Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.1.32.35 (talk) at 23:17, 30 May 2013 (→‎Queue 6 is a hook short?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


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


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

Late queues and low participation?

When will the next round of the Cup happen? I saw delays mainly due to almost empty queues and prep area. I know that I must wait to discuss this for months, but where are reviewers? I guess the college final exams are interfering activity of Wikipedia. Any other reasons? --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If no one objects, I will reduce the hooks to six per set. Also, the queues are now empty. We can't wait for 43 days until the Cup. When the date is near the Cup, then we can change the set from six to seven. Sounds cool? --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced a number of sets to six in prep areas. You can revert if you strongly object. --George Ho (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is review more. There are hooks from April that haven't been touched. I can't fill even one set lately because not enough hooks are approved, but there are plenty of noms.PumpkinSky talk 13:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To further complicate matters, the bot hasn't updated the nom-page hook counts in over 17 hours. The hook counts you see aren't correct. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested at the bot operator's talk page that we reduce three queues per day into two for now until the Cup comes. Sounds good? --George Ho (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound good to me. The issue isn't lack of nomination production, but rather lack of review activity. There are more than enough noms to justify the usual rate of main-page publication -- the problem is that there's a backlog of noms waiting for review. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scratched request. I did not realize that I could not read dates and time well and assumed that the bot is broken. I'm a klutz. --George Ho (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are now about a dozen approved hooks on the noms page. :-) --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 45 or so. No more 6 hook sets, That wasn't the answer in the first place. PumpkinSky talk 23:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wikipediocracy

Formerly entitled "Hive_of_knuckle-dragging_malice"

