairman, treasurer, and president from 1913 until his death in 1939. In a way this is perhaps one of the worst hooks I've seen, now that I think of it, in that it plays into, and reinforces, historical ignorance. EEng 07:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A different branch of the discussion

Perhaps Raymie could be persuaded to move on to politicians in Guatemala or Costa Rica! Or more seriously, he could nominate some multiple hooks such as "... that A, B and C were among the newly elected deputies in X assembly in 2006?". Had MPJ-DK been allowed to proceed with his 70 article hook, there would have been no complaint on the excessive number of hooks on Mexican wrestlers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been concerned about the quality of some of these recent Spanish politician hooks myself, and have been considered starting to challenge a few on the interest criterion. It seems I am not the only one whose been thinking along these lines, so perhaps it's time to start subjecting these nominations to some closer scrutiny. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: @Gatoclass: There's a reason I've taken a good break from DYK — the hook quality was honestly starting to dive. It might be time to put a couple of the last political ones to rest and for me to only submit new DYKs where there's actually a good hook to be had. I have three DYKs sitting at T:TDYK - the two politicians can go, but I'd like to see XHLUV-FM stay because it's on a different topic (radio) and the hook should actually be interesting (the station has a substantial and noteworthy history prior to being licensed). Raymie (t • c) 21:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too discouraged by the "interesting" requirement. Some subjects lend themselves to interesting hooks and others do not. Politicians fall into the latter category and BLP issues make things more difficult. I don't think that is a good reason for excluding them from DYK, which is meant to showcase the new and expanded articles being produced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

He's not "discouraged". He's just got the common sense to realize that if an article doesn't have anything in it worth making into a hook, then it's better just to skip it, DYK-wise [3]. EEng 05:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

And you have to really question if you can "showcase" something which is dull as dishwater. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Errors on nomination page

I'm only able to read up to "Articles created/expanded on August 31" at WP:DYKNOM. Entries after this are not showing up, including the special occasion holding area. I tried purging, checked through the page, etc., but I haven't been able to find the cause of the error. I was thinking the problem might be due to missing syntax in the hidden comments, but they all seem to be in order. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Any ideas about this one, Maile66? Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it's likely due to some formatting problems in Template:Did you know nominations/WWT Slimbridge. I tweaked it a few times and previewed, but couldn't get it fixed yet. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Intelligentsium, because this may be occurring per the DYKReviewBot script on the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the Bot informed me that there was a problem with the Slimbridge nomination and then quit half way through its review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is, in fact, a DYKReviewBot issue caused by a vertical bar appearing in the summary of a paragraph. Pppery 11:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what you do, a vertical bar out of place. If you see it, can you remove it? — Maile (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Intelligentsium, Northamerica1000, Gatoclass, Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, and Pppery: I have removed the incomplete DYKReviewBot review from Template:Did you know nominations/WWT Slimbridge. That seems to have resolved the issues for now. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Why didn't I think of that? Facepalm. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Up on this page in the section Broken code on WP:DYKN Intelligentsium commented "...the most time-efficient solution is if you see a nomination like this that hasn't yet been human-reviewed, just undo/revert the bot's review and it will replace it with a new review (which is not affected by this issue) on its next run." — Maile (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Pppery is correct, the issue here was because one of the paragraphs the bot grabbed included a pipe character/vertical bar "|". Review pages can't have pipes in the text because they are wrapped in a template, {{DYKsubpage}}, and the pipe breaks the template. On further inspection, the bot should not have grabbed that bit of text as it was an image caption which does not count under the DYK rules. I've made a tweak to the code so this won't happen anymore. This is not related to the previous issue. Intelligentsium 20:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem on the nomination page for August 22nd with Template:Did you know nominations/Fallout 4: Nuka-World. This nomination has been promoted and archived, but part of it remains on the nomination page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem

At the bottom of the September 6 section heading on WP:DYKN the last few nominations are linked not transcluded even though they are all using the
{{Templates:Did you know nominations/XYZ}} format and are not using square brackets which is the punctuation that is normally used for linking. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Intelligentsium The following nominations are affected by this:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Marlowe Memorial bot review only
• Template:Did you know nominations/Zimbabwe national football team bot review and human review
• Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford Blue (cheese) human review only
• Template:Did you know nominations/In Arcadia Ego bot review and human review
• Template:Did you know nominations/Triathlon at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's bot review and human review
• Template:Did you know nominations/Capital Combat bot review only

Please advise. And by the way, your user page (not talk page) opens to the edit window. I can't edit in it, nor do I want to. Because of big blank white space at the top of the page, I also cannot click on "Talk". It's somewhat of a useless dead end for some, in both Firefox and IE. — Maile (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• The problem is that Template talk:Did you know is exceeding Wikimedia's post-expand include limit. The solution is to close nominations at least as fast as new ones are arriving. --Allen3 ^talk 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Dream on. EEng 13:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the ping. I have looked into the issue and I do not believe this is (directly) related to the bot. The page T:TDYK appears to have reach the post-expand include size limit which means the page is too large, likely due to too many unreviewed or unpromoted nominations. Thus, further template transclusions will simply appear as links. While a contributing factor to this may be the bot's reviews, the bot reviews do not contain any information that a thorough human review would not; this probably is more of a reflection on the fact that nominations are coming in too quickly and turnover is not fast enough. A larger contributing factor to this issue is likely the recent transition from four-times-daily to daily DYK updates, which means hooks spend 4x longer at every stage.

A temporary solution would be to promote some approved hooks and attempt to close out the long discussions at the back of the queue, though it may be worth it to create more preps so we don't have nominations languishing on T:TDYK. Intelligentsium 13:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Intelligentsium, we only currently have 191 nominations on the page, historically that is not a lot, IIRC we have had close to 400 in the past and I don't recall the page breaking the limit before. I am concerned that the bot reviews may be contributing to the overload. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, BlueMoonset, Allen3, Intelligentsium I've been going through the page, one nomination at a time. The moment it threw off was this transclusion before the review bot ever looked at it. There's nothing wrong with that template that I can see. And I've deleted it (without saving) and then previewed, and removing it didn't help We are indeed listed on Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. But, the review bot is adding considerable size to each template. Not sure if that affects the transclusion size or not. Prior to the bot, we didn't necessarily have lengthy postings on each review. But the question is...what do we do about this? That is, if the increased individual size is involved. — Maile (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: you can close this rejected nomination to make a little more space. Yoninah (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering whether the new "hidden" and "hidden end" templates in each bot-reviewed nomination (I believe there are two pairs of these) might be adding to the number of templates needing expansion on the page. If it counts as four extra per nomination, or even two extra, they can add up fast. Does anyone know whether this issue is due to the actual length of the page, or the number of templates that need to be expanded? I think we've had longer pages in the past than what we have now. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a possibility; I looked at the source code of {{hidden begin}} and it's larger than I thought (though not "huge"). I have swapped it out in the bot code with a stripped-down HTML version that should be much smaller. Intelligentsium 19:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• The problem seems to be growing. My De laude Cestrie suggestion was definitely transcluding properly yesterday and is now failing, as are several around it I recall seeing transcluded. Can we (1) transfer approved hooks to a bucket prep for now & (2) turn off bot operation? Otherwise this place is going to collapse in a heap. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed 25 bot reviews (where no issues were present) from the page, which seems to have helped some insofar as reducing the page size helps. I have also discontinued use of the {{hidden begin}} template in the bot code in favour of pure HTML, and may do a test run later to see if this helps the issue. The bot is temporarily on manual operation only and will not run automatically until this issue is resolved. Intelligentsium 20:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Intelligentsium: Thanks for doing this. I'm glad it's helping to fix the problem. It took me a while to figure out why the review bot's edits were being repeatedly reverted from nominations. Perhaps reference this problem in the reverts? Thanks again for your good work! - tucoxn\^talk 12:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Intelligentsium, wouldn't putting the bot review within <noinclude></noinclude> tags solve the issue without losing the bot's feedback? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Unfortunately, that was tried before and doesn't work, as the bot's noinclude tags conflict with those automatically added when a nomination is closed. Pppery 00:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Is DYK a hobby?

It is not immediately clear what hobby Fram is referring to with the statement that I "should find another hobby where you can do less harm." Perhaps he is referring to the building of prep sets, where my philosophy is to fill a set when I see that several are empty and queue-builders will have difficulty moving prep sets on. I wouldn't really call this a hobby, but rather helping the DYK process, being a cog in a machine to move things along. I doubt my record here is any worse than that of anybody else, its just that I have persisted when others have given up.

More likely, Fram is referring to all my participation in Wikipedia, hoping to drive me away from DYK or Wikipedia altogether. Now Fram has his good points, but has a domineering personality and has largely "taken over" DYK. He has a laudable ability to discover facts that others have missed and root out erroneous statements in hooks. You could even call this a useful attribute if it were not used to humiliate, denigrate and hound others. So what of my "hobby"? If you look at my recent efforts through my "contributions" tab or my talk page, you will see what I think is an impressive legacy of activity and improved articles. Now look at Fram's contributions and talk page and you will see a depressing array of negativity. Even Fram's evidence at the TRM arbitration hearing was off topic, being a diatribe against me. Fram has been pretty successful at driving other editors away from DYK and Wikipedia, but he is not going to succeed with me, so it's best if he stops trying. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hear Hear. Don't let anybody push you around Cwmhiraeth. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Just look at the Büning discussion above. I have no problem with the other editors on that hook, they made an error, I point it out, they accept it, no problem (just like people pointing out why my evidence or interpretation of it are wrong are no problem). But we have one editor who first insists that it isn't an error, only to afterwards reveal that he didn't even understand the hook source and accepted it in good faith. Revealing your very problematic behaviour (on this and other DYKs where you were in the wrong but insisted that you were right against all the evidence) may be humiliating to you, but it's a humiliation of your own doing. I have no interest in driving you away from Wikipedia, though if the way you go about it outside of DYK is comparable to what you do here, it may be a good idea for you anyway. But the good work you do is no excuse to disrupt DYK and attempt to get your errors (hooks you wrote or accepted) on the main page even after others have pointed them out.

As for my talk page, I see a first section "Thank you so much", a second section "Great! Thanks again", a third section with a standard friendly message, a fourth about a page that has been deleted, a fifth with "Thank you! ", and so on and so on (this is not a cleaned version, it's just the way the messages were entered since my last archiving). Even when I start looking at sections started in 2016, the first one is "Thanks", the second is an award, then a few standard questions, a "thanks" for an unblock, inbetween a few DYK credits, a barnstar, further standard discussions, thanks from different people... The "depressing array of negativity" seems to be mostly missing, apart from interactions with you mainly, and a few people disgruntled because I deleted their article.

Finally, my Arbcom evidence; "The Committee will also hear evidence setting those disputes in context, particularly on matters related to ITN and DYK." Your behaviour and comments at DYK is relevant context for the kind of bullshit TRM, I, and others involved in keeping errors away from the Main Page, have to deal with on a near-daily basis. And in that sense, yes, your record is a lot worse than that of most others here. Fram (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I’d like to thank Cwmhiraeth for the vast amount of work they have done for Wikipedia. Their User page is awash with articles created and barnstars from others. It shows a lot of hard work. It’s a great shame when discussion degenerates into a slanging match of “I am right and you are wrong”. I’ve often found that the sources on which DYK hooks are based are open to interpretation. It’s not pleasant to be insulted for pursuing what one believes to be a perfectly legitimate point of debate. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Having closely monitored Cwmhiraeth's work over many weeks, and crowned her the winner of several contests, I can safely say that she's easily one of the most productive editors we have on the site, arguably better than anybody at basic improvements in bulk, which is work we badly need, and a lot of people aren't bothering to do. I'd say given the amount of work she produces, errors are inevitable. It's good that Fram points ouut errors, but he has the tendency to operate like a bad smell at times and seems to enjoy picking on editors instead of genuinely just trying to improve wikipedia. Fram, you could be a bit nicer to people at times and less bullyish and you know it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the above Büning discussion. It's not a case of "being open for interpretation" and "a perfectly legitimate point", it's defending a hook based on a source he can't even understand. I have no problem with Cwmhiraeth continuing to do his hard work, as long as he avoids his problem areas. If too often hooks he proposes or accepts have to be rejected afterwards, and worse if he continues to defend such hooks without understanding the issues or the source involved, then that is a problem here, at DYK. Being good at other things at Wikipedia doesn't give him immunity here or the right to put his errors on the main page. Fram (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

We can assume Cwmhiraeth is a he, then. Your diktat "as long as he avoids his problem areas" sounds particularly patronising. I don't think you, or anyone else, "has to deal" with anything "on a daily basis." That's your choice? Your "hobby" perhaps? I'm sure you have very good motives for wanting in keep DYK up to scratch, but I'm sorry to say that your comments to others often come across as belittling and demotivating. It certainly puts me off contributing to DYK in case I get something wrong. As regards Eleonore Büning, I'd be more than happy to accept any advice regarding an "understanduing of German" from Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK has to deal with these things on a daily basis. I am one of those now trying to keep the errors of the main page, but of course I don't have to do this. I choose to check DYK hooks to keep errors from the main page. Cwmhiraeth chooses to nominate, review and promote hooks. Fine, but if you choose to do something on Wikipedia, you need to have the necessary competence to do so. The more prominent the activity you choose to do, the higher the standards become. Putting DYK hooks on the Main Page is one of the more high-profile activities, and when you too often get it wrong (for whatever reason), and are unable to accept corrections, then you need to be demotivated from continuing that activity. Fram (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth, I hope you will continue to build sets because set builders are very important to the running of this project and we rarely have enough of them. I've said before and I'll say it again that just putting a varied set together is a task requiring a lot of attention and I think it unreasonable to expect that those engaged in the task thoroughly check every aspect of a nomination into the bargain. That just makes it too big of a job and if we demand that of set builders nobody is ever going to bother putting a set together in the first place. Of course, set builders should do a quick check for obvious problems but they can't be expected to do everything. It is the initial reviewer who is in the best position to thoroughly check all aspects of a nomination, and after that, the administrator promoting the set to the queue, these are the users who should be taking prime responsibility for quality control, not set builders who have many other demands on their attention. Gatoclass (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wholly agree. Well said. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Not having enough set builders is less of a problem than having sloppy ones. The basic demands are not "thoroughly check every aspect of a nomination", but "thoroughly check the hook" at least. And if you don't do that, then at least accept the pull of a hook from someone who has done that. Gatoclass, if you want to change the instructions for prep builders, you are free to propose this, but at the moment, their instructions are at Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook, and one of the instructions clearly is "4) Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated)." Hook review is one of the basic requirements of prep builders, and indicating that they can ignore this will only make DYK worse than it too often already is. Fram (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram, with all due respect, you have never done any set building or queue promoting. Your contribution to DYK consists essentially of popping over here now and again when you're in the mood to check a hook or two to see if you can find a flaw. That's an order of magnitude easier than working to keep the project running day after day. If you've never built a set yourself, then you don't know just how difficult and time-consuming it can be just to find seven or eight appropriate hooks, let alone thoroughly check them for errors.

What I will say, from the point of view of a set verifier/queue promoter, is that I would much rather see a couple of completed sets containing a few errors in the preps than no sets at all. If I have the basics of a set to build on, I can always toss a couple of erroneous nominations and find a couple to replace them with somewhere, but if there is no set in prep, I am faced with the herculean task of both finding a balanced set of eight hooks and verifying them, and even with all the experience I have had at DYK, that is just too much to do. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If it is too time-consuming and difficult, then they should do something else. But if you do it, you have to do it right. I do love it though that you consider "checking a hook or two to see if you can find a flaw" so easy. If it is so easy to find these errors, then why haven't the promotor or reviewer or nominator found them? What I get is that you consider it more important to have this running day after day (no noms rejected ever preferably, see the discussion above) than to have the main page as error-free as possible. You may not mind a few errors in the prep sets, but the problem is that too many of those make it to queues and main page, despite the magnitude easier task of finding these errors. You are aware that promoters don't need to build full sets? You can just bring one or two correct hooks to a prep area, done, no problem. You are not required to build the whole set on your own. "if there is no set in prep, I am faced with the herculean task of both finding a balanced set of eight hooks and verifying them" just isn't true. If there is no set in prep, then the set on the main page will stay up a bit longer. If that happens too often, we should reconsider whether DYK needs 8 hooks and couldn't be reduced to less hooks (just like we already have reduced the number of queues per day, without Wikipedia collapsing because of it). Having new sets is less important than having correct sets. Fram (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram, if you say you don't have to build the prep yourself yet appear quite blase about how much work that goes into it, why don't you have a go at it? If you think it isn't hard, come and have a go if you think you're up to it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please reread my comment. Gatoclass was the one being blasé about how little effort goes into finding errors. I have made no comment about how easy or hard it is to build prep sets. Fram (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram, I never said it was "easy" to verify hooks. If it was easy, none of us would be having this discussion. What I said is that it's much easier to just drop by now and again and check out a hook or two than it is to build and verify entire updates, week in week out. Nor did I say it was "more important" to keep DYK running than to ensure an acceptable standard of quality control. And neither have I ever advocated "no noms rejected ever preferably", that is completely incorrect. If I had my druthers, rest assured that there would be plenty of hooks and articles getting the flick. However, Wikipedia works by consensus, and coming up with ideal solutions in an environment where nobody is in charge but everybody has an equal say on everything that happens, can as most experienced Wikipedians recognize, be diabolically difficult. And just because I happen to oppose one particular proposal does not mean that I don't recognize that a problem exists or that I'm not open to other possible solutions. It doesn't work like that. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You certainly did your best to give those impressions. But if you get the impression that I only drop by now and again, I'll have to make sure to be here even more often, no? Fram (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You can spend as much time as you like on quality control, the more the merrier. Just as long as you're not making a song and dance about it every time you find an error. Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I got complaints when I pulled errors without noting it here, or without pinging the editors whose hook was pulled. When I don't include my evidence, I get flak for overruling three or four others ("consensus"!) on a whim. And when I do note it here with pings and evidence, I get compaints that I shouldn't be "making a song and dance about it". But apart from all that, I'm more than welcome to continue my quality control... No matter how I do it, people complain, so I'll continue doing it the same way. Fram (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's great that we can all just pitch in, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• So no one actually answered the big questions - the answer of course is "yes", unless someone is getting paid to work DYKs?  MPJ-DK  20:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hobby - fine. Four-legged variety - not so good. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep set

I have no interest to go into the technical aspects of how to promote a set of hooks to a prep area (closing the nom and so on), but apart from that, here is a complete prep set of 8 hooks. Fram (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• ... that construction of Inuvik's circular "Igloo Church" (pictured) began without a building permit? (Template:Did you know nominations/Our Lady Of Victory Church (Inuvik))
• ... that the Wonder Gardens jazz and R&B nightclub in Atlantic City, New Jersey provided early exposure for Dan Fogel, Harvey Mason, George Benson, and the Commodores? (Template:Did you know nominations/Wonder Gardens)
• ...that over 100 people were arrested in seven European countries as a result of a terror plot against the 1998 FIFA World Cup? (Template:Did you know nominations/1998 World Cup terror plot)
• ... that John Ellenby was a co-founder of Grid Systems Corporation, who created one of the first laptop computers? (Template:Did you know nominations/John Ellenby)
• ... that dishes at the two Michelin star Lettonie included scrambled eggs flambéed with vodka, and served with Sevruga caviar? (Template:Did you know nominations/Lettonie (restaurant) Perhaps change the hook to read "scrambled duck eggs"?)
• ... that when accepted by the National Trust in 1982, the Kingston Lacy estate was the largest bequest they had ever received? (Template:Did you know nominations/Kingston Lacy The article doesn't mention the 1982 year, but the source does so this is a minor change to the article that needs to be made)
• ... that in 1967, at the age of 16 years and 102 days, Stanley Bish became the youngest player ever to represent PSV Eindhoven in the Eredivisie? (Template:Did you know nominations/Stanley Bish)
• ... that contrary to popular belief, the EU did not attempt to ban prawn cocktail crisps? (Template:Did you know nominations/Commission Directive 91/71/EEC)

One would think that anyone who is an Admin, who is constantly correcting what others do, would have enough self-respect to read how to promote a set to Prep. "I have no interest" is not productive. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not too bad for a first effort Fram, but I note you have included four hooks about buildings - Igloo Church, Wonder Gardens, Lettonie Restaurant and Kingston Lacy house. Moreover, two of these are about entertainment venues. One should never have more than two hooks on buildings in a set, and really, not more than one entertainment venue. So as you can see, it's not as easy to come up with a balanced set as it might look from the outside. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps because having a balanced set is not really what I care about (and an article on a restaurant is an article about a business, not really about a building, in any case). ANyway, split them over two prep sets and you have 8 vetted hooks for free. Fram (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I have moved them all to prep 4, not because I want to dismiss your concerns about a balanced set, but because now you just have to move them to whatever set you want, without needing to close them (and this way my name is attached to the promotion, so people can criticize the right person if necessary). If I made any mistakes in the promotions, please let me know. Fram (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not only did construction of the Igloo Church begin without a building permit, but the article clearly says it was completed without a permit? The authority concerned seems to have been "particularly sloppy" there, don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC) I guess they "didn't really care" about strict regulations, did they?

I've pulled the John Ellenby hook as it is factually incorrect. It says it "who created one of the first laptop computers", though the article says it was one of the first commercially successful laptops - prototypes were available a decade earlier and IBM attempted to market portables in the mid-1970s, plus the Epson HX-20 might predate it, though mass production wasn't. Also the Grid Compass says it was designed by Bill Moggridge, not Ellenby. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram making yet another error over DYK, isn't it bad enough already without more errors from Fram too? ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"yet another"? This one isn't even an error. I have explained at the DYK page, but for starters, the IBM 1970 models were portable computers, while the hook is about laptop computers instead. Even if the Epson predated it (which isn't clear), it was at most by three months, so "one of the first" seems perfectly correct. And the hook didn't say that Ellenby designed the laptop, he co-founded the company, who designed it. The hook seems to be perfectly correct, but if necessary can be rewritten to be clearer of course. Fram (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Everyone but Ritchie has indicated at the DYK nomination that the hook I promoted was indeed correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 11:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

So everyone disagrees with my views - big deal. I've always thought Tony Kaye was a better fit in Yes than Rick Wakeman, but many people disagree with that. It doesn't really matter though, everyone has moved on, suggested alts and come up with a better hook. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not argue endlessly how right we are. Don't be a poor winner. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to imagine the backlash I would have gotten if I had pulled a hook for such poor reasons... You shouldn't pull a hook (or put your own hook back in) because of "different views" but because you have a) understood the hook (which you didn't here) and b) found evidence that it is wrong (which you didn't here either). Someone not correcting his statement that a hook is "factually incorrect" is a poor loser, if you feel the need to play this as a winners-losers game. Fram (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody else cares. This discussion is over. Have you got an article to write? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Anything else, your highness? Of course you want this discussion to be over, as it shows that you are as good in judging someone else's hooks as those you wrote yourself, and as good in finding errors as you are in acknowledging them. Fram (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fram, for promoting Kingston Lacy. The hook is correct, but in changing the year in the article you introduced an error. Ralph Bankes died in 1981 and bequeathed the Kingston Lacy estate to the National Trust, but they did not accept it until 1982. The National Trust does not accept all the properties they are offered. I have changed the wording in the article to try to clarify this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, given the Arbcom case is (somewhat/incredibly/utterly biased) called "The Rambling Man", you guys are certainly working well on filling it up with examples of why DYK should be examined closely. Don't be ashamed, the Ref Desks and ITN (to an extent, although it's a far classier environs than here) are also getting a share of the observations. I wouldn't be surprised to see motions filed to at least examine the shortcomings exhibited daily by this project, so please be prepared for a few months of dramaz. Don't say I didn't warn you, you're all on the big stage now! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think it cleared the air quite well and set the scene for what I hope is a new era, a less-confrontational and more cooperational approach to DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think it will spotlight a few individuals who are clearly incompetent, who continually make and promote errors to the main page, despite dozens, if not hundreds of discussion points, even this year alone, where the usual response is "well, we're human after all!". The same mistakes continue to be made, and I look forward to the three or four individuals here being seriously scrutinised to see if they are really fit for purpose. After all, Arbcom need to do something so identifying those who are responsible for the majority of the errors and correcting their behaviour one way or another would seem a good idea! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The source used in the article says that it was given in 1982, not that it was accepted then.[4] Looking at other sources, one can find both 1981 and 1982 as the year it was bequeathed[5]. Fram (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

In English law a bequest cannot be immediately accepted when it is "made", as it requires the provision of a will which needs to be proven via the due process of probate. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Different approach to "Boring"

So I am not in favor of the "let's vote on 21" suggestion, but instead of just criticising I figured I should try to come at this with a solution, not just a complaint, trying to be some positive vibes to this. So I am trying to build a few prep areas, checking hooks and spot checking articles. I came across this nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Under Armour All-America Baseball Game with a hook of

• " ... that Under Armour has been the title sponsor of the Under Armour All-America Baseball Game since 2008?"

Which to me reads a little boring, basically "Company X sponsors event with Company X name in the title". I find it boring myself, but it is subjective and in this case I'm on the fence on yea/nay for even moving the hook. So here is my suggestion - Bring an approved but possibly boring hook to the talk page and have people give input on if they think it's boring or not to get other opinions. And if it is boring perhaps other eyes on the article could help determine if there even is an interesting hook in the article. So what does everyone think? Both of the approach and the hook listed? Figured it's worth a try myself.  MPJ-DK  03:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. While my opinions on the subjectiveness of "boring" is well known, I see no problem with a bit of community collaboration to see if there is a better hook that could be used for the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Tedious hook, not even a "hook". Just a plain statement of fact. Did you know that X sponsored X Games? BORING. A prime example of the sad state that DYK has accepted as normality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Does this look like acceptance to you?  MPJ-DK  00:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• So continuing this in a positive vibe I pinged the creator and gave a couple of suggestions that to me seem less boring, I figured a fresh set of eyes may come up with something different. Yes this would require a second review, but better to have a new review than the alternative of a boring hook. I came up with the following (I did not do any links yet)  MPJ-DK  01:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• ALT1= ... that Cal Ripken was the official ambassador for the Under Armour All-America Baseball Game several years?
• ALT2= ... that Kyler Murray was the first player to play in both the Under Armour All-America Baseball Game and Under Armour All-America Football Game?
• ALT3= ... that The Under Armour High School All-America Baseball Game is played at Wrigley Field?

The Kyler Murray hook is the only one that seems of general interest, even though "firsts" are tricky: I may not know Murray, but he played in All-America football and baseball, and being that good at two major sports isn't that usual, though it does happen. (I corrected typos in ALT2 and ALT3.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Attitude blurs the message

So none of you know me, but I have worked in IT for 20 years, often dealt with implementing quality improvements and initiatives as well as helping transforms departments. Why am I telling you this? Because I see a need for DYK to make some positive changes and I see some of the issue that have stood in the way of improvement projects I have been on. So with the spirit of wanting to help improve the quality at DYK I offer the following observation

• Attitudes kills the message

TRM and Fram have great intentions, a reduction in errors on the main page. That to me should be the end goal for everyone and definitely the end goal for any improvement suggestions we try to implement. Unfortunately the negativity of both (especially TRM) gets in the way of that message. No one wants to listen to someone who does nothing but put people down, badmouth the entire DYK community and basically go on and on. That attitude gets in the way of what they are trying to accomplish. Case in point, it was brought up by TRM several times to go to 1 set of hooks today, often presented in the "colorful" way that Rambsy works and never went anywhere. When we had a constructive, positive discussion about it we actually came to the conclusion to go to 1 set of hooks per day. This could probably have been achieved sooner if the attitude did not get in the way of the message. Comments like "Slag heap" and pretending like everyone who works on DYKs are idiots who are trying to get errors on the main page is not really helping anything. Can I quote myself from a previous post? Yes, yes I can.

• Don't be a douche - if issues are found with your hook, work with people to solve them instead of whining and crying, be responsive, people are trying to help get your hook correctly on the main page.
• Don't be a douce part deux - Assume good faith when a mistake slips through, it's most likely not an evil plot to subvert Wikipedia or make millions of dollars off that sweet front page exposure. Repeat offenders who do not show any sign of at least trying to help fix the issue and learn from their mistakes can get the AGF aspects nullified.

In conclusion it is all about the attitude - positive attitudes with a constructive mindset makes all the difference in the word and will actually lead to change. Negativity just leads to more negativity.  MPJ-DK  01:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

TLDR, bottom line is that certain members of this project have their head in the sand. Without direct action, the errors, the dull hooks, the arcane processes &c. will persist and the project will die. As for the claims of "colorful" suggestions to go to one set, it was just about you all getting a grip on the situation. I noted repeatedly, calmly and clearly that reducing the throughput to one set per day would increase the time people had to re-review all the reviews and promotions in an attempt to reduce sub-quality tat being posted to the main page. It was a pretty simple message and I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough for some of you. And I don't think Fram or I have ever called anyone idiots here, just lacking in competence. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well thank you for providing such a clear cut example of "head in the sand" attitude, very educational.  MPJ-DK  07:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Not in the slightest. My eyes are wide open, often as a result of the condition of some of the articles promoted here. If you need to be reminded of that, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Disappointing but not surprising. So when this arbcom thing you keep threatening eventually comes up I guess you would rather be seen as part of the problem, personally I would rather be part of the solution, but to each their own. Good luck with that then, hope you have fun buddy.  MPJ-DK  13:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Heh, you've got it arse about face. The problem is not editors pointing out failings in process, incompetent individuals who repeatedly fail, arcane rulesets which pay no heed to the quality of articles or hookiness of hooks. The problem is with the massive inertia that exists against any changes, or reporting of suggestions for changes. If you think DYK is something to be proud of, you need to think again. I'm not interested in the Arbcom case, I'm continuing to do the job I believe is important, and that's maintaining the integrity of the main page. It's a shame there are so few people willing to do that, in the face of these kinds of mass hysteria about a broken process, I"m not surprised. And if you consider fun to be re-checking at least the quality of every single target article linked to by DYK folk, then yes, that's what I'll continue to do. I don't see much from you, so I'd stop throwing those stones, glasshouse buddy! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• So let me ask you this - if there is an "intertian against change" do you think your negative attitude perhaps increases that? I mean someone says "hey you guys suck, listen to me" is not really going to find a lot of attentive listeners in the audience, it is a self-fullfilling prophecy. And you don't see much from me? who cares what you see? I'm trying to be a positive addition to the DYK process, be it making sure preps are filled to give more time to review or make constructive suggestions on improvements or whatever else I can do, you may not care (and I don't care if you care) but I am trying to actually get some improvements in quality through instead of just complaining.  MPJ-DK  20:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Either you have no idea what I contribute to the DYK articles every single day, or the suggestions here for more interesting hooks, more stable output, higher quality output, or you're just deliberately talking past me. Either way, waving some flag that says all I'm doing is complaining is so far off the mark as to be laughable. As I said, I see nothing from you other than this continual rejection of a demand for a higher quality project through inaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Inactive nominations

Would it make sense to put some sort of timeframe on these nominations? what I am talking about is if a review has been done and the nominator etc. need to address issues but nothing is done for over a week. I say those nominations should be closed as abandoned instead of sitting on the nomination page stagnant. It would take it off the page and allow us to focus on nominations where the editors are actively engaged.  MPJ-DK  02:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Historically, we have done that, but I think some of the users who used to take care of that sort of thing are no longer very active here. I certainly have no objection to nominations being rejected if the nominator hasn't responded within a reasonable period of time. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• So it would be okay if I ping'ed people if a thread has sat inactive for 7 days, giving them 2 days to respond and then close the nomination if nothing happens? We have a space issue on the nomination page it seems and I would like to remove anything that does not have a shot at the front page.  MPJ-DK  07:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think 2 weeks is more fair, especially for new nominators. With the dearth of reviewers we have right now, someone can nominate an article and wait weeks before it is reviewed. They're not exactly keeping an eye on the nominations page the way we DYK regulars are. Then there's a review and they may be on a break or busy with other articles. Pinging them after 2 weeks, and then giving them a week (not 2 days!) to respond, will wrap up the nomination within 3 weeks, which is one week less than the month we've been giving until now. Yoninah (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Seven days from a talk-page ping (pings from the nomination don't always work) is standard; two days is inadequate. However, it's typical after that to add an X icon due to lack of response and have someone else close it; the closes usually happen fairly soon after. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• So in general it is about a 30 day timeframe with no input before it it closed? At GA it is more around 7 daysbwith no input and GAs can wait for MONTHS to be reviewed, surprised it is that long for a DYK.  MPJ-DK  14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

• ... that Changes, a 1987 advert for the Volkswagen Golf, is remembered as having "spawned a new era in car advertising"?

Or, in reality, that one journalist in one newspaper said, that it had "spawned a new era in car advertising". There are so many better hooks that this article could have produced, so why are we going with one based on a single person's viewpoint? There a numerous sources pointing out that this was perhaps the first feminist advert. This hook ignores this completely. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, even the fact it was directed by David Bailey, or starred Paula Hamilton (in particular the bit where it says "Hamilton was styled to resemble Princess Diana") would be more interesting and less dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Something need to be done pronto. Otherwise, it's only going to end up in Errors and get pulled. Edwardx (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• I changed it to "is said to have" to eliminate the overgeneralization. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

So, on the current 8-hook main page, we now have had the above hook changed[6] per this discussion, then another one per WP:ERRORS[7], and I have now changed a third one which had an incorrect quote (needless instead of heedless, plus two more minor transcription errors)[8]. Fram (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram, there are no problems with DYK, no matter what you say. Remember that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It's like Toyota. Continuous improvement! Gatoclass (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Particularly appropriate given the millions of vehicles they have recently had to recall as as result of errors from bad design and bad judgement; spot on! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And still the world's most popular brand! Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Remains to be seen. Pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap! Not exactly what we're expecting from an encyclopedia now is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well clearly we are not meeting your expectations, but for the amount you are paying me I'm thinking they're a trifle unrealistic. Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, as Fram pointed out above, despite all these complaints (multiple reports at ERRORS per set) and suggestions (all across these talk pages), we still managed three errors in a single set. This is not meeting the Wikipedia's expectations. To deny it is a trifle silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well you know what they say, the man who never made any mistakes never made anything - including an encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That's true. Some of us have created hundreds of GAs, dozens of FLs, a hatful of FAs, hundreds of ITNs etc. You're right, there are many people who do nothing to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If that comment is your idea of a "positive contribution", small wonder you are currently at RFAR. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that's a fait accompli from the outset with masses of canvassing all of which has been readily accepted by the committee so they can dispose of me, I know that. But no, the comment was simply intended to demonstrate that I am fully aware how to build an encyclopedia, and that having done so on hundreds of thousands of occasions I feel able to note areas of improvement, particularly when it comes to tinkering with the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Progress! Today, only one hook on the Main Page has been pulled and replaced so far.[9] (one other had been replaced in the queue). Fram (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The night is young. I note that the hook just pulled (for being a grammatical mess) wasn't as written on the nom page (where the grammar was right) -- not that the grammar matters, since the fact asserted isn't in the article anyway. EEng 06:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the fact is in the article. I'll have to put up my hand for the "grammatical mess" - I attempted to tweak the original hook to avoid some awkward phrasing but managed to come up with some awkward phrasing of my own. I wasn't happy with my edit either, and probably should have gone back to re-edit it, but having just spent considerable time verifying all eight hooks, was getting tired and decided to pass on it. On the plus side, I think the replacement hook is still quite quirky. Gatoclass (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right -- I searched only the string horse but not ride or riding. EEng 07:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I had the same problem, but found the passage by searching for "London". The article uses "nag" for horse :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can hardly see how anyone participating on this talk page can fail to have the word nag uppermost in his or her mind at all times. EEng 07:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's kind of hard to argue with :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

However, those whose first language is not English might not understand the nuances of your comment ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

After the hook that was in the end pulled twice yesterday, so far today we only had one imprecise hook which has now been corrected[10]. With 5 of the 8 hooks selected by me, I hope not too much other problems will surface :-) Fram (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so it was you who put most of that set together Fram? That is interesting, because FYI you missed this and this and this and this. Thanks for playing, Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

[11] is not an improvement. If someone became X in 1967, then it automatically means that it was "then". Worse, the "then" gives the impression that his record has been broken since, which is false. Please don't make hooks worse.

[12] One dish had one egg, but he served more than one egg in total. So he served scrambled duck eggs. Your version is correct, the original is correct as well.

Which leaves your two "corrections" for the terror plot.[13] and [14]. Any indication of why you made these changes? It is easy to say I missed things, but it would be useful if you provided any evidence for this. It looks to me as if you took the numbers for 26 May only (80, in 5 countries), and confused them with the total for the whole operation (more than 100 in 7 countries). So again, while your hook version is also correct, the original one wasn't wrong. Fram (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Other sources routinely use "scrambled duck eggs" (plural) for the dish at Lettonie, including The Independent, The Birmingham Post, and National Geographic. As for the World Cup terror plot, e.g. PBS indicates how there were arrests in March and in May, in 7 countries in total (France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Britain and Sweden). Fram (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

For someone who complains about too much pedantry at WT:DYK, you sure lead by example. Fram (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram, the scrambled egg issue is trivial, but no more so than some other issues that have been brought up. I could argue for example that "women's" basketball team was obvious given the player is female. With regard to the "youngest ever" hook, the source given for that claim in the article only says he was the youngest "at the time". The article does contain another source which describes him as the "youngest ever", period, but it dates to 2004, so it may be outdated. Regarding the terrorist plot - it appears you are correct that arrests were made in seven countries, but every source seems to differ on the number arrested in the raids - one says 80 in May only, another says 88 in May and 10 in March, another still says 100 in May and 10 in March etc. I could only see one source that states that "over 100" were arrested so I think that number has to be suspect. On the other hand, I modified the hook last night to "up to 100", when it may be more rather than less, so it seems both of us may have erred on that hook. I am thinking of changing it to "about 100", or even something vague like "scores", because none of the sources seem to concur, what do you think? Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"About 100" seems the best here. I replied about the "youngest ever" elsewhere, all sources, even ones from 2013, indicate that the record has not been beaten yet; so there is no reason to turn a non-committal original hook into one that strongly suggests that the record no longer stands. Fram (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

On further reflection, I am still not 100% happy about the Stanley Bish hook, because the hook strongly implies now that he is the youngest ever, when we don't know that for certain - which is why I added "then-youngest" in the first place. Nonetheless, I am not going to quibble about it now, though I've seen plenty of similar quibbles turned into opportunities to pillory DYK regulars in the past. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I have never pilloried anyone for putting up a hook which may purely in theory not be correct but where I have no source to show it is incorrect, and multiple sources to show that it was at least correct until recently (with no reason to believe that it has changed since). You can e.g. check this page (copyright 2016) from PSV, [15], which still lists him as youngest ever. Fram (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I think a 2016 reference seals the deal, thanks for going the extra mile. But I can't help but point out, in relation to the issue of pillorying, out that only five minutes ago you were having a snicker about the omission of the word "women's" in a hook the meaning of which was I think plain enough without it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a younger men in the Canadian wheeelchair basketball team at the Paralympics though. There is no younger PSV debut. The change I made removed a possible misunderstanding (and I hardly "snickered" about it). The change you originally made introduced a possible misunderstanding. By the way, considering that e.g. rowing and sailing are mixed at the Paralympics (but not at the Olympics), there is no reason to assume that everyone knows that wheelchair basket is not mixed at the Paralympics. Even wheelchair rugby is a mixed event! Fram (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe they could look it up on the Wikipedia Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram, I have no wish to be unpleasant, but as I neither want to prolong this discussion unnecessarily, allow me to speak plainly for once. You loaded a hook into prep that said Bish was the "youngest ever" to play for PSV. There was no reliable source for that statement in the article. One source only said he was the youngest "at the time", while the other, which did state that he was the youngest ever, was from 2004 and therefore outdated. So you promoted a hook making an exceptional claim which wasn't reliably sourced in the article. That is why I altered the hook, and clearly, I was justified at the time in doing so. Since then, you have managed - after some hours - to come up with a source that pretty much removes any remaining doubt. That is well and good, but it doesn't alter the fact that you erred in originally promoting the hook. Since then, you have gone further and argued that a 2013 source is sufficient to prove the claim, which is a pretty extraordinary position to take given your frequent insistence on meticulous accuracy with regard to hooks promoted by others. A 2013 source is not in fact sufficient for a claim of this type, an accurate hook would have said "that as of 2013, Stanley Bish was the youngest ...".

Moreover, you promoted a second hook which said "over 100" people were arrested, when the sources quite widely diverge on the actual number. So again, an erroneous promotion. You also promoted a hook which said "scrambled duck eggs" when the source makes it clear that the dish is "scrambled duck egg", singular, which though not exactly erroneous is at least imprecise. I could point you to recent discussions where I personally have been castigated for "errors" of similar degree.

So while I'm not about to castigate you myself for the above oversights (especially given that I made a similar error in the same set) I really don't think you're in a position to be nitpicking me about the omission of "women's" in the basketball hook. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

So you still don't see that the original hook about Bish made no claim about the current status? Imagine a hook saying "that in 1935, at the age of 21, Jesse Ownes became the world record holder in the long jump". You would have changed it to "the then-world record holder". While not an improvement in that case either, it would at least have been correct because the record was (obviously) broken again later in history. In this case, there was a hook that exactly described the situation in 1967, and no evidence at all that the record was ever broken. So no, contrary to what you claim, you were not justified at all to alter the hook. You have not provided a single source that casted doubt on the original hook (and with good reason, as it was correct). For the "over 100", as I said most sources (e.g. the "80" one you used) were not about the total amount of arrests surrounding the plot, but only for the arrests on 26 May (the same reason why you incorrectly thought "seven countries" was wrong). The actual sources about the full event do not "diverge widely", they range from "about 100" to "over 100". The egg vs. eggs thing I have explained above, I can't help it if you can't understand this either.

The difference with the addition of "women's" is that there actually is a younger man on the Canadian wheelchair basketball team at the Rio Paralympics (I can give you the evidence, if you need it). And where was I nitpicking you about that change? I have only said that I made that change (plus reasons, no names), and only when you claimed that the meaning of the hook was plain enough did I explain why you were wrong. Perhaps you simply know that wheelchair basketball is gender-separated at the Paralympics, and e.g. wheelchair rugby isn't, and that the hook as presented thus said nothing at all about younger men or not. For me, this wasn't clear at all, certainly not when I found that there was a younger man in the team. You may well claim that the PSV hook wasn't clear for you either, but the difference is that there was nor is any evidence that the record is no longer valid, and that your change made the hook less correct, while mine made it more correct. Basically, of the four problems you highlighted here, after scrutiny at most one remains, a hook wich said "over 100" which isn't supported by all sources. That's a 25% success rate, and a day wasted on discussions to get this through to you. Good going... Fram (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

While it's true the Bish hook wasn't technically erroneous, I still think it was misleading given that it said he was the youngest ever when the sources didn't support that. Not that I ever expect to get you to concede the point. What I can do is note that DYK regulars have been castigated on this page for hooks less potentially misleading than that. With regard to the number of arrests, the sources say anything from 80 to 100 arrested in May, while from memory, 8 to 10 in March, so that's a potential difference of between 88 and 110.

The point here is not to start pointing the finger at anyone, but to recognize that the verification process can be complicated and difficult, that errors are inevitable and that nobody is immune from making them. So while I agree that we need to strive to keep improving, I think we also need to recognize that the growing culture of nitpicking here and the denigration of users that often accompanies it are not only unhelpful, but inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again, substitute "quality control for one of the most viewed pages on the internet" for "nit-picking" and seek for competence on the users, nominators, reviewers, promoters and set-builders. We clearly still have massive problems with getting even the basics right here. Fram is right to continue to point errors out, and those who feel too sensitive to cope with the constructive criticism should find somewhere else to vent their incompetence. The main page of Wikipedia is not a sandbox. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Another bright idea

You what I think would be a great rule? A requirement that every nominated hook be immediately followed (on the nom page) by a direct quote from the source supporting it. Usually it would just be a sentence or two.

Everyone here is acting in good faith, and most of the errors we get are misinterpretation and slipups in paraphrasing. If the source quotation were right there in the nom, for all to see, I think many, many errors would be caught right at the start. What do you say, gang? EEng 07:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've considered proposing something similar myself, but it adds an additional complication to a process that some already consider too complicated, and it's not always possible to give a direct quote for something. Also, if you have several alts it complicates things still further. An alternative might be to require a link to the relevant source or sources directly on the nom page - that would make it quicker to find any potential error or flaw, though of course reviewers would still have to check the article to ensure the link and source fact were there. Gatoclass (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

How can it be not possible to give a direct quote? If so, where's the hook coming from? If the source is online (as in your idea of giving a link), then it's a simply copy-paste to bring the supporting source text into the nom page. If the source is offline, then it's all the more important to quote the source so that we're not just AGFing one person's interpretation of it. It seems a small price to pay to reduce all the pulling and correcting and kvetching and backbiting. EEng 08:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As an honorary member of your gang, I'd say that was a good idea. If the nominator couldn't do it, it might make them think again on how to word the hook. However, Gatoclass does make some pertinent points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. If they can't give the quote, then where's the hook coming from? EEng 08:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not quite so simple. Hooks contain more than one fact - when verifying, you may need to independently verify as many as half a dozen different facts and they may all be in separate sources. Or the fact may come from a table or something. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

But each and every fact should be sourced, so while it makes the nomination a little more arduous, it would at least assist reviewers who have to AGF on non-English or non-online sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, very few hooks would be sourced to move than one or two sentences, and I say it's not too much to ask: if the hook's worth featuring, it should be worth it to its creator to paste out its basis. And the more different bits and pieces a given hook relies on, the more important it is to see those pieces together in one place to make sure they're not being inappropriately SYNTHed. EEng 08:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, it does concern me that it may add more complication for little concrete benefit. Reviewers are missing obvious errors now; is it really going to help them substantially just by putting a quote directly on the nominations page? Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

After all the effort of writing or expanding an article, this is trivial extra work, and the benefit is very concrete. Look at the soup we're in right now about the horseriding bicycle courtier in the garden. EEng 08:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's some bicycling in a tasty garden soup I found earlier. Sorry, no obvious horses. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal that every nominated hook be immediately followed (on the nom page) by the direct quote from the source that supports it

• Support as propose. I'm serious about this proposal. I'd like to hear from more editors. (If there's consensus for this general idea we can have a separate discussion of the specific rule wording.) EEng 21:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support, and remove the requirement that a hook must be cited right after its mention in the article. Much better solution that avoids unnecessary citations. SSTflyer 03:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That could be a great bonus. Good thinking! But let's leave specifics to a separate phase after (hopefully) we get consensus for the general idea. EEng 06:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, because reviewers still need to confirm that the hook is supported in the article, and readers who have read the hook may also want to check the source for themselves. Gatoclass (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Qualified support. It's going to add to instruction creep, but I think we could probably trial it for a few months and see how it works out. I think it important to add that the quote or quotes should be accompanied by a link to the source (where available) which would be of assistance to reviewers and hopefully even encourage more reviewing. Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The issue I see here is an article being written using library print sources, promoted to GA after the library books have been returned, and the editor not having the print sources to quote for the dyk. I think an exception could be made for print sources not currently in the nominator's possession. They could still be required to include the citation(s) in the dyk nom. --JFH (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Voluntarily only during the trial run. The best illustration is what EEng just did. Kai-Tai Fang. It's clear and helpful. Not all editors are alike, however. I can think of some snags, so let's do it on a voluntary basis at first. We have some regulars here who could, if willing, do a credible quote on theirs. Obvious drawbacks getting past the trial stage:

• (1) New nominators and reviewers who already struggle with just too many rules;
• (2) Bytes added to each template. Although I'm unsure of the technical aspects on transclusions, the review bot seems to have affected that (maybe);
• (3) Multiple-article hooks. @MPJ-DK, Hawkeye7, Miyagawa, and Cwmhiraeth: can you offer some input?;
• (4) Reviewers who will assume everything is answered on the template and won't check the article and sourcing, but rather pass the nomination with something like "hook, article, source all pass". Let's be frank, with QPQ, some reviewers are not thorough, and this is one more layer.

Let's give some thought to the flaws we see in the process, and consider if this would end up being one more. Would we one day have someone yanking all hooks that got past without the embedded source quote, even though everything on the article and nomination otherwise passed? — Maile (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let's make it not required (but "strongly encouraged", let's say) for a while, see what the voluntary uptake is, and see what problems we run into. EEng 20:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Support for a trial run. Yes, let's see how it works. — Maile (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I am happy to give it a try, but often there is more than one hook fact which could create difficulties. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If what you're referring to is that sometimes a hook pulls together two+ plus facts from two+ sources, in that case it's all the more important to see the text of the various supporting sources to be sure the hook fairly combines these facts without inappropriate SYNTH. EEng 20:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - It's a positive suggestion that may help improve quality, it'll definitly help address any issues where the source is misinterpreted. Not sure if it'll work in all cases but it's worth trying it out to shake out what the challenges may be. It would restrict hooks based on book sources that were added by someone else - but I am not sure how many that would actually be (1 in 50? 1 in 500?) not enough to discourage a trial run.  MPJ-DK  20:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Anything to make it easier for the nominators pretty much. Regarding multi-article hooks, there needs to be some specification about whether there's a single source for all the articles or individual sources per article. Simple coding in the template much like the ALT1, ALT2 etc lines should suffice. Besides, it then leaves it open to have multiple sources for a single article hook. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support funniest thing I've seen is that this is a claim to increase "instruction creep". Well if you have 87 instructions, another 1 is not that much of a creep. Deal with it for the improved quality of hook reviews it will bring. Even a 1% improvement will be a net gain. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose We require that articles do not copy text from other sources directly. It would then be absurdly contradictory to require nominators to risk copyright violation by doing so. Andrew D. (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a copyright violation if the small amount of text required to reference the hook is published, along with attribution. Even you know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There's been a misunderstanding. Please look at what I linked above that EEng did. Everything is wrapped in quotation marks and followed by the source link. Editors also have several options to use on Template:Talk quotation. No copyvio is involved if it's in quotation marks. — Maile (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Use of quotation marks does not stop it being a copy. One is then relying upon the usage being considered fair use and that is always debatable. It is not common scholarly practise to quote supporting texts verbatim in this way; a citation is considered enough. To go beyond this would then arguably exceed fair use, especially as we have managed without this for many years. Moreover, editors who have made lavish use of quotations, such as RAN, have been extensively hounded for this by editors such as Fram. It then becomes a Catch-22; quote and be accused of copyvio or don't quote and be accused of making things up. Andrew D. (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Andrew is right that quote marks don't change a copyright violation into not-a-copyright-violation (what they do is convert plagiarism into not-plagiarism), but as you say, Andrew, fair use is always debatable, so we have to exercise our judgment. We routinely use quotations -- even extensive quotations -- on article talk pages in discussing whether and how to use a particular source in an article. The proposed use here is little different, and will disappear into the the dark pit of the archives in a month or two. In Mr. Justice Story's formulation "we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work", and in that light it's hard to see the use we're contemplating here as not fair use. EEng 23:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The example given above for Kai-Tai Fang is an extract from a book supplied by Google Books. The copyright notice on that book has the standard boilerplate, "All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means ... without written permission from the publisher." That means exactly what it says and, if EEng did not get written permission, he has violated copyright. Google itself was sued by publishers for this reason and arrived at some sort of legal settlement. But that doesn't mean that the text found on Google is public domain and we can freely copy it in turn. We might do this informally and get away with it but if we start forcing people to copy such text systematically and mechanically then we're risking trouble. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Andrew, I have great respect for you as an editor, but if you really believe what you just said then you have no understanding of intellectual property law at all. Just because a book displays such a notice doesn't make it true, any more than a sign in a store declaring, "Absolutely No Refunds or Exchanges" makes that true. If you were right in what you're saying here, then every instance of an article quoting a copyrighted work is a copyvio, and obviously that's not the case. As for Googlebooks, the Authors Guild indeed sued Google over its display of "snippets" of copyrighted works – and lost. There was no settlement except in name. (Googlebooks agreed to do something it had always done anyway i.e. allow copyright holders to opt out of having snippets of their works displayed.) But the legality of Googlebooks snippets has nothing to do with what we're talking about anyway.

In Judge Pierre Leval's influential formulation, the "transformative uses" which are a requirement for fair use include (among other things) "criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it." If that isn't bang-on to what we're talking about doing right here, I don't know what is. EEng 08:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW (before anyone asks) my quotation of Judge Leval's text is fair use. EEng 20:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support a voluntary trial run. I see a number of potential drawbacks, including complexities where multiple sources are needed and offputting effect on newbies, as well as the points articulated by Maile especially (4) -- but there are obvious benefits too. Let's see how it works in practice. I don't see that quoting a few sentences in quotation marks with a link to the source would present a copyright problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: One problem that strikes me on this is that it would be particularly useful to quote paywalled material. If editors are accessing this via The Wikipedia Library (as I am) then you are explicitly required to provide full citation details rather than bare url links, so the full reference would need to be duplicated with the quotation in the DYK template page. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Donors of resources made available via Wikipedia Library sometimes ask that care be taken to give full citation details, so that they'll get a bit of recognition for their largesse. For me to believe that this requirement extends to every ephemeral quotation on a talk page, you'll have to show me where that's stated in the W. Library requirements. EEng 03:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, "Editors should always provide original citation information, in addition to linking a JSTOR article" [emphasis added] & "Editors should not provide bare links to non-free JSTOR pages" [16] don't seem to mention whether it's in article space or not. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What WP:JSTOR#Citation says, in full, is :::::*Editors should always provide original citation information, in addition to linking a JSTOR article, per WP:V and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

• Editors should not provide bare links to non-free JSTOR pages
• Editors should credit JSTOR and denote the registration requirement by adding |registration=yes and either the |via=[[JSTOR]] or |jstor= parameters to {{cite}} or {{citation}} templates as appropriate, or by using the standalone template, {{Subscription required|via=[[JSTOR]]}}

It's perfectly clear, especially in the refs to V and SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, that this is an insistence that accessed material be clearly acknowledged when it's used in articles. On your theory, if an editor says, in a talk page discussion, "The Smith source already in the article says, 'X'", he's supposed to give a full, formal citation to Smith, right there, even though anyone can see what the Smith source is by looking in the article, and even if there have already been 50 posts in the thread referring to that same source. It's silly. Donors to the WP Library are looking for due recognition that their generosity has contributed to the body of knowledge that is Wikipedia, not a robotic burden dogging editors to gum up their discussions and weigh them down at every turn. EEng 04:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a minor sideline and I don't want to get into an argument, but it seems to me that point 2 precludes putting a bare link in anywhere. So one might say, for example, "per Smith (2012), p. 22" but not "per [jstor non-free url]". The JSTOR metrics the WL are citing include use of links in any namespace. If we're going to make this a formal requirement, it might be worth talking to someone at WL about the case. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The bullet list you're citing (the same one I quoted above) is in a subsection headed Citation; it shows how to properly form citations to this class of material, when you create a citation. On talk pages and discussions such as DYK nominations, "citations" aren't needed -- just enough info to let other editors know what you're talking about. The metrics are just some script someone put together; they don't tell us anything about what's required. I don't want to get in an argument either, but I don't want this new idea to be burdened by a nonrequirement dragged in because of hyperfussy reading of the text above. EEng 06:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support and please ignore Andrew Davidson's misguided claims about copyright violations. Google uses random text snippets and can hardly claim fair use for them. In contrast, the quote by EEng (and all short quotes that would be used in this proposal) clearly fulfill the fair use requirement. Fram (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Question - We often deal with foreign language hooks (Spanish for my subjects) would we want the nominator to post a translated version or the original language version? I have see people comment that Spanish hooks are hard to review despite several translation tools being available. Any thoughts on this?  MPJ-DK  21:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A stab at a voluntary trial run

• Only because it's much harder to explain than to just show in situ, I've made a bold edit to the nom page "preload" [17] from which every nomination starts. Feel free to modify or improve, or just revert if it's too far off base. EEng 08:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• This has an additional benefit, all the way up the ladder. For the promoters to Prep, for the Admins promoting to Queue, and for its run on the main page. If the source quote and a link to that verifiable source is on the template, and if it's a match, there should be fewer issues not caught until the main page. And since promoters to both Prep and Queue are sometimes called out for promoting an error, this definitely helps them. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what you're suggesting, but if as the hook goes to prep the source quote is not deleted but rather remains in place enclosed by <! -- --> then it will be available for immediate inspection all the way, as you say, up the ladder. EEng 17:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if the source does not go with it to prep at least 2 sets of eyes will have had a better chance of verifying it - the reviewer and the prep builder, it's a quick check to verify the quote(s) actually support the hook - as a prep builder I'd always take a look at that before grabbing a hook, along with the other sport checking I try to do.  MPJ-DK  21:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Worked example

An example of this method is given above from the Kai-Tai Fang nomination.

ALT2: ... that the statistician Kai-Tai Fang designed experiments to improve Tsingtao Beer (pictured) during the Cultural Revolution? Quote: "When did you learn orthogonal design and start conducting experiments with this method? ... In 1972 I had the opportunity to go to the Tsingdao Beer Factory and other factories. I supervised the engineers there to apply orthogonal design to industrial experiements." [18]

When I looked at this, I immediately noticed how poorly the quotation supported the hook. I'll detail the issues below but it's interesting that, even though a variety of editors have looked at the nomination, the issues have not yet been commented on. Maybe it's because the focus has been on other issues, like the meaning of orthogonal design. Or maybe it's because the quote is superficially impressive and people then suppose that it supports the hook, without thinking it through. Perhaps trying to make the checking process easy will discourage editors from fully understanding what the hook and the source are talking about. Anyway, working through this systematically, here are my objections:

1. The hook says the Kai-Tai Fang is a statistician. The quote doesn't say this.
2. The hook says that he designed experiments. The quote doesn't say this. Instead he says that he supervised engineers. This suggests that they designed the experiments.
3. The hook says that the idea was to improve Tsingtao Beer. The quote doesn't say this. Maybe they were doing experiments in some process technology such as printing or cleaning that was used by the company. Or maybe they were trying to cut costs and were making the beer worse as a result.
4. The name of the beer is spelt differently in the source and quotation. I suppose that this is a different transliteration but it's dangerous to make such assumptions (c.f. Xu Lili and Lili Xu which have been confused recently elsewhere).
5. The hook says this was during the Cultural Revolution but the quote doesn't say this. One could try working it out from the circumstantial details but it's much better to look at the full source.
6. The quote is a reminiscence by the subject. This may be an unreliable source because people sometimes exaggerate or otherwise distort their achievements – boasting, for example. I thought that Dave Bald Eagle might make a good DYK but gave up on the topic when it was suggested that he was a spinner of tall tales about his past deeds.
7. The word "experiments" is misspelt at the end of the quotation which indicates that it has been copy-typed. Google Books doesn't make it easy to cut/paste text from its extracts and I suppose that this is deliberate – they don't want to make it easy for people to copy other people's copyrighted work. There are technical ways round this but they require some type of OCR which can also introduce typographical errors. The more quotes that are required to support the detail of a hook, the more hassle this will be. It's simpler and better to refer to the original source so that such transcription errors don't arise.

Andrew D. (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• To the extent you're saying that various things aren't adequately supported by the quotation then you've quite nicely illustrated the need to force such questions front and center, right from the start, by quoting the source. On the particular point of the subject being a statistician, it wasn't my intention in proposing the quote-the-source idea that the quote(s) support hard-to-get-wrong stuff such as that the article subject is a statistician, or a male, or a human being.

I'm sorry, but your continued talk about copyright issues is complete nonsense. What facilities Google does or does not provide has zero meaning for what constitutes fair use. EEng 20:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• You know those questions actually support why this would be a good idea. After two minutes there are 7 questions asked - some of them can easily be verified in the full article and thus covered, but the sheer fact that questions were even asked can only help the cause. I actually see those questions as a good thing, we'd want those answered BEFORE they end up in a prep or queue. If this helps getting less things pulled, more scrutiny while it's still on the nomination page and not here on the talk page that is a GOOD THING.  MPJ-DK  21:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I just used the technique in helping a novice editor rework a hook, and I have to say that the discipline of finding and copying out the source quotations smoked out some problems -- really forced me to conform the hook to the precise sourced facts (and most of you know me to be a very careful editor to begin with -- part of the problem here is that I'm personally familiar with the subject material, so I was unconsciously importing my own OR-knowledge into the hook). I encourage my esteemed fellow editors to walk through my 4 edits starting here [19] to see what I mean. I'm more convinced than ever of the salutary effect of requiring source quotes right there with the hook. EEng 21:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• The name of the beer is different in the article than the source because....please pull up Tsingtao Brewery, and you will see its name in mainland China is Qīngdǎo píjiǔchǎng, and that Tsingtao is on the company's logo. Let's not get overly-dramatic about this - there's nothing "dangerous" about using one over the other in this case. Anymore than it is for Hellmann's and Best Foods to be the exact same product but sold under different names on different sides of the Rocky Mountains. The source material was published in both New Jersey and Hong Kong, so who knows why they picked one variation over another, and why is that important? EEng mistyped experiements? - what's your point? That's not going on the main page or in the article anyway; it's just a reference on a template. Dialog is good for all nominations. Not even trying because it's hard, or because we might trip over ourselves the first time or two, gets us nowhere. DYK didn't pop out of the box as a perfect system, and it's not perfect yet. This is a work in progress. I'm all for trying. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

... that the 1928 Florida Gators football team led the nation in scoring with 336 points?"

Firstly this "led the nation in scoring" is a direct copy from the second source used in the article for the claim. Secondly there appears to be no context for what "led the nation" means, when in reality it seems to be referring to scoring the most points in the 1928 college football season. Thirdly, the hook is boring, a real "so what?" moment. Other, more interesting facts from that article include the claim that six of the squad could run the 100m in 10.1 s (which, in 1928, seems incredibly impressive), an ambidextrous quarterback (don't know how rare that is, but it seems unusual, and certainly interesting, especially when combined with the fact he could punt with both feet too), or even the controversy over the single-point win for Tennessee which denied the Gators a place (and secured it for Tennessee) in the Rose Bowl would be preferable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I'm moving this back to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Points were then one of few stats kept (compare the 1901 Michigan Wolverines or 1915 Vanderbilt Commodores), and the biggest claim to fame for the team is leading the nation in scoring. Crabtree was definitely special. PS Georgia Tech went to the Rose Bowl. Cake (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It may be a claim to fame, but it's not the most interesting element in that article by a long way, and to those outside the minute world of college football, impenetrably dull. Presumably one team "led the nation in scoring" every year, so this is not exactly a humdinger of a hook, hence my concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

All good points, rambling. Other hooks have me worried about length. I tried another. Note the ball was a lot fatter in those days, making Crabtree all the more surprising. Cake (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for taking the criticism as it was intended. Good luck to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrestling hook pulled from Prep 1

• ... that the main event of the La Hora de la Verdad professional wrestling show has been called International Wrestling Revolution Group's biggest Lucha de Apuestas ("bet match") in years?

Template:Did you know nominations/IWRG La Hora de la Verdad {ping|MPJ-DK|Cwmhiraeth|MisterCake}}

I have just one tiny problem with this one: there is no evidence that this show is titled "La Hora de la Verdad". The official poster, as shown in the article (and which may need some size reduction to meet our fair use guidelines) calls it Mascara vs. Mascara and doesn't seem to mention "La hora de la verdad" at all (if it does, it certainly isn't in a very large font!). The sites used to report on the results of the evening a blog,[20] and [21] don't seem to use this title either. Neither does e.g. the announcement of the evening[22]. In fact, the only time something close to this title (but actually "Llego la hora de la verdad", not simply "La hora de la verdad") can be found is on one page from the IWRG. [23] They seem to use it as a slogan, not as a title. Fram (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK, Cwmhiraeth, and MisterCake: The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I still say the best mileage will be got from these professional wrestlers by organizing the hooks around the fact that they apparently all prance around wearing mascara. EEng 15:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I will check around on the sources to see if which one stated that name.  MPJ-DK  15:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay I found where I got the name from. One of the more recent "Lucha 2000" magazines had a promotional poster for the show a couple of weeks ago, before the rest of the matches were announced. It featured the same picture as on the official poster and had the worlds "La Hora de la Verdad" at the top. Seeing IWRG use the same phrase when they revealed the full poster is where I got the name from around the time I started to write the article, which was prior to the show happening. Looking at all the results reports none of the used that name, so I am not sure if it was never intended to be the name of the show or if the result reports just did not pick up on it. Either way there does not look like there enough source support to use the name. I'm thinking this would probably be more appropriate at IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016) since they had a similar named event in August too. I will move the article, update the hook in the DYK (but not rename the nomination).  MPJ-DK  22:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Updated hook ... that the main event of the September Máscara vs. Máscara professional wrestling show has been called International Wrestling Revolution Group's biggest Lucha de Apuestas ("bet match") in years?

• I will add this to the DYK nom in a moment

Thanks. I have now nominated it for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oh goody, when I first saw the error I was wondering if I should reinforce the stereotype and moan about someone finding an error in my work or respond like a mature adult and address the isssue. Since Fram said thanks I am glad I chose the positive approach so that we can maintain an equilibrium. Thank you also for providing me a forum where I can now further discuss my great hobby and perhaps even educate someone who is ignorant of Lucha Libre, it is indeed a glorious day all round.  MPJ-DK  13:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram has acted in thoroughly bad faith. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Evidence? Pppery 19:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well let's put it like this: MPJ-DK has been very helpful around the DYK project, building prep sets, making suggestions for improvements, reviewing articles etc. Fram pulls this hook from Prep, as is his wont, and starts querying whether the article has the correct title. While MPJ-DK is working to respond to this and moving the article to the new title, Fram nominates the article for deletion. I don't know whether the article will or will not be kept, but I think that Fram's behaviour is despicable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise put: MPJ-DK creates an article with an incorrect title, which you promote to the preps without even noticing this basic fact. MPJ-DK points out that he based this on an early promo poster, fine, no problem. This also indicated to me that it wasn't a case of me doing a poor search and missing a bunch of sources. So what we end up with is an article about a very recent run-of-the-mill event, comparable to a sports event (even though lucha libre isn't technically a sport but entertainment). Perhaps a better comparison would have been with a pop concert. These get announced, and afterwards get reviews, but don't get articles here anyway per NOTNEWS. I don't treat such articles different because the editor who created it has been helpful at DYK or not. Apparently you advocate that articles should be treated differently depending on who created them. Fram (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has an obligation to nominate an article for deletion and the circumstances surrounding this nomination are particularly obnoxious. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I would never describe you as a "circumstance". Fram (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

:-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Given what I see on this page from the past few days, I think the best thing would be to shut down DYK for 6 months, then restart from scratch, starting with a discussion of new rules and procedures. The constant backbiting is unbelievable. EEng 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  Good news although Fram's behaviour is despicable, it's only TRM that's being pushed out of the project as a whole. At least I have reserves to continue my good work here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Now, now let's not give in to negative feelings, feel the Power of Positivity! And hey it's nice for Lucha Libre to be acknowledge as a sport by one of the tone-setters of DYK. Totally worth it just for that.  MPJ-DK  20:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue1: 2004 or 2002?

• ... that in 2004, the University of Oxford tried to block registration of Oxford Blue cheese as a trademark, because "Oxford Blue" is well known as a sporting award?

Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford Blue (cheese) @Northamerica1000, The C of E, and Cwmhiraeth:

It looks as if Oxford tried to do this in 2002, and that the ruling only happened in 2004[24]. Change to "in 2002" or simply drop the year? Fram (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point. You could drop the 2004 or how about

• ... that in 2004, the University of Oxford was denied the right to block registration of Oxford Blue as a trademark for cheese, despite "Oxford Blue" being a well known sporting award? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"Denied the right to block" is too convoluted, like "Congress fails to veto president's override of bill repealing antiabortion rule" -- wha-at? Just say "... that the University of Oxford tried to block registration of a trademark Oxford Blue cheese?" EEng 16:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

... OR: "that the University of Oxford unsuccessfully attempted to block registration of a trademark Oxford Blue cheese?" Neutrality^talk 18:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, the pdf link above appears to refer to dispute between a clothing company, H S Tank & Sons Limited, and Oxford Limited, which is "wholly owned by the University of Oxford" (link). Oxford Cheese Company, the producer of Oxford blue cheese, is not mentioned in the document, nor is any mention of cheese. The book source cited states, "An example of an unsuccessful opposition is OXFORD BLUE Trade Mark, Registry, 23 March 2004, where Oxford University failed in its attempt to prevent the registration of OXFORD BLUE for cheese." It is possible that the book got the facts incorrect, or that the book content is correct, and the pdf file content simply does not mention the cheese product for whatever reasons. Per this uncertainty, I have removed the dates from the article for the time being (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• In that case, an admin needs to edit Queue 1 before the end of the day today to remove the date from the hook there, since hook facts must appear in the article and be sourced there, and "2004" is no longer even in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Adding edit request template below, to remove "in 2004" from the Oxford Blue (cheese) entry at Template:Did you know/Queue/1. Since I'm involved, I won't be performing the edit myself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed the date as it is no longer in the article and the hook seems cleaner without it. (I have not investigated whether the book reference to Oxford Blue cheese is adequate in the light of the H S Tank & Sons Limited pdf.) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've pulled the hook. While the source in the article did claim that the case was about the cheese, both the original case documents (linked above) and other sources[25] make it clear that the case had nothing to do with the cheese. Fram (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly uncontaminated by cheese. EEng 07:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have removed the content from the article for the time being (diff). Yes, it is quite possible that the book source is in error. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have struck the hook content at the DYK nom page, and have added a new ALT hook there, at Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford Blue (cheese). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Bringing the bot back online

Hi, I think the previous issue has more or less resolved itself (with thanks to the users who manually removed the offending templates). I have also changed the bot's code so it will no longer use the {{hidden top}} template and use pure HTML to achieve the same effect instead, which should not cause any problems with the transclusion limit. If there are no objections I'm going to bring the bot back online in the next few days. Intelligentsium 01:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Intelligentsium, why not start with a batch of five or ten reviews, and then wait five or seven days to see whether any unexpected issues are found? If nothing unusual happens, then the bot can be placed online and left to do its thing. Does that make sense? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Intelligentsium: as far as I can tell, the bot has not restarted yet. Worth mentioning that, even without the bot, we are having some really funky stuff happening at the bottom of the nominations page, down in the special holding area. So whatever causes it, the bot does not seem to be involved. — Maile (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile, that funky stuff is because there are too many templates being transcluded on the page (including those internal to the nomination templates); there's a limit per Wikipedia page. As we get more noms, we hit the limit sooner. Removing the hidden templates from existing noms helps a bit, but not as much as I would have expected, oddly enough. What will help is promoting more hooks; filling an eight-slot prep will allow all the remaining transcluded hooks to show up in full; they were all showing up about eight hours ago when I checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've filled up through prep 6 and put some in 1-2-3 to spread them out a bit too. Hopefully that'll help? If this is the issue I hope everyone will pitch in and get the preps filled and keep them filled daily.  MPJ-DK  19:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that makes sense; this is a page that by its nature will have a lot of templates transcluded so there might not be a lot that can be done, but in its more recent form it doesn't use any templates so should not contribute to that issue. Intelligentsium 21:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Review standards

Now on the main page, we have

• ... that Swedish television presenter Lasse Bengtsson conducted the first televised interview with Mattias Flink in March 2009, some fifteen years after Flink committed mass murder?

Template:Did you know nominations/Lasse Bengtsson @BabbaQ, Cwmhiraeth, and MPJ-DK:

I haven't pulled it, as the hook seems to be correct, but as far as I can tell it can not be found in the source. Everything the source[26] has to say about the interview is "och det var han som fick intervjua Mattias Flink också." (Google translate: "and it was he who got to interview Mattias Flink too."). No year or month, no "first", no "televised". While no error was introduced this time, it is this kind of sloppiness that leads to the many errors we have in the queues and the main page (well, this and errors in sources like with the Oxford Blue above, which is harder to tackle). Fram (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• The translation loses part of the meaning, I speak Swedish and it basically that he got "the" interview or "that" interview with emphasis on that specific interview being pretty being huge news (like THAT Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric), I am Danish but the news of "that" interview actually made it to our news as well.  MPJ-DK *
• And if "no error was introduced" how is this an example of "many errors in the queue"? Self-contradictory.  MPJ-DK  11:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So, the source indeed does not support the hook, thanks for confirming this. And your "self-contradictory" bit explains nicely the reading comprehension one needs to be a good reviewer. We have many errors in queues and on the main page. These are caused by different factors, including errors in sources (like the Oxford Blue), but often also simply by poor nominations and reviews. "While no error was introduced this time", this as well is an example of such sloppiness. Fram (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Righteous my brother, whater makes you feel better. And in conclusion: Otter, otter, bing-bang. Now you can spin what I say any way you want.  MPJ-DK  12:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't think there was any spin. You proved that the hook was not cited. That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Very mature. Fram (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I am but a reflection of what I encounter, maturity for the mature, respect for the respectful etc.  MPJ-DK  13:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Probably worth quitting while you're far behind. You proved the hook wasn't referenced, that is all we need to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
            • It is not a competition, at least not to me. But hey "milage may vary" so I respect your rights to think of it anyway you want.  MPJ-DK  14:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
              • I wasn't implying it was a competition, just that you weren't doing yourself any favours and were making the situation worse. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Homonormative

Now in Queue1:

• ... that the Russian gay propaganda law, which banned the distribution of homonormative materials among minors, was met with protest and criticism both locally and internationally?

Template:Did you know nominations/Russian gay propaganda law @Jujutsuan, ViperSnake151, MPJ-DK, and Cwmhiraeth:

"Homonormative" seems to me not an adequate description of what the law really banned. "Homonormative" is also only used in the infobox (unsourced), not in the article, so it is hard to see what source supports this part of the hook.

From the article on homonormativity: "Homonormativity can refer to the perceived privileging of homosexuality or the perceived assimilation of heteronormative ideals and constructs into LGBTQ culture and individual identity." The law bans much more than either definition, it covers everything that is "[aimed] at causing minors to form non-traditional sexual predispositions, notions of attractiveness of non-traditional sexual relationships, distorted ideas about the equal social value of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships, or imposing information about non-traditional sexual relationships which raises interest in such relationships insofar as these acts do not amount to a criminal offence." Something like "information about non-traditional sexual relationships which raises interest in such relationships" is far removed from being homonormative, even e.g. information that would suggest that homosexual relationships exist and are acceptable (without any claims to equality, marriage, whatever) is banned. Fram (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that if a term has widely varying definitions that are not clear from the context, we shouldn't be using it in a hook in any case, as somebody is sure to flag it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be simpler just to cut out the word. And we should unlink protest, a commonly understood term. Edwardx (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes but if you cut out the qualifying word/statement, it makes the hook even more boring than it is now. Homonormative is the only part that is even vaguely hooky. 'Russia bans stuff to do with homosexuality' - well big woop. It is not exactly news to anyone. 'Did you know the Russian government does not like gay people?' 'Well yes actually, everyone on the planet knows that'. The fact they actually passed a law preventing *any* material that would indicate having a non-standard relationship is tolerated or acceptable is the hook, and one of the definitions of homonormative covers that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Which definition? "Privileging homosexuality" or "Assimilation of heteronormative ideals"? The first one definitely doesn't apply, and the secon one is usually meant for people advocating gay marriage and the like, not for people saying that it is acceptable to be attracted to people of your own gender or either gender. Stretching "homonormative" to mean "any mention or depiction of LGBTQ in a non-negative light" (which basically what the subject of the law is) seems to fall outside the standard accepted definitions. Fram (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

In general usage 'homonormative' is also taken to mean the normalising of homosexual (and other) relationships - of which homosexual marriage is one facet. The law was clearly aimed at that with a broad a brush as the Russian Gov could get away with. I *dont* think it is a great hook anyway, only that without the homonormative aspect (which is indeed a stretch) it is completely boring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO, a better hook would be something like:

• ... that the Russian gay propaganda law makes it illegal for gay parents to come out to their minor children?

Stephen Fry's Out There series included interviews which discussed this and there are references confirming that there are heavy fines on anyone disseminating information about homosexuality to under 18s. Even if there is not something to confirm this hook in the article, there easily could be and I believe this supports a better hook. EdChem (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That hook prompted me to check out the article in some depth, so on that basis I've pulled the nomination from Queue 1 and reopened it. It's worth the wait to get a really catchy hook that entice people in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This reference stares directly that "Fry met with a lesbian couple who everyday break the law by exposing their 16-year-old son to their love". I think these are sufficient to support something like my suggested hook. EdChem (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added a section to the article supporting my suggestion. EdChem (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• And here I thought homonormative was something about algebra, like the commutative law. "The prime twins form a homonormative ring over the integers." EEng 15:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1

... that a committee of eight Portland, Oregon, residents purchased the Madison Street Bridge in 1891 for over $3.8 million in 2015 dollars?

Firstly I'm not sure why we're using an inflated version of what the source actually says, it's pretty clear that $145,000 was a lot of money in 1891. Secondly, if we insist on this odd approach, why aren't we talking in 2016 dollars? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this went to the main page and was addressed by WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1 empty entry

• Cross posting, per a notice at WP:AN this queue had a gap in it, I've removed the gap with comment code - anyone should feel free to revert or improve this as appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1 is down to six hooks; it should have eight. Can an admin please move two hooks to this queue from Prep 3? (The hook in Prep 4 is a special occasion hook that has to stay there.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've moved in two hooks from Prep 3 (the bottom two). I'm new to this whole admin thing, so please let me know if I've fracked something up. Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 When you move hooks out of a Prep, you need to also leave visible hook blanks, to let promoters know there are slots available. Also I put the blanks in for the hooks, and removed the DYK make for the ones you moved, and replaced them with DYK make blanks. — Maile (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: Thank you. I'll keep that in mind. Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

that 16 months after doing their first load of free laundry for the homeless, the co-founders of Orange Sky Laundry were awarded Young Australian of the Year?

The article has an unreferenced "formation date of 10 October 2014. The lead says the service was "conceived in September 2014". The article says "In February 2015, five months after they started ... " and then "On Australia Day 2016, the two co-founders were jointly named Young Australians of the Year...". That's the 26 January 2016. As the hook isn't directly referenced in the article, I'm unsure how the 16 months is derived. At the very least the article should be clearer on the start date of the charity. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Great example of why hook sources should be quoted directly on the nom page. EEng 15:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Five months prior to February 2015 is October 2014 as the operation's start, consistent with unreferenced 10 October date.
• Australia Day 2016 = 26 January 2016
• October 2014 to January 2016 = 3 months in 2014 + 12 months in 2015 + 1 month in 2016 = 16 months from start to joint young Australians of the year. EdChem (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  But the October date is unreferenced, so the hook should be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Plus the fact they actually started (apparently) "In February 2015, five months after they started with the first van in Brisbane", so that would mean they started in September. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that 10 October is World Homeless Day. And whether "five months after" means September or October depends on whether Feb is counted as one of the months. Also, here's a reference: On Orange Sky Laundry's 1st Birthday, and World Homeless Day (10 October 2015) ... EdChem (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the hook is not directly cited in the article, therefore it should be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

BBC supports October 2014 formation. The point is that the hook is accurate, so add refs rather than pulling the hook. Address the actual problem, in other words. EdChem (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} yourself. Be my guest. I have other things to do rather than fix an article in which I have no interest. This should have been picked up in the review, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice edit summary. For your information, it was necessary within the current ruleset of DYK. Sorry if that upsets you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

TRM, you said you were unsure how the 16 months was derived. I explained. You claimed the October was unreferenced, despite five months before February being referenced, so I pointed to explicit references to October, and even knowing that references which did not require you to understand a calendar exist and having been given them, you seek to remove the hook rather than fix a problem you still insisted exists. Typically for you, you declined to actually edit to fix the problem you perceive despite knowing the solution. Do you really wonder why you are perceived as less than constructive with this behaviour? Would you like some references added to establish Australia Day as being in January too? What annoys me is not DYK rules or fixing legitimate problems, but you (and others) making a mountain out of a trivial molehill. EdChem (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The approved hook actually said "15 months" but I changed that to 16 momths when I promoted the hook as the maths did not work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The hook was not suitably inline referenced, per the rules. Plus there was the whole confusion over when they started versus when the organisation was formally "founded". That is all there is to say. For someone to have to "do the math" is not sufficient. It was confusing enough for me to note it here. If y'all think that was "less than constructive" or "trivial" then that's not my problem. I'm more worried about our readers than your individual perceptions of my motives. Cheers. It's still wrong, if they used their van for the first time (I guess this is the translation in the article for the hook's after doing their first load of free laundry for the homeless?) in October 2014, then it would be only 15 months until Australia Day in January 2016 (3 months to January 2015, 15 months to January 2016). But clearly just arguing with me is more important than getting the facts straight and referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who is right or wrong in the above debate and am not interested in figuring it out as it's inessential to the hook, so I have just changed it to "* ... that in their second year of providing a free laundry service for the homeless, the co-founders of Orange Sky Laundry were jointly awarded Young Australian of the Year?" Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Much better, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Approved nomination Flag of Trenton

The Flag of Trenton, Georgia has a request to use this as a lead hook with the flag, which contains the Confederate flag. We do not censor at Wikipedia. Neither the hook nor the article mentions what the Confederate flag currently represents in the United States. Please read Charleston church shooting#Subsequent_controversies and Modern display of the Confederate flag#Reactions_to_2015_Charleston_church_shooting. The Confederate flag is currently regarded as a symbol of slavery, racism and hatred. White supremacists use the Confederate flag as their chosen symbol. As a result of the Charleston shootings, and the shooter's posing for images with a handgun in one hand, and the Confederate flag in the other, states are removing the Confederate flag, and stores such as Walmart, Amazon and Sears are banning its sales. Because so many contributors to Wikipedia are not in the United States, I am putting this information here. Use the image, or don't use it, but you should be aware of what it means in this country. — Maile (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. Though one could also argue that the Confederate flag is a symbol of Southern heritage, state's rights and rebellion etc. Plus I will also say that we previously ran the flag of apartheid South Africa in the image hook, which was also on the jacket of the Charleston shooter, and there were no complaints. Plus also the hooks don't really make much sense without the image being used to illustrate them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've always assumed you're not an American, so you can be forgiven for swallowing the idea that the Confederate flag symbolizes heritage and so on. "Heritage" (in this context), like "state's rights" is nothing more than code language for racism, jim crow, and murder, period. EEng 00:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh..."states rights", has much more meaning than that. That's how Nevada first legalized gambling, and how states are able to pass local labor laws, etc. etc. etc. EEng I've always assumed that you're not American, I guess because of your name. You mean you are? — Maile (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I should have been more nuanced. Certainly in the context of the Confederate flag, talk of "state's rights" is undeniably code language for racism. Outside that context, few writers (unless they're tone-death -- think Donald Trump) will use that specific phrase unless they intend to winkingly invoke that meaning within a certain segment of the population. Serious legal writing (unless, I say again, it intends to invoke such echoes) will speak of "rights of the states", "rights reserved to the states", and so on. Yes, I'm an American; would a refined English gentleman have a block log like mine? EEng 01:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just struck one of the two hooks, which was not supported in the sourcing given. I'd also like to challenge the assertion that the hooks don't make sense without the image—and also wonder at the desirability of approving hooks that cannot survive without an image, given the scarcity of image slots. Wikipedia is not censored, and the article has images of the flags; that doesn't mean we have any obligation to feature the images on the main page (or not to). BlueMoonset (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I just think in the interest of freedom of discussion, we should show it. It's one of those Marmite flags: you either love it or hate it. Plus I will state we have had hooks that have showed so called "racist" flags but are also viewed by a particular group as being a symbol of their history before and there were no complaints. Likewise when God Save the South ran, the image had a proper Confederate flag in the background and again, no-one complained. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so here's a new list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through the end of August. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 78 nominations have been approved, leaving 156 of 234 nominations still needing approval. The previous list didn't attract many reviewers; I hope we'll do better this week. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the seven that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/It's Not Me, It's You (game show)

Over six weeks old:

• July 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Russian gay propaganda law
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/The Triggering
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Rogue Fitness
• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/CMLL 68th Anniversary Show
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Mathilda Twomey

Over a month old:

• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Lights of North Shields
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/List of athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics with a prior doping offence
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Tmetuchl
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ağın Bridge
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/XHLUV-FM
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Talbieh Camp
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Zwölf Stücke, Op. 65
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Luscombe Castle
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Master of Arts in Applied Legal Studies
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Revival (comics)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Chapo Trap House
• August 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Jones (footballer, born 1994)
• August 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Poonia murders
• August 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Lupe Fiasco versus Daigo Umehara
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Elin Rombo
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Lena Sundström

Other old nominations:

• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Dafo Temple, Zhangye
• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/1928 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team
• August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Yale Institute of International Studies
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Debatable, Make Me an Egghead
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/TEDES (traffic enforcement system)
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Clay Blaker
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Bound (video game)
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Tharsis (video game)
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Bilberg
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/1928 Florida Gators football team
• August 27: Template:Did you know nominations/2016 Baku GP2 Series round
• August 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Numayrid dynasty
• August 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Reads Landing School

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) 02:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphans and queue 2

Should DYK be promoting orphan articles to the main page? Currently Textile industry in China is sitting in Queue 2 with no articles linking to it, just a template. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It didn't have an orphan template when I promoted it - you have added the tag since. Why don't you find an article to link to it so that it is no longer an orphan? :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It was a more general question. I check each article for "orphan" status, the tag was just a means of notifying those who are commensurate with the subject matter that it needs to be appropriately linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It will be linked from the Main Page, and thus no longer orphan, while it's featured. Pppery 13:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not the purpose of the {{orphan}} template, the article should be linked from other articles, not just temporarily via the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2 - I've argued before there should be a "no orphan" rule. I have added a link so this is not an orphan, even ignoring the dozens of links through the template. TRM, tagging is one approach but you could try actually solving an issue rather than pointing it out, just once in a while... EdChem (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, the tagging is by the by, the question really is should orphans be promoted to the main page via DYK? It's easy to check this before articles are promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think the answer is no, and I always check for orphans when doing reviews. EdChem (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And your cheap passing shot (you could try actually solving an issue rather than pointing it out, just once in a while) is completely unwarranted. A glance at my contribution history to articles listed in queues and preps pays testimony to the vast number of issues I actually solve. But why let the truth get in the way of a good insult? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

TRM, if you wanted to focus on the issue of orphans, the smart approach would have been to say "Hey, I found this orphan in the queue, which I've addressed so it is fine, but can we discuss whether checking for orphans and not putting them into the queues being a DYK default?" By not fixing the issue, the focus turns to the specific article rather than the general principle. As for the cheap shot, your handling of the orange laundry case above more than demonstrated that your work spans the field from finding huge mistakes and protecting the main page (which I value and appreciate) to pettiness and poor people management (which I wish you would learn to avoid). There are many here who are all for higher quality and standards at DYK who should be your natural allies who you continue to aggravate. EdChem (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to "focus" on anything, just ask the question as to whether the project should be posting orphans to the main page. As for your rebuttal, I'll leave it as it stands. My objection above was perfectly valid, and yet again demonstrates that even with two or three quality checkpoints, the project continues to promote poorly referenced or simply inaccurate material to the main page. Your personal involvement in defending such inaccuracy has naturally tainted this, entirely independent, thread. Of course there's a spectrum relating to the magnitude of issues I discover. Just silently fixing them all is simply not going to improve the project. Whether I'm here or not to continue to fight against such mediocrity is irrelevant; it appears I will become ERRORS' largest contributor. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we should be adding yet more items to the standard DYK checklist, but if there is a way of automating the "orphan" check, it could probably be added to the DYK check tool or to the new auto-review bot, or both. Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You just hit "What links here" on the tools section. Check for article space links that aren't template transclusions. Easy as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes – orphans, by their nature, are in need of some exposure so that they may be linked in. Putting them on the main page is a good way of giving them this attention. Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't get the argument that putting it on the main page will help fix the orphan issue. Someone clicks on it and reads it won't know it's an orphan unless it's tagged and I'd hate to see tagged content be featured on the main page. It is an easy check to make, totally agree it really should be checked. Perhaps it's something that's pointed out during the review so it could possibly be addressed - and the hook nominator is in a much better position to link it than the admin reviewing it in queue - that should not be their job to fix.  MPJ-DK  21:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Asking for a moratorium on the Hillary and Trump hooks until after Nov 8 elections

I just recently found two articles with hooks about Trump. One already agreed to wait until after the election for it to be promoted, and I've just left a message on the other that is more political. WP:DYKNOT A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches). Right now, with both candidates, accusations are flying both directions about political affiliations, personal lives, anything and everything. Trump is under investigation because of his business dealings and political affiliations. Hillary is under scrutiny for her emails and every thing else. So the front page of Wikipedia doesn't look like it's covertly (or overtly) slipping in a POV about the election, could we please just delay any hooks about them until after the November 8 election? And, in fact, how about making it a blanket moratorium about any presidential or vice presidential candidate still in the running? — Maile (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Fully agree. political junkies are welcome, if they wish, to get their fix at The Museums. EEng 16:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• No-brainer. Full support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Vanamonde (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed, we already have 1 month automatic moratorium on political hooks before elections. Given how important this is, probably best to hold off until afterwards. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed. Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Totally for this - perhaps simplify it to "American politics" that way there are no gray areas. Have a special holding area for anyone who still want to work on the hooks etc.  MPJ-DK  21:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I like that idea, but we need a bright line. Might be convenient to simply apply the "related to post-1932 politics of the United States" definition for the next 7 weeks (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29). Or maybe just post-1980 to cover the Reagan era forward. EEng 21:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• How about "US General Election Nov 8, 2016". That gives a specific date we can work with. We can deal with it on a nom by nom basis. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're saying "US General Election Nov 8, 2016" describes the subjects to be embargoed, that leaves too much room for dragging up old scandals and headlines not directly related to the election. I again suggest we give wide berth by holding everything related to US politics post-1980. EEng 02:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Addressing an Elephant in the room

Hello Jumbo (sorry had to). But seriously I see a lot of good, constructive discussion on how to improve the quality, rule adjustments, addition, removals etc. but there is one thing that no one has brought up (at least that I've seen) and that is that one of the fundamental challenge is that a lot of the reviews here are done by people who have to do a review, not because they want to review a hook. when you have to do a review there may be instances where you try to get by with the minimal effort. I can compare to to asking my son to clean his room, it may look clean but there are things crammed in weird places and stuff swept under the bed. I don't know exactly what can be done and I am sure that QPQ was introduced for a reason - I am just wondering if there is some sort adjustments that can be made qith the QPQ portion? I mean right now you can do a poor job of doing a QPQ, it can end up in the queue and get yanked but the reviewer gets credit and in reality does not have any accountability in this.  MPJ-DK  21:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I object to your use of the "Elephant in the room" heading as promotional of a certain US presidential candidate. See [27] (noting the text "Totally unpredictable and out of control, charging through the landscape, laying waste to all before it"). EEng 21:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I object to your objection, dragging a majestic animal into the savage and dirty world of American politics *tut*tut*.  MPJ-DK  21:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Tut, tut

I reject to your abject objection, dragging a majestic Egyptian boy-king into the savage and dirty world of Wikipedia. EEng 21:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Plus it's not very nice to call President Trump an elephant, especially given we seem to have agreed not to mention the electoral war. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you just say "President Trump"? Did something happen the week I was comatose? Anyway, elephants trumpet, so it makes sense, doesn't it? EEng 22:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Aaaaany way back to the topic instead of the distraction.  MPJ-DK  22:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Party pooper. This has been discussed many times before -- you lose your QPQ credit if a hook you passed gets pulled -- but it never got anywhere. Part of the problem is that there are too many guilty parties -- article author, nominator (if different), reviewer, prep builder, promoting admin. Personally I think they should all be disemboweled. EEng 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

But the nominator is allowed to try to fix the issue and actually has something at stake. The prep builders are the least involved in this and is not a full second review, the promoting admin is hopefully the one that found it while in a prep or queue and actually has to deal with pulling the hook and whatever attitudes that can spark so they have something at stake too (their sanity for one). The reviewer seems to have the least skin in the game.  MPJ-DK  22:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of this thread, 2011 reform proposals is up in the archives box. They discussed QPQ, but apparently kept it. Just FYI, if it's of interest. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

More. Here's the Nov 2012 QPQ discussion. Apparently, I was in the discussion, as was BlueMoonset, Poeticbent, Cwmhiraeth, Schwede66. Maybe any of them can offer suggestions here. It's so many years ago that I didn't even remember this discussion happening. And keep scrolling down on it. It starts off discussing multi-hook nominations. But there's a subsection below that on a proposal to change QPQ. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this. When I first became involved with DYK back in 2007, most reviews were carried out by a relatively small group of dedicated DYK regulars who, on the whole, were relatively experienced at DYK. As I recall, we rejected hooks as boring, encouraged authors to lengthen borderline articles and often got involved in improving articles or brainstorming better hooks. I've seen much less of all of this since the introduction of the QPQ requirement. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

When a small group of dedicated DYKers rejected hooks as boring, encouraged authors to lengthen borderline articles and often got involved in improving articles

That was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. See right. EEng 02:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you insist on characterising QPQ as Satan... :) Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)