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.

C6 appears to have never actually been a rule, yet it continues to be applied

In an effort to fill out the entries for Destination: Universe!, I wrote two articles and posted them to DYK. I made what I think were interesting hooks about the plots, only to have both be rejected by something called C6. I read C6 and was surprised, it seems to be a rather odd rule that is utterly arbitrary. So I looked into the history.

I found, to my dismay, that it was created without prior discussion by a single editor, who then used it as a reason to reject many hooks. There was no discussion of the rule before it was created (using search, which is not exactly exhaustive, I admit). The editor apparently created a new rule for their own use and then applied it as they saw fit. This so utterly flies in the face of everything that I believe the Wikipedia stands for that it takes my breath away.

A month or so later, this thread comes up, where everyone involved expresses their surprise that it even exists - even Gato had not seen it (and that says something!). Now at this point, one would imagine that such an edit would be considered disruptive and RVed. But that did not happen. What happened instead is a wonderful example of the Iron Law in action.

The next discussion I can find comes up a year and a half later, in this discussion. By this time this made-up rule is simply accepted as "real". The thread wanders off topic, but there appears to be wide consensus that it should not be interpreted in the way it is, that this was intended to prevent fictional works from being presented as if they were real. Gato first makes this point, and numerous editors all agree with it, going so far as to propose changes to make this clear. In spite of their being what appears to be some consensus on that change, nothing happens, the original rule remains as-is. Once again, at no point does the issue that this rule should never have been added even mentioned.

The issue next comes up that October, when a number of editors express their dissatisfaction with the application of this rule, with very clear consensus stating that it is being misapplied and the editor's actions are contrary to that consensus. Once again, the fact that the rule was never agreed to in the first place does not come up. Instead it drags off into a (failed?) attempt to have the editor banned from (non-review) DYKs in order to prevent this non-consensus view of the rule being applied.

Now here we are 7 years later. Today the "rule" is simply accepted, and applied in precisely the fashion that was clearly against consensus. This is such a wonderful example of the bureaucratic love of rules that it makes me smile as I write this. Rules, even fake ones, tend to become real in bureaucracies. And it's not like this was in the wild-west days of the early Wikipedia, by 2009 the process for these sorts of things was well developed, and simply not followed.

For strictly procedural reasons, I believe the argument can be made that it should be stricken as it was never agreed to. But there was wide agreement that fictional hooks should identify themselves as such, and I can get definitely behind that.

So...

Proposal: Change C6 to read "Hooks about fictional works need to identify themselves as such."

This would mean that:

"Hamlet says the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be'"

would not meet C6, while:

"In Shakespeare's Hamlet, the titular character speaks the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be'"

would. Whereas today's application demands some sort of convoluted hook:

"Charlie Chaplin recites the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be' as king Shahdov".

The purpose of such a connection is completely lost on me, and apparently most of the people who considered it in the past. So lets get this fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: per diff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just delete the arcane rule. It's not as if it makes any difference, particularly if the hook was featured as the "quirky" last hook is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes lets strike off the rule. From after this discussion it should no longer apply. But it was applied in the past, so we should not make it disappear without trace. Strike it and note that it is historical. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the rule should be stricken if there was no proper consensus for it. And I agree that we should not be prejudiced against fiction, just because it's fiction. But there is an issue in that fiction is often written to be exciting and surprising and that makes it too easy to use its hooks. I'm not sure that we want our hooks to be such obvious plot twists or spoilers. For example, "Did You Know ... that Ramsay Bolton is killed by ********** in HBO's Game of Thrones?" We should try to do more than just steal the story's thunder.

By the way, I noticed the difficulty that Maury Markowitz was having with those nominations and that got me started on something similar. I already have a good hook in mind ... that the Black Destroyer was the start of science fiction's Golden Age and inspired other works including Alien? Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! So it seems there's not even consensus for a "make it clear its fiction?". I'm happy with that too. I'm not sure who wrote the "I agree..." part (Andrew?) but perhaps then the real concern here is "No spoilers in the hooks", but perhaps that might end up being abused too. I'm up for its consideration though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with TRM, it doesnt have any use at all, except as a reason for DragonflySixtyseven to decline noms. There is no reason to maintain any part of C6 in my opinion. In regards to "spoilers", we are writing about things that have already happened so I see no reason to try to avoid the possibility of a spoiler.--Kevmin § 00:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• • I imagine part of the reason people thought C6 was reasonable is that you avoid hooks that are "in-universe", and also ones that depend entirely on an unsourced plot section. One of my hooks several years back was rejected because it dealt with events in a television episode, and I came up with what turned out to be a far more effective hook once I had to bring the real world into it. All of the rules are supposed to have described a consensus at the time, either the way things were done or after a question came up and the consensus was codified, such as the article-for-article QPQ. I'm surprised to hear that this wasn't created based on how things were already being done or by consensus, in part because it makes a certain sense. Will hooks that are completely fictional need to be explicitly supported by a source other than the work in question, or will it not be possible to check those hooks any more short of reading/viewing/hearing the work in question? If the latter, I'd be concerned about uncheckable hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Such hooks would have to be cited and confirmable, as per the other rules. Preferably by a secondary source writing about that "fictional fact". Uncited plot sections could not supply DYK hooks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

      Which would apply in my two hooks, BTW, but I'm fine with that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, so there is a very clear consensus to kill C6 outright (which, frankly, surprises me while lightening my heart). What is the process for actually doing that? I saw a suggestion to leave in a note about it being historical and that seems like a good idea. So do I simply remove it and renumber the C series and put a note somewhere, or leave it in a strikeout? Does there need to me a longer process, or are we good to go with this SNOW as it is? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Either remove it or strike it with an edit summary referencing this conversation. Don't renumber the other rules though, that can cause confusion (see for example WP:CSD, when criteria A4 and A6 disappeared years ago we didn't renumber all the others because people had got used to referring to them). Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm going to argue in favor of the rule. Articles on fiction are supposed to be more than plot summaries; they are supposed to indicate the real-world significance and importance of the topic. Likewise, hooks about fiction should make sense to people who have not read/seen/gained familiarity with the topic. Things like the hook that Andrew Davidson mentions above, about the story setting off the new golden age of sci-fi - that indicates real world significance. That gets me interested in reading both the article, and the book it's about. A mere summation of a plot point, like, "Did you know that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's son?" does nothing. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  I believe you are confusing two issues. The demand for real-world significance is true same for any article - to establish notability. It has nothing to do with articles about fiction. The second issue is about hooks, and there is nothing anywhere about having to establish notability in the hook.

  As to the claim that it would make for better hooks... really? Anyone can write a bad hook about any topic. Here's one: "...that Robert Watt moved to London?" That meets every rule, would you say we should use it? Or contrariwise, what possible reason should we not be able to use "...that the evil antagonist from Star Wars, Darth Vader, turns out to be the father of the hero, Luke Skywalker?" That seems like a great hook, IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  Addition: Further on the last point - there's nothing to say that it's the 3rd party interest that won't be the better hook. For instance, in "Black Destroyer" I would argue that this is the case - it's both the topic of a lawsuit about Alien and the marker for the Golden Age. Either of those is more interesting than the relatively simplistic story, IMHO. But now consider the contrary case, "A Can of Paint" is not interesting because someone made a movie out of it, so why should that be the hook? For that matter, why do we need Robert Forward to simply recount the original plot point of "Far Centaurus" that makes a perfectly good hook on its own? In this case, there's not even any difference, we just put someone else's name on it. "The best hook" is a decision made on an article-by-article basis, and having a rule just for this one article type is pretty much the definition of arbitrary. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm somewhat torn on this issue, but hooks are supposed to be interesting, which usually means, that they highlight something unusual, unexpected, out of the ordinary. But when it comes to a work of fiction, it's expected that weird things will happen, so arguably, highlighting fictional events fails the hook interest requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am missing the logic here - you seem to be saying that something could not not interesting because it is expected to be interesting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I've never been totally comfortable with this rule myself. However, what it has done is prevent a small avalanche of subpar hooks making it to the main page - hooks along the lines of "Did you know that in PlatformGameW spriteX runs around bashing a whole bunch of Ys with weaponZ?" I mean, you know what they say about there being only a very limited number of plots in fiction, with most of them just being variations on a theme. So, while I'm not totally opposed to the notion of permitting fictional events in hooks, I am inclined to the view that the "interest" bar has to be set higher if you don't want to be deluged by examples such as the one above. Gatoclass (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so C6 still goes in its current form. Is there any reason for me not to do that now?

But we still have the open issue of tools to kill bad hooks. I'm all for it, with two provisos, it doesn't single out a particular type of article, and doesn't make certain hooks illegal even if they are good. It's that last part that is the real problem here, C6 kills off more good hooks than bad. I'm not sure what such a bar would look like, but I'm certainly open to any ideas along those lines. In fact, it would seem such a discussion is long overdue. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should be removing C6 unless or until we find something better with which to replace it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

C6 is clearly in violation of policies we had in place when it was written, and you're the only remaining holdout on what is otherwise a very clear consensus above. I'm happy to start a new discussion on what should replace it, I'll even stickhandle the entire process, but unless you actually have that suggestion right now then I'm going to strike unless you have a procedural opposition you would like to raise. There are hooks that are being held up for no reason, we need to move this along. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No, not the only one. We've lived with C6 as a rule for half a dozen years or more and people have been able to come up with reasonably interesting hooks in that time; I do think there should be some restriction on the use of completely fictional, in-universe hooks. If it's fictional, we certainly have an obligation to make that clear. (I'm not sure whether April Fool's would affect this obligation or not.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the most fundamental aspects of DYK is that hooks must be real-world facts. This is always the case, even for April Fools' Day. In that sense, C6 might be considered redundant. But we still need the rule, to explicitly state that; if it were removed, some people might see that as a giant loophole allowing any kind of fictional pseudofact. The real issue is interpretation of "involve the real world in some way". I have always interpreted it very literally. If a hook says that in the novel X, y happened, that does involve the real world in some way, because it's stating what was written in a book that exists in the real world. Maury, regarding your hooks which prompted this discussion: while I have great respect for both of the editors involved, I disagree with their interpretation of C6 as a reason for rejecting them. I would support altering (or appending something to) C6 to explicitly state that it's simply intended to prohibit hooks which are completely fictional. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If someone writes a hook that is part of the plot, I fail to see how that is not a real world fact. For instance "in the book Gizifia, X says Y" is clearly a fact and can be reffed. Is that not what you're saying? And BM, I agree completely that all-fictional hooks should indicate that, which "in the book Gizifa" clearly does. And while it's true many good hooks have been written in spite of the clearly illegal C6, it is also the case that one can write very many good hooks without it as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Transclusions on nomination page, suggested solution

background discussion from WT Village Pump (technical)

This problem has existed for a few months on Template talk:Did you know. Once you get down to the newest subsection dates, the templates don't transclude very well. We were told back in September that the problem was that page is exceeding Template limits Post expand include size. At that time, we had a large special occasion holding area for various special events. The holding area has very little in it now, and the number of nominations we have are otherwise a lot less. The problem is worse than ever. Regardless of what is causing this, can it be fixed? As the internet expands, so does the size of everything programmed into it, and DYK won't be the only ones this happens to. How do we fix it for the future? — Maile (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Abandoning Template limits would be a decision that would need to be taken at WMF level, and they're vanishingly unlikely to authorise it since it's not a bug, it's an intentional feature to prevent DDOS attacks. The way around it is to use fewer transclusions; remember that each DYK nomination includes {{DYK conditions}}, {{DYK nompage links}}, {{main page image}}, {{DYKsubpage}} and {{DYKmake}} plus whatever else the reviewing bot adds, so each transcluded nomination counts as six or more transcluded templates. ‑ Iridescent 22:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC) The standard fix for template size problems is to substitute templates and to remove any nested transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Exactly how would DYK go about that? — Maile (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC) On a quick skim, the {{DYK conditions}} template doesn't appear to have any great use and has three nested templates of its own, so getting rid of that would save four templates-per-nomination immediately (with the current 53 nominations, that's an instant saving of over 200 templates, which will probably solve the problem on its own). Basically, go through the five templates I list above, and anything that's not actually both essential to your process, and essential that it remains unsubstituted, think about whether it would be possible to do without it or enforce substitution of it. You could also probably shave quite a bit off by ruthlessly enforcing a "no untranscluded templates in discussions" rule, and clamping down on anyone who uses {{od}}, {{tq}}, {{done}} etc in discussions. ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Neither {{DYKmake}} nor {{DYKnom}} should be of concern, since they're commented out. I imagine that increased use of the {{DYK checklist}} for reviews is also contributing to the problem. Does the use of the {{*}} template contribute to the problem or not? It's currently being used by the DYKReviewBot. One template that we absolutely need to retain is the {{DYKsubpage}} template, since it is the final substitution of that template that closes the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Every time this happens I hope it will finally be the motivating factor to do the seemingly obvious and move the reviewed/approved nominations to a different page. DYK that nobody can read that thing on a phone? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Oh, and the answer is yes, templates that are actually transcluded all count, so if there's a bunch of templated bullets then that's definitely contributing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Then calling Intelligentsium, to see whether the templated bullets can come out of the reviews done by the DYKReviewBot, and any other avoidable templates. Also pinging John Cline, who created {{DYK conditions}}, to see whether there is some way to get the job done more efficiently templatewise, assuming that the job still needs to be done. I have no idea whether the 2015 conversion of {{NewDYKnomination}} to invoke a Module with the same name rather than do the work in a template would have affected the need for DYK conditions or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Thank you BlueMoonset for your kindness and astute manner; inviting me to join this discussion. I was not aware of it until now, nor did I know anything of the circumstances forbearing it. I am therefore disadvantaged from giving an answer; ore the research I've yet to do. When I catch up with the topic, however, I am confident that the answers being sought will be found. If I wasn't so Spock-like, I can imagine myself getting all butt-hurt about not being notified of questions being asked of these templates, perhaps others as well. I was told in the past, things about my style in writing; and before that, of many ill effects that style was cursed to engender. Here, it seems that enduring months of template malfeasance was preferable to enduring discussion where I would invariably be. Being all Spock-like; and all: I feel terrible that this may in fact be. I really do.--John Cline (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We have to do something soon. The nominations page is quickly dissolving into nothing but wikilinks with no transclusions. Yes, I know the Prep/Queue page has always been used as the holding area. We cannot control how other people edit nomination templates - i.e. large amounts of text, template comments, additional image suggestions. The way it has always been is not the way that will work for the future.

Below is my suggestion. — Maile (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested solution

• The nomination page stays but only includes those which have received no approval whatsoever.
  • Reviewers who only are only interested in non-problem hooks have less to scroll through to find something of interest.
  • This would make a cleaner page for first-time reviewers who get confused by the glut we now have.
• The Prep/Queue page stays exactly like it is, nothing changes about how it works.
• A new subpage is created where any nomination that receives an approval is moved there by a bot (or human).
  • Special occasion holding areas, including April Fools' Day, appears at the bottom of this page. It stays consistently as is, in the fact that hooks are only moved here after approved on the main nominations page.
  • Prep promoters draw from this page.
  • Reviewers who like to check for problem areas on approved nominations look here.
  • Any disputed approval and any post-approval ALT hooks added are worked out on this subpage
  • Any hooks pulled from Prep, Queue, or the main page are put back here.

Please add comments below

Comments

• Yep, sounds like an excellent idea to me too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  The bot will now used the substed the template {{*}} - it's weird that the page exceeds the transclusion limit so easily though. The previous time involved {{hat}}, {{hab}} which were being used more than once per nomination, and had several transclusions underneath as well, whereas {{*}} seems to be just a Unicode character. However I think it may be a bit of a hassle to move hooks between two pages - if you move them the moment they are seen by a human, you would probably quickly get the same problem on the second page, but moving them back and forth would be a huge hassle. Intelligentsium 00:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  I know you have worked hard on the bot, but we didn't have this problem before it was activated. If the problems with it can't be ironed out soon, I think we are just going to have to retire it. That would surely be a better solution than having two separate nomination pages. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  I agree it's more trouble, but I think having a place where approved noms are gathered, for further intense scrutiny by the "eagle eyes", will extremely helpful, as well as solving the overflow problem. EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  The bot had been down for a few weeks, and this problem continued even in its absence. — Maile (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support, and... can we add the provision that nom page stays open until the bot closes it (maybe at the moment the hook moves to the main page, or -- better -- at the moment the hook comes off the main page)? EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  And have any dialogue on pulled hooks happen there, so that any nominator, reviewer, or other participant on that nomination would be aware of it as long as they watch-listed the open template. I don't know the mechanics of having a bot close the nomination, but it's worth asking Shubinator if that's possible to do in conjunction with whatever else DYKupdatebot does. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  Exactly. I'd also like to add a further suggestion that adding the green tick (which is presumably what will trigger the bot moving the nom page to this new "approved area") should always be accompanied by a tentative designation of exactly one of the (possibly several) ALTs as the one to used. Further discussion in the "approved area" might change that, but this way once the nom moves to the "approved area" there's just a single ALT that the "eagle eyes" (our precious editors who focus on quality control) will have to focus on checking. EEng 01:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  If closing a nomination just involves subst'ing the DYKsubpage template and marking it as passed (with humans responsible for moving the noms between the various pages, except for queue -> main page), DYKUpdateBot can do this while promoting the set (not while taking it down). As BlueMoonset noted, the bot will not know about comments that should go into the "2" field. With this model, how will folks know which admin promoted the nomination into the queue? Shubinator (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  The promoter simply posts on the bottom of the nom page e.g. ALT1 to Prep4 (without image). ~~~~. The bot closes the nom as it swaps the hook set onto Main Page (i.e. at the same time the credit boxes are posted to creator/nominator talk pages) and the 2= could be Swapped onto Main Page 0800 22 Jan 2017 UTC. This way, all concerns prior to the actual main-page appearance can be discussed on the still-open nom page, where it belongs; concerns arising after that time have to go through ERRORS as now.

  I think it would be ideal if, while we're at it, we changed the bot actions of posting credits to editor Talk, and closing the nom pages, to the moment the hook set is swapped off of the main page. Then the nom page really stays open for the entire life of the hook, "cradle to grave". But I recognize this might be more complex to do. EEng 02:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Mark me as opposing the further suggestion: the reviewer should feel free to check and approve as many interesting hooks as seem appropriate and are properly support in both article and sources, but not all reviewers are the best judges of which is the best, and sometimes the person assembling a prep set will pick one good hook over another good hook because it better balances the prep set. To limit it to exactly one hook of the reviewer's choice also reverses the deference we've given to the nominator regarding proposed hooks.

  As for the promoter, may I suggest that the promoter be required to fill in the 2 field with their promotion message? The bot's closing of the page will cause the time of closure to be added to the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  The reviewer can approve as many ALTs as he or she wants, but (my suggestion is) that just one of them will be designated, tentatively, as the one that will appear. Further discussion might change that, selecting a different ALT, but starting at this point there would be only one ALT on the table at a given time for a given nom, so that attention can focus on it for error-checking and so on. To increase quality and reduce errors appearing on Main Page, it's essential that the checking process begin further upstream than it does currently i.e. currently this doesn't start until Prep, and now it can start when the nom is moved to this new "approved area". But it needs to focus on one potential hook at a time; if multiple hooks are in play, the checking just can't be thorough. I don't buy that this constrains prep set assembly enough to outweigh the advantages, and again I say that the designation of a single hook is only tentative, subject to change. EEng 05:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It will make it so much easier to scroll through the set of approved hooks when building prep sets. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support sounds fine LavaBaron (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support, since I have no major objections. I do have a couple of doubts though. First, my understanding of the technicalities is not great, but if this problem is arising from people using too many templates without substituting them, it would seem that this is relatively a small fix: and that unregulated use of templates in the review process is going to create a problem again sooner or later. So, wouldn't it make sense to create some guidelines for folks editing the nomination pages, to help with this? Second, I find that very many of the hooks that need reviewing at any given time, and indeed the ones requiring the most attention, are not "fresh" nominations, but those that have been reviewed already, but require a new reviewer for whatever reason. @Maile66: where would these fit in your scheme? Vanamonde (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 Regarding the guidelines, it does begin to be instruction creep. We cannot control what editors really do, no matter how many guidelines we write. As we experience on this talk page, a lot of editors aren't reading the guidelines anyway. So, we can spend a lot of time spinning our wheels and complaining on the talk page about those who do what they want, but we cannot control others. As to your second question, perhaps I wasn't clear. The minute a nomination receives a passing tic, it gets moved to the new page. There it stays, and any further issues or comments happen on that page. That means turn-around ticks on review questions, pulled hooks that were already promoted. Anything. EEng has suggested we keep the template open until when/if the nomination is off the Main page. Keeping it on that page does not close out the nomination, but leaves it there in a way that anyone with a given nom template on their watch-list will be aware it needs attention. New (first time) reviewers will have an easier time with unreviewed templates than figuring out why an already approved nom is in the midst of revision for one thing or another. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Mail66 and Gatoclass: I think you're right about the guideline creep, but I didn't necessarily mean another page or another bullet point in the current set. What I mean is that we can do minor things that should still add up to something substantive. For instance, some folks mentioned templates (DYK checklist) that are only used at DYK: we can add a note to the documentation saying that they must be substituted, and also possibly have a bot substitute them every time. We can add to the DYK template edit notice, asking people to minimize their use of templates. And so forth. I imagine that other folks can think of other options. Vanamonde (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Vanamonde, I think what we need to be doing is working out why this problem is occurring, and take steps to eliminate or minimize it, because it never used to occur even with 350 nominations and now it's occurring with just 150. If the number of nominations builds up again, the problem will recur. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comments: Keeping the nom open up until (and even through) the main page appearance seems reasonable to me, so long as the technical template issues can be addressed. I think it is fine and appropriate for a reviewer to choose a hook, but also to leave the choice open to the promoter, but I would like to see some reasoning posted. I've had a few cases where I've wondered why a hook was chosen (or not chosen), which I find frustrating and yet asking the promoter every time could get awfully intrusive given the relatively small group of set builders. Having another approved hook available is also useful in cases where an issue arises, because sometimes swapping hooks rather than pulling might be reasonable and appropriate. I would also like to see an explicit requirement that all ALTs be reviewed because I've had at least one case of offering several and only the first being reviewed / promoted on the presumption it was my preference (an incorrect assumption on that occasion, but understandable and arising from poor communication on my part). EdChem (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  I believe you make a valid point about the ALTs being reviewed. I've noticed the same thing. If all hooks are not reviewed, then the review isn't complete. It does a disservice to both the nominator and the promoter. Also, I have no problem with the promoter leaving a small note on the template about why a given hook among several available was promoted. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, Maile66, with my Timothy N. Philpot nomination, only the ALT0 has been reviewed and it was my fall-back option if all the others (which I think are more interesting) are rejected on undue negativity grounds. So, I posted here at WT:DYK requesting input, but the thread attracted no responses. I'm not sure what to do because the rules technically require all ALTs to be reviewed but making an issue of my case will focus on the reviewer, who is behaving as others do and does a lot of DYK work. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Good idea. There are currently several structural problems and the proposal looks like a sensible way forward. If there isn't one already, it would be good to have a page to document the process flow so that it's clear how a nomination progresses from page to page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I've just converted Template:DYK checklist to use Module:DYK checklist, which makes each checklist take up about half the post-expand include size that it did before. This has resulted in 12 more nominations being visible at the bottom of Template talk:Did you know, but we are still quite a bit over the limit. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I find it worrying that there isn't one bit about why this is happening - I don't mean technically, I mean temporally. The number of new articles continues to decline, there appears to be no (major?) change in the number of noms being posted per day, and I don't see anything about the technical limit being changed. This is the only time I've noticed it - it seems to have happened before but I assume for a short period? So why now, in 2016? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Maury Markowitz: I think the cause of this might be the bot, which adds a bunch to text to every nomination. Pppery 20:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

    Ahh, so it's based on the total text, not the number of transclusions? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

    Yep. (It's actually more complicated than that, but) Pppery 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz We have actually been discussing this a great deal on this talk page. A year or two ago, our individual reviews weren't so complicated, except in the case of drawn-out threads. Most were pretty brief. But graphics, text, little check templates, and a lot of thing have increased the size of the individual nominations transcluded. We also now have the bot that does a preliminary review. However, that bot was down for several weeks, and the problem continued. When we pushed it to the limits, the visual kind of went kaflooey. Think of what happens with your browser if the cache doesn't get cleared for a long time - eventually things aren't working right on a given page. It's kind of like that. Have you read the green hatted text at the top? We've exceeded our Template limits Post expand include size, and only WMF can give us more. And that isn't likely to happen, because WMF has safeguards in place to prevent a Denial of Service attack. Little things help some, like not putting checkmark templates on the nomination. But in the long run, we'll be pushing the limits and need to come up with a solution. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I did, and also visited the link you have here. Neither stated this clearly, nor included any specific numbers or examples. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary and implementation?

So it's one thing for there to be a lot of support, but it's another for someone to do it. What next? EEng 01:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• We do need to work the mechanics of this. And we need a bot to help, perhaps Shubinator's bot or something already in existence that just need extra code for this. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Just..." EEng 02:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The nomination page seems to have returned to normal. Has someone actually resolved the problem, or is this as the result of some faulty nomination being promoted and archived? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that interesting? — Maile (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it's only a matter of time before the problem comes back, and there were other good reasons for doing this. Thus I hope the extensive paid and pampered staff in charge of doing things like this get right to it. EEng 05:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding a guideline for "firsts"?

Hi, I know that you've discussed how "first x to do y" hooks don't focus on the person's achievements and are sometimes boring (at least [1]).

How would you feel about adding a hook guideline to the Supplementary Guidelines along the lines of "Hooks should focus on a subject's achievements and not their race or gender. When focusing on a subject who was the first to do something, make sure it is the only notable material about them." I took some of the wording from Wikipedia:Writing about women, and I think the issue doesn't just apply to women. At the same time, I don't want to make it even more difficult to write hooks. We're not outlawing "firsts" hooks, but we're helping people who might be new to DYK have more of a chance of knowing there is an issue with them if we include it in the supplementary guidelines. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Though I don't quite understand what you mean by "make sure it [what?] is the only notable material about them", it sounds too rigid. "First Jewish/Black/Catholic Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court" (for example) would be excellent hooks. (BTW, notability is the test only for whether an article should exist; it's not the test for what goes in the article, once the article subject has passed the notability test -- see WP:NNC.) EEng 19:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with EEng; while "first person from Macclesfield to win a flyweight boxing title" type hooks are uninteresting and inappropriate since readers can't be expected to care, there are plenty of people whose notability derives from being the first member of a particular group to do something. Valentina Tereshkova is notable for being the first woman in space, not for being the twelfth human in space. ‑ Iridescent 13:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it's not a good idea, since "firsts" are fine hooks in many circumstances. For now I'll direct my students to read the general guidelines about writing about women to encourage them to find other kinds of hooks. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Second Review, Otherwise Promoted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have cleared this hook based on a lay evaluation of it. This is fair warning that if you object to it, do so before it's promoted; otherwise, this note provides a record for any future TBAN proposal that it was promoted by an editor exercising the qualifications required of DYK reviewers which do not require the reviewer to have any understanding of accounting. LavaBaron (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Dont worry, any future TBAN proposal will have more than enough evidence due to your entirely justified previous ban restrictions and your constant whining about it. RE the current proposed hook, it is both boring and reads like an advertisement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I've never been TBAN'ed; it is entirely inappropriate to make false accusations against other editors. Second, if you have a policy objection to NA's hook, raise it in the nomination. Don't just do a drive-by mud-slinging against other editors. Since you've never submitted a DYK it's unlcear why you're here other than to complain. This was a simple, GF public notice, not an invitation for you to dance the Look At Me waltz. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you don't feel qualified to accurately judge a DYK, don't review it and let someone else handle it. "I don't know enough about it so I'll just AGF promote it" is not the right way to deal with this. Closing a discussion you started in a very WP:POINTy manner because you don't like the feedback you get also doesn't reflect very well on yourself. It won't help in any case, as people can simply continue posting to the topic of course. But thanks for giving another example of why such a future TBAN proposal may well be necessary. Fram (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram. First, I am fully qualified to conduct lay evaluations of all DYKs and my review met the standards of what can be expected of a layperson; no section of WP requires subject-matter expertise as a condition of participation. My comment was a GF notice to solicit additional feedback without unnecessarily holding-up an otherwise excellent nom and nothing more; we should all feel free to seek additional input on our reviews without fear of being attacked for doing so.

Second, the thread was closed because the purpose of the thread (public notification) had been achieved; no other reason. By commenting here you have indicated you were aware of the nomination prior to its main page appearance.

Third, we should really use the discussion board for discussion of functional matters, not firing-off "zingers" like "thanks for giving another example of why such a future ..." etc. I appreciate your dedication to DYK. - LavaBaron (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

On the third point, the instructions and edit notice are in direct opposition with your opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. LavaBaron (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, I know what can be expected of your reviews, thanks. My post was not about the rules, it was about what was best for Wikipedia. If you don't feel certain about your review, to the point that you post some kind of notification here, then it would have been much, much better if you had not promoted the article but just commented. What is allowed and what is wise are often completely different things, and the bare fact that you were allowed to promote this DYK doesn't make it wise. "Unnecessarily holding up an otherwise excellent nom" is a bullshit reason, there is no deadline and not reviewing an article is not a problem. If there would be some fixed time limit for a review, then you might have had a point. As it stands, you didn't have one, you made one, and couldn't stand criticism of it.

As for "we should not be not firing-off "zingers" like ...", perhaps start with not dismissing the comments of someone who (if your claim is correct) has never submitted a DYK, as that is not relevant to their criticism. People don't get more or less rights on this page based on the number of DYKs they have submitted, promoted, ... Fram (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation: in the time it took you to write that you could have given a second review of the nom while it's still pre-prep. LavaBaron (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps I don't review nominations I don't feel sure about? Fram (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've stricken my support for this very good nomination for account safety. While I'm confident in it I, like any person, can never be 100-percent certain in the verifiability of any fact and any assertion in the social sciences can ultimately find a basis for a legitimate challenge if there is a determined, singular, and unyielding effort to do so simply for the sake of playing Negan with editors. With all due respect, you could have ignored this thread if you had no input in the nom, or you could have entertained it by cheerily and pleasantly offering a review if you did. I know you don't believe it but I really do appreciate what it is you're trying to do; I just wish you could try to do it a little more gently and with a few less, of what sometimes come across, as displays of plumage. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no plumage, just a passion for keeping nonsense and errors off the main page. Despite the plethora of linguistic pea-cocking in the above post, the point is that you don't need to review things you know nothing about, no-one does, leave it to someone who knows better. Just stick to things you think you know rather than things you know you don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Issue with proposed image - input sought

Alansohn nominated the article on politician Thomas J. Shusted for DYK – nomination here. I have given the hook a tick but Kevmin objects to the proposed image. The image is of an 1868 re-creation of the Hadrosaurus dinosaur which has been made the state dinosaur of New Jersey (the topic of the hook). Kevmin's objection is that the image shows a bipedal dinosaur, now known to be incorrect. An alternative image showing only 38 bones has been suggested. Alansohn has added a caption indicating the 1868 image is inaccurate, which I have trimmed and approved. Input from other editors is requested. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• My contention is that unless the article was about the restoration itself, then the hook should not be using an inaccurate image. It would be like using long identified inaccurate image of an American Bison in a hook related to current issues with the species. It wouldn't be done--Kevmin § 21:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Taxing (pulled from Main Page)

• ... that in response to tax increases proposed by Minister of Energy Juan José Aranguren, Argentinians mounted noisy protests with bugles and cacerolazos?

Template:Did you know nominations/Juan José Aranguren @Cambalachero, GiantSnowman, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth:

Pulled from the Main Page. The source[2] (which doesn't even mention Aranguren) discusses tariff increases, not tax increases. Apparently the government reduced subsidies for energy companies, but allowed (or mandated?) them to increase their tariffs so that their income stayed the same. This met with protest, but it doesn't seem to be about tax increases (and like I said, the article doesn't say who proposed this, only that the government implemented it, without even mentioning Aranguren, although he is most likely involved in it). Fram (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Both "Impuesto" and "tarifa" in Spanish means "tax" in English, as far as I was aware.? GiantSnowman 08:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

PS pulling from the main page for a slightly inaccurate translation of a foreign language seems like a massive over-reaction to me. GiantSnowman 08:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Impuesto, yes. Tarifa, no. That's not a "slightly inaccurate translation", that's getting the basics wrong. Tarifa is fare, charge, rate, tariff, price... but not taxes. Not understanding the basics of what you write about seems like a massive problem to me. Fram (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not just change it to "that in response to state subsidy changes proposed by Energe Minister Juan José Aranguren, Argentinians mounted noisy protests with bugles and cacerolazos?" Fram, could you please refresh yourself with WP:AVOIDYOU, thanks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. "Writing an article without understanding the sources seems like a massive problem to me." Better? Fram (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I would personally go for something like "The user may mistakenly read an intent or proposal from the Minister of Energy that he did not actually make". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

But the problem is not with the reader... How is my statement any worse than, let's say something hypothetical like "pulling from the main page seems like a massive over-reaction to me." Fram (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Because it is an over-reaction - slight mis-translation requires correcting, not pulling. GiantSnowman 21:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, and for the avoidance of doubt, the original hook wasn't adequately sourced. Cwmhiraeth did her best to find some other vaguely corroborating sources, but sadly this hook shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. We must not tolerate errors on the main page, even if they are just down to "slight mis-translation". The whole purpose of all the quality gates that DYK mandates is to stop these "slight" errors. Better now to work on fixing the errors rather than criticising those who don't want to see those errors on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Meh, I was subject to a TBAN proposal for converting metric to imperial measures incorrectly in DYK. Translation errors seem like they may be an executable offense. LavaBaron (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that's nonsense. Apples and pears. A mere conversion error is somewhat excusable, but a linguistic misinterpretation via the poor use of Google Translate resulting in a fake hook, that's not acceptable. You should know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

"I was subject to a TBAN proposal for converting metric to imperial measures incorrectly in DYK." @Lavabaron: please enlighten us which villain did this to you and where. Or, better yet, keep your self-pitying revisionist history off this page. Fram (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With about 100 nominations currently awaiting promotion and around 240 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order, and some aren't transcluded at all.

The following are 12 nominations that were approved at least two weeks ago, and some much longer than that. Since we're promoting 56 per week, these 12 have been sitting quite a bit longer than average. Date given is date of approval. Prep set builders are encouraged to use these whenever possible so the hooks don't have to wait much longer than they already have.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

• October 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Chapo Trap House
• October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Hypera postica
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/1257 Samalas eruption
• October 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Hypera nigrirostris
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Geography of Somerset
• October 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Norwitch
• October 25: Template:Did you know nominations/One Piece Treasure Cruise
• October 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Helmut Schlegel
• October 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Diggler
• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Roy Jennings
• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Hugues Fabrice Zango
• October 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Death and funeral of Bhumibol Adulyadej

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

withdraw nomination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm concerned with the dark direction this nomination has taken and would like to withdraw it. LavaBaron (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to be gained

@LavaBaron: Obviously I didn't find the ALT1 proposal to be offensive, but I did recognise that others might, hence my calling for input. As the submitter, I think you could have struck ALT1 and stated you saw it as inappropriate. I think most reviewers would respect the submitter's view and give it great weight, unless there was strong reason to over-ride it. I don't think you needed to withdraw this to make the use of ALT1 highly unlikely. Iridescent posted agreeing with you, so it was going to have difficulty getting consensus to support. I know we clashed over this nomination, but it was not personal and I want you to be aware that I would not have accepted you striking the ALT. EEng might have taken a similar view, I don't know. If you wanted to reinstate the nomination with ALT1 struck, I would support a re-opening. EdChem (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC) I would support the reopening if Alt1 was Revision Deleted but I don't want to be attached to a nomination in which a sophomoric statement that is designed to humiliate and denigrate others is simply subject to a strike-out that anyone can still see and be victimized by. LavaBaron (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC) LavaBaron, you've really gotta start getting a clue. I (who proposed ALT1 – though originally as a gag) am gay, and I believe Martinevans123 is as well (though I'm not sure – but if he's not he should be), so your talk of the nom taking a "dark direction", and ALT1 being "vile", is hyperbolic, to put it charitably. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, and I doubt it would have been the approved hook, but it's neither dark nor vile. You make yourself ridiculous in a lot of ways, but never so much as when you're on your high horse. The last time you got me to laugh so much was when you somehow inferred I'm a "Trump supporter". EEng 18:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Yup, what EEng said. I opposed ALT1 on the grounds that there are people who would consider it offensive and there's no point needlessly annoying people for no benefit, but there's no possible way it could be considered "vile" or "dark", just "mildly inappropriate for a BLP". You really need to get out of the habit of issuing Sombre Pronouncements every time someone does something with which you don't agree—all it does is make you look self-important and alienate the very people who ought to be supporting you. ‑ Iridescent 18:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC) How very dare you!! "Just because a man polishes his shoes and can describe every outfit Lesley Judd wore 73-thro-78...." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. Lava, I think you and EdChem have made the best job you can of Scott Simplot and if you don't want to nominate for DYK, it's your call. I should know better than to listen to that dark and devious EEng!! I could really care less whom you sleep with EEng, your Alt1 was offensive, repugnant, and juvenile and I don't want my name attached to a nomination in which it's treated as a "tee hee!", milk-spitting-out-of-your-nose, moment. The fact you publicly declare that you're part of the group it hatefully targeted doesn't excuse it one bit. Why exactly are you at DYK? You neither submit nor review noms, you just post this type of puerile nonsense thinking it's cute, or charming (DYK isn't a clubhouse or hangout, it's a workspace). And, when you get called to the floor for your lack of basic common sense in what you post, you respond by lashing out, yelling "you're ridiculous" and trying to push-off the blame for this shocking display of hate on others. After all the many blocks that have been slapped on you for disruption, it seems you not only haven't learned but feel emboldened to push the envelope further still. Disgusting. LavaBaron (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC) "Get off your horse and drink your milk..." --Marion Morrison Wow, DYK really brings us all together doesn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC) I guess, LB, that you're still not getting the part where everyone keeps telling you to get a clue, and that ALT1 isn't offensive, hateful, vile, repugant, dark, or other synonyms. Members of a group allegedly being "targeted" are certainly in a good position to comment on what is or isn't offensive, so please – get off our side. As to "juvenile": of course ALT1 is juvenile, but juvenile can be amusing (and clickworthy) exactly for its juvenility; if readers spit beverages out of their noses on reading a hook, then I've done my job as a hooker well. (And please don't now say I'm being offensive to hookers.) What am I doing at DYK? Well, contrary to what you say I've made dozens of nominations over the last few years, and done many scores of reviews – fewer than you in both categories, of course, but then some value quality over quantity. I've also made (I am astounded to discover on checking just now) over 3000 comments on individual nominations, usually in the form of an adjustment to a hook or the suggestion of a new hook (which more than occasionally becomes the one to actually appear on the main page); 1200 adjustements to hooks in prep; plus posts to this very page too numerous to count. And despite my puerile sensibilities I'm periodically asked to visit a nom to find something hooky that can be featured; I'm not aware of anyone ever asking you to do that. Finally, if you thought you'd embarrass me by bringing up my various blocks, you must have missed the box on my user page – This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (see my block log here!). – not to mention such threads as Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers, Review of EEng's indefinite block, User_talk:EEng#Unblocked and so on. Please, don't get in a battle of wits with me – you're way too easy and it makes me feel kind of guitly. EEng 20:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's end this now before it gets to ANI. Any nominator can request to withdraw their nomination for any reason. What has ensued here is harassment. Let it go and get over it. — Maile (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: I asked Maile to modify this comment as the description of "harassment" could be taken as applying to any / all in this thread. I do not believe I have harassed LavaBaron or anyone else, nor do I agree with LavaBaron's characterisation of the ALT1 proposal. Maile declined to make any change, though he did indicate that the term "harassment" was not directed towards me. I agree that prolonging this thread is unhelpful, though I posted originally in good faith to offer LavaBaron an option for continuing the nomination with the ALT struck, which he has declined – which he was and is totally free to do. I'm sorry that I am bending the rules by posting this, but I feel the need to record both my belief that I have not engaged in harassment and Maile's confirmation that the descriptor was not directed at me. EdChem (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, as long as you opened this up, no I wasn't referring to EdChem. It was the post about the horse that was the tipping point. At the very least, that post was uncivil, and LavaBaron had posted (and removed) about it by mistake on my talk page. Things looked to be going downhill from that point. — Maile (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are sources and references still required in hook nominations?

Until a few days ago, the DYK nomination template included the text "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook". This now appears to have been removed. Is this still a requirement and if so, is it captured in the rules anywhere? Prioryman (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Prioryman It was never a requirement, but was/is a voluntary test run. That was added to the template by EEng, the editor who originated the test run. It seems to have been removed by Mr. Stradivarius, and what you have linked is his explanation of why he removed it. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK then. I'd thought it had actually been implemented as a requirement due to its presence in the template. Prioryman (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I find the process of linking/quoting the source in the template to be extremely useful in doing reviews, or even when scrolling down the nominations page. — Maile (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a separate "sourcing" item in the template would be good. I've been using the comment section, partly because I thought the source after the hook was aesthetically undesirable and partly as the bot had some issues with hook lengths. If there is consensus that the provision of sourcing was valuable and thus the experiment was a success, the approach / change should be regularised in a suitable way. EdChem (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm hoping our resident eagle-eyes, The Rambling Man and Fram (and anyone else, of course) will confirm that they found that noms providing hook sourcing explicitly were less error-prone, less trouble to double-check, and/or less difficult to remedy when trouble was found. EEng 18:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  I agree that it's much better to have the source in the nom. But I would dispute that, at least, I'm not eagle-eyed. Most of the issues I pick up are scant and obvious to most with a mere sniff of appreciation of the DYK rules. Sadly that makes little difference, we're still adjusting and pulling hooks from queues and preps on a daily basis. EEng's suggestion at least helps a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Given that WP:DYKRULES#Eligibility criteria 3 says that the fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited inline in the article, surely it's not necessary to duplicate the source in the nomination. Nominators and reviewers ought to be checking that inline cite (along with the other criteria) as part of the process anyway.

"Strongly encouraging" the nominator to cite the source in the DYK nomination does not necessarily mean that an inline cite appears in the article. [3] is an example of my adding an inline cite to an article after that article's DYK nomination was posted with the reference in the nomination. (Related discussion: User talk:Prioryman#DYK_rules require a source for hooks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 00:41 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I removed that text after reading Template talk:NewDYKnomination#Add support for Source and Reference in the template, where one user said that they found it confusing. (I agree with them.) I also agree with the original poster in that thread that it would be a good idea to create a |source= parameter or similar in {{newDYKnomination}} (and |ALT1source=, |ALT2source=, etc.). I'm happy to add these to Module:NewDYKnomination, but I'm not sure how the sources should be formatted. Is there an agreed way to format sources in nominations, or at least a de facto standard? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

One thing we want to be careful of is to have them give links for sources rather than templates; I think the use of the cite template has been a factor in our exceeding the template transclusion limit on the nominations page. So whatever documentation or examples we give, we should discourage template use. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I modified the nom preload text to discourage the use of templates. EEng 15:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Since source-in-nom was my pet idea, I'm not happy about the current implementation, awkward and experimental though it was, having been removed from the preload template without any alternative being ready. But I'll contain my egotistical resentment on the assumption something will be provided soon.

I want to clarify one thing, though: it is absolutely essential to the whole concept that the bits of the source supporting the hook be quoted (not just cited or linked) directly in the nom, because a big proportion of slip-ups seem to be due to careless translation of what the source precisely says into what finally ends up in the hook. Not only does direct quoting make it easier for many eyes to check the hook against the source, I've personally found that the discipline of distilling the source into excerpts for the nom page forces a close reading which has caused me to make subtle corrections and improvements to the hook I was proposing. EEng 05:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right that having that text in the template was better than nothing, so I've reverted for now. When we come to a consensus on what to do I can add it to the template. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the nomination template looks alarmingly cluttered, and might put off some first time nominators. I suggest you remove the sourcing instructions for ALT1 to reduce the clutter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried to make it more readable. Feel free to revert or tweak if it makes things worse. Fram (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Fram's version is less intimidating and looks better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to compete to break a record

• ... that Odile Ahouanwanou broke the Beninese record in the heptathlon at the 2012 Summer Olympics?

Template:Did you know nominations/Odile Ahouanwanou @Yellow Dingo, Canadian Paul, and Yoninah:

Pulled from prep 3. Small problem with the hook: she didn't even compete in the 2012 Summer Olympics heptathlon... Fram (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Sorry, I mean the "100 metres hurdles", which would be correct. I fail to se how you couldn't spend thirty seconds to correct this simple error that was probably caused by an accident. Please reinstate hook with change. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)