External Wikipedia criticism website

This has been a slightly contentious nomination so far, and it seems to have aroused some strong feelings. Many WP editors are contributors to the forums at Wikipediocracy, while others here at WP don't have a very high opinion of the website. Anyone care to offer an opinion, hookline, or another review? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 17:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of the contributors to the article, or the review itself, COI? And if any of them are contributing to Wikipediocracy under another name, would we know it? A portion of the DYK talk page wars that have happened within the last year had posts that Wikipediocracy was fueling the flames. Given the antipathy towards Gibraltar that keeps showing up here, with certain editors demanding a full confession of COI from given individuals, I think it is fair game to ask if anyone connected with the article, nomination, or review has COI with the Wikipediocracy, or COI with any of the DYK talk page issues that were allegedly connected to Wikipediocracy. — Maile (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, I don't think the article qualifies for DYK under guideline D6, due to unresolved edit warring. (Actually, it hasn't been the scene of classic edit warring, but it's unstable.) --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a case of COI, but I see a certain lack of NPOV from some of the sites critics. The Wikipediocracy forum (as WP) is home to many editors with conflicting opinions, but the article is about the blog not the forum. I don't see any evidence of "warring" in recent days, just a reference that has been reverted a couple of times. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 18:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, Hillbillyholiday. So, I followed you here from the link you left at my talkpage and couldn't help but be curious about this site and our article. And here I am rather rudely inserting myself into your conversation about it. Sorry about that. Before I say anything else, I should clarify my position with regard to the site: I'm neither a contributor to it nor do I have an opinion of it either way. From what I can tell, however, contributors to this discussion are looking at this from the wrong angle. Rather than talk about whether it should be at DYK, or what the hook should be, I think there are grounds to look at its overall notability, which I don't think has yet been established to the satisfaction of WP:N. I just carried out a quick exercise that involved stripping out any links and references that wouldn't ordinarily be used to help establish notability. Some were primary sources or links to the site itself, others didn't mention it at all, and the rest amounted to nothing more than "hat tips" or trivial mentions in articles that were almost wholly about other subjects. That's not to say that they wouldn't be included in the article in order to report on the site's activities (as they currently are), just that on their own they shouldn't be used to give the appearance that the site has been the subject of significant coverage, as the guideline requires. As it stands, only the Salon article could be said to even approach this standard. Before jumping the gun and putting this article on the front page, perhaps editors should focus their attention on this aspect first. What do you think? Steve T • C 20:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Steve. It is a fascinating place, no? "Don't bite the newcomers" sure doesn't apply over there! It is quite possible that some of the contributors to the site do not think it warrants inclusion at WP, forum contributors have provided hooks and different views already. However, I believe the notability questions have been settled by consensus at the article's AfD here. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far, the following Wikipediocracy contributors have edited the article; IRWolfie-, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, The Devil's Advocate, Hillbillyholiday81, Reaper Eternal, Alison, Tarc, Volunteer Marek. One or more of these are also Wikipediocracy staff members. There are also one or more former Wikipediocracy contributors who have edited the article, plus any that I'm not aware of or have missed. Full disclosure: I haven't edited the article nor am I a Wikipediocracy contributor, but the contributors are kind enough to quote me there on a regular basis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to make the distinction betwen forum contributors, and blog contributors. I believe that User:Prioryman is banned from Wikipediocracy. He has demonstrated a lack of NPOV throughout the discussion so far, with attacks on WP editors that are akin to the uncontrolled outbursts of someone with Tourette's. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic's notability, such as it is, seems to hinge upon the activities of the forum contributors, not specifically things that appear on the blog. Either way, it's clear enough that staff members at Wikipediocracy count as "involved" by Wikipedia's standards. I've redacted what appears to be a personal attack that found its way into your comment. As for being banned at Wikipediocracy, quite a lot of people seem to be - funny, that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not banned from there; I've never posted there, nor would I want to, given that I'd probably have to disinfect my hands afterwards every time I did so. Prioryman (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Prioryman. I've been reading so much recently, I must have got confused. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 21:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the common folk of Wikipediocracy Landing would hail Prioryman as a young king of the House of Lannister if he made a surprise appearance there. I feel sure of it. He's not banned there by any stretch, so far as I'm aware.. Carrite (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting links to off-wiki personal attacks by banned users isn't clever. Don't do it again, please. Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article in discussion is also full of such "attacks" (as you so incorrectly described that link), I thought you wouldn't mind. You clearly read the forum posts there, or are you just hypothesizing when you say that it is a den of maggots, full of fuckwit mothers doing strange things to vegetables? p.s. I nearly went over my download limit just clicking the diffs in that Arbcom case revealed by the link you just reverted! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 21:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Apologies; I should have realised it would have had an AfD by now. I remain unconvinced, but the consensus is otherwise. Fair enough. ;-) Steve T • C 20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both Prioryman and Demiurge1000 have a long history here, as exemplified by their extreme, offensive and persistent personal attacks upon editors in good standing who happen to participate in discussions on Wikipediocracy. For a taste of Prioryman's way of expression look at the DYK nom or just the title of this thread. And of course his golden comment: "Mothers doing strange things with vegetables do probably explain the disposition of Wikipediocracy's contributors" - which under any other circumstances would get him blocked and topic banned.

Demiurge1000 is more of the same though he's been warned several times, blocked and has toned it down a bit.

In any case, neither of them should really be taken seriously when it comes to this topics and their opinions should be entirely discounted. To zero (or negative, if you're doing the new math).Volunteer Marek 22:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Under other circumstances".... That is, if administrators reading his personal attacks were not two-faced cowards. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth focusing on the issue being discussed, rather than on contributors. Much though I might question some of the above rant ;) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Focus on the issue rather than the contributors"? As in "Hive of knuckle-dragging malice", "Den of maggots", "Fuckwit Forum", "Mothers doing strange things with vegetables do probably explain the disposition of Wikipediocracy's contributors". Or your own "boxcutter brigade"? Are you trying to be funny? People who go around saying stuff like that have given up their right to demand of others to "focus on the issue rather than the contributors". They've also given up any faux pretense of neutrality and any claim to have their statements taken seriously.
And that'd be you and Prioryman.Volunteer Marek 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do remember that "boxcutter brigade" is a reference to a statement made by a Wikipediocracy member that he wanted to use a boxcutter to slit the throats of Wikimedia UK members. SilverserenC 05:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, Demiurge said this about Wikipediocracy: ..to me they will always be "the boxcutter crew". Prioryman has also described the site as a "sociopathic freak show". -- Hillbillyholiday talk 06:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about Prioryman, i'm talking about Demiurge. And saying that they will always be "the boxcutter crew" to him means that they will always be the group in his mind that made the aforementioned statement about wanting to cut Wikimedia UK peoples' throats with a boxcutter. And, at least for the Wikipediocracy person that made that statement, he will always be that in my mind as well. Because there is a definite line and he crossed it. SilverserenC 07:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you and Demiurge1000 continue to smear Wikipediocracy contributors with that "box cutter" comment, which was hyperbole and quickly removed---unlike a WP editor fantasizing about killing administrator TP*r*s, which was dismissed as "not serious". If you were conistent, you would dismiss WP editors as a "murdering crew", but perhaps you do have limits discussing WP editors on Wikipedia. Why the discrepancy? Do you want to get blocked like Demiurge1000 for smearing editors here? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of hyperbole or joking isn't appropriate at all. There is a line and that is past it. I would consider a WP editor saying anything similar to also be over the line and feel that sanctions should be made. But I don't know what incident (if you're quoting a real one) you're referring to. Furthermore, it is not smearing to directly discuss statements made by another person. I am not smearing him, I am stating a fact. That his joke was over the line. And the sad fact is that while the jokes or hyperbole at Wikipediocracy may not always reach the level of death threats like that, they do often reach the level of severe verbal abuse about people's lives, their appearance, and a number of other things. It is what makes their "criticism site" unprofessional. SilverserenC 07:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being obtuse. You are smearing Wikipediocracy contributors with an off-hand, quickly removed, and often apologized for asinine remark. You and Demiurge1000 have not been using that remark to smear only the contributor who made and quickly apologized for it.
Your failure to distance yourself from Prioryman and Demiurge1000 tells us, alas, how badly your judgement has fallen, with Wikipediocracy. Where is your sense of justice? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you seriously just read the beginning of my comment and not the rest? My judgement has long remained the same and has only grown firmer with each incidence of abuse by Wikipediocracy's members against Wikipedia editors, including harassment and threats. There is entirely a way to try to address the problems on Wikipedia without such things, but it is already clear that it is impossible for the long-term members of Wikipediocracy to actually try to do so in an appropriate way. It would seem from situations like the "Qworty saga" that they have the capacity to actually help with abuses on Wikipedia. However, at the same time, there are incidents such as the doxing of Gwickwire because they had made statements or opinions at odds with the opinions of the members there. In fact, it is because they spend so much time going after editors that they dislike for their statements or opinions, rather than people that are actually abusing Wikipedia, that it is clear to see that they can never act properly when Wikipedia is the subject at hand.
Where is my sense of justice? You assume I condone the statements made by Prioryman, which I do not. He, himself, cannot properly handle it when Wikipediocracy is the topic at hand, after the long term harassment campaign they've had against him. I think he needs to divorce himself from discussing them at all and not enter into any topics about them. SilverserenC 08:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Doxing" (sic.) of gwickwire shows the wisdom of WP's suggestions for safe editing by minors and also safe choice of usernames. The most severe violation of the privacy policy was Demiurge1000's disclosure of his minority, apparently drawn from private chats with the young man. After that on-Wiki disclosure of his age, about which you all have been silent, discussion of Gwickwire's personal life was shutdown at Wikipediocracy. (And Gwickwire's behavior was the focus on criticism, not his personal details. See his admissions on his talk page.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"That kind of hyperbole or joking isn't appropriate at all. There is a line and that is past it. I would consider a WP editor saying anything similar to also be over the line and feel that sanctions should be made." - Oh! You mean like "Mothers doing strange things with vegetables do probably explain the disposition of Wikipediocracy's contributors". I mean, that's talking about somebody's momma right there. Where I come from, you can say all kinds of mean things to people, but you leave their mommas out of it. So are you gonna bring Prioryman up on ANI and propose a Wikipediocracy-topic ban for him or you gonna sit there sniveling and lying like the little hypocrite you probably are? If the latter, then please shut the fuck up Seren.Volunteer Marek 07:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing that to death threats? Do note that that statement was made after Hillbillyholiday linked this and said that Prioryman upholds 4 and 12, the latter of which you may also want to try to stop following as well. But, regardless, no, I do not support his statements like that at all. If you wish to bring him up at ANI for his statements, go right ahead, I will not oppose it at all. However, don't you think you should also be topic-banned from speaking with him, considering the number of insulting things you have stated, both on and off-wiki? SilverserenC 08:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing that to death threats? - Are you seriously THAT stupid? There were no death threats. There was an off hand remark which only expressed frustration. And it was promptly removed - which is way way way more than can be said for how things are done on Wikipedia these days. You are either being purposefully daft or are... THAT stupid.
And no. I want YOU to bring it to ANI and propose the topic ban. I (and others) have been trying to shrug off these attacks for sometime now. YOU are the one prancing around and claiming some kind of moral high ground here. Which has slipped from your feet long time ago. Either put up or shut up. Either you mean what you say, or you don't. Otherwise... just quit the topic Seren.Volunteer Marek 08:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge1000 has complained to Administrator Fram about my comments. Perhaps Fram will block his buddy Prioryman? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think if editors commenting on this topic are starting to insult other people's mothers, then they might be getting a little too emotionally involved. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that an AFD (Potential COI note: I did vote "delete" at the AFD) on this subject is in effect and the current back-and-forth on this very page is getting heated, I would agree with User:Orlady above that adding this article to DYK at this time would not be productive due to instability. Honestly, I'm surprised an army of administrators hasn't swooped in yet with what I'm seeing here. This is very unfortunate behavior for a purported educational encyclopedia. Ripberger (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disable User:DYKHousekeepingBot?

Administrators, I am updating Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count manually, but it depends on queues and prep areas. In other words, at least 12 hours. I want to contact the bot operator, but I haven't seen his latest activity since several days ago. Could you disable the bot? Therefore, any of us can notify each other about the queues and the scheduling and can manually update the hook count. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You can turn it off any time by reverting my edit to User:DYKHousekeepingBot/Switch. NW (Talk) 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How does disabling the bot help anything? Even if you and the bot are both editing the page, the two of you won't conflict unless you're editing it at exactly the same time (highly unlikely). Shubinator (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, we want the bot doing the updates as soon as it's able to do so in proper format. I think it's great that George is doing manual updates while the bot is down, but when it can give us twice-hourly updates, we should get them. (Like Shubinator, I'm confused: if the bot isn't working, then it won't do updates; if it is, the frequent automatic updates are what we want.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard from George or NW about why the bot was disabled, so I've re-enabled it. I also took a look at the innards and fixed a few things, so it should run smoothly now. Shubinator (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I saw was a request by a Wikipedian in good faith who attempted to do things through the right channels but was unable to do so, so I gave him a hand. I'm fine with you reenabling the bot. NW (Talk) 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hook removed from main page

I have removed the first hook from the current DYKs on the main page, as it was not supported by the article. I have reopened the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Chinaman (porcelain). The hook was only on the main page for ten minutes, but shouldn't have gotten this far. Fram (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for catching that, but couldn't you have just changed apprentice to journeyman? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer that it gets a thorough review again (and perhaps a different hook: "only" is POV, who decides that £25 (plus board) is "only" instead of "as much as"?). I was unable to verify the hook so far, since the source isn't available online at first glance, and it is not clear from the article which of the two sources by the same author is intended anyway. It was clear that the hook on the main page wsa wrong (as in unsupported by the Wikipedia article); it wasn't entirely clear that the word replavement would make the hook right though. Fram (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, in 18th century England, soldiers made £14 a year, a chaplain made £35 a year, a wet nurse £25 a year[1]; note that wages at the end of the century were already a lot higher (inflation? prosperity?), while the £25 wage discussed here was for the middle of the century. But this is of course a discussion for the nomination page, I only wanted to illustrate why I didn't simply correct the hook as it was. Fram (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering what had happened to this - the bot gave me a message but then I couldn't find it. Anyway, I have struck the disputed hook. There is already an ALT1 hook and suggest that that be considered instead. Warden (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should a DYK for Wikipediocracy be published?

Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy? (And if so, what should be the "hook")?

The proposed DYK is here. The form of the hook as of this writing is

  • "(Did you know)... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum, is dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia?".

There is also an earlier discussion about the matter above. Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(N.B.: for the purposes of internal DYK requirements, if any, that DYKs be processed within a given time after article creation, the time that this RfC is open shall not be counted against the age of the article.) Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Survey

  • I oppose a DYK for this. The article is back at AFD and is obviously a bone of contention. Warden (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (N.B.: my original !vote was so bollixed up that I've completely rewritten it. FWIW The original is here) -- Herostratus (talk).
    No, I oppose this DYK, after thinking it over. It's an interesting situation, and I don't have a problem with the article existing, but here we are talking about featuring it on the main page, and in that regard:
    • The article is about a website, and an effect of the DYK appearing on the main page will be to drive eyes to the website. Given that the article creator and most of the main authors are associated with that website, that doesn't sit too well with me, and wouldn't for any website.
    • It wouldn't for any website, but let's face this honestly: this is not Little Sisters of the Poor we are talking about here. While no fair-minded person, I think, could maintain that Wikipediocracy is monolithic or they don't do useful work (as well as being a wretched hive of scum and villainy), the plain fact is that that those eyes will be driven to a website that is dedicated, in part at least, to the destruction of the Wikipedia and to the immiseration of its individual editors personally. The Wikipedia's rules are not a suicide pact, and anyway the policy WP:IAR forbids us from deliberately abetting damage to the Wikipedia, which is a likely result of enlarging the Wikipediocracy community. Let them do their own advertising.
    • The purpose of DYK is to encourage the creation of new articles. To facilitate this, we deliberately allow DYK hooks to be less interesting than they could be (if we used a larger pool of articles to draw the hooks from). This degrades the potential reader experience, and must lower the number of clicks into the Wikipedia, lowering our readership capture. We accept this loss in order to maintain the benefit: providing an incentive for article creation. (All this is fine.) Does this DYK fit into that paradigm? No, it doesn't, per the two points above. The article creator and many of the other article editors are not good-faith actors in the DYK process. They are not going to feel pride in their DYK and be motivated to make further constructive contributions. This DYK is a perversion of what DYK was created for and is supposed to be about, and I don't see why we should have to stand for that, notwithstanding that they may have met the technical requirements for a successful DYK (if they have, which FWIW seems debatable).
    • Also, the very fact that it is controversial is, in an of itself, a good reason not to run it, I think. The appearance of the DYK would make many productive editors unhappy. That is not a useful function for DYK to perform, even if one concedes that the editors being made unhappy are wrongheaded, overly sensitive, or even cretinous. DYK is suppose to be happy time. We have plenty of DYKs that won't make a bunch of editors unhappy, so let's stick with them. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC) (Originally 13:57, 24 May 2013 and 16:53, 25 May 2013)[reply]
"DYK is suppose to be happy time?" I must have missed that particular guideline! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 16:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

  • What? You closed an open DYK nomination to start an RfC on whether a new article should have a DYK? Is there any reason why a new article would not be eligible for a DYK? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted that close, this is absolutely unnecessary to hold a side discussion; you don't get to ban topics from DYK on "I don't like it grounds". The Alt2 hook discussion was going on with no contention at all, and even agreement among the interested parties and independent ones. Let that discussion flow, please. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A community RfC is not a "side discussion". If an RfC is opened, th purely local discussion involving those (relatively few) editors aware of the discussion becomes the side discussion. Herostratus (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: Although this community RfC probably trumps purely local discussions, editors at the local discussion ([here) are fighting to keep that local discussion active, and for it to be the controlling discussion. Since this is a time-sensitive operation (the DYK will automatically appear on the main page after N days pass, which is before this RfC expires), I suppose this is a political move intended to trump consensus and push the nomination through, rendering this RfC moot. I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of the DYK, but I do have a strong opinion on moves like that: I don't like them. Therefore I'm going to that other discussion and voting "Oppose" purely as a procedural move to block this sort of anti-community thinking and acting. I urge all editors, regardless of their opinion of the merits of the DYK nomination itself, to do so also. (Yes, I did write this but forgot to sign - Herostratus (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Herostratus, the history looks like you wrote the above "Procedural note". Yes? Because the way this thread runs, it looks like The Devil's Advocate wrote it. Anyway, I'm wondering if there is a mis-cue in "the DYK will automatically appear on the main page after N days pass"? How does a DYK automatically appear on the main page if it isn't promoted to a prep area and approved and moved up to a Queue by an Admin? Maybe I missed something in the DYK process, but I'm not aware that any DYK nom automatically appears on the main page. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes I did write it. Right, a DYK doesn't automatically appear on the main page without going through the procedures you describe. I wrote that as shorthand, meaning that it will appear if it passes those steps. Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is blatant abuse of an RfC for the sake of stone-walling and should be summarily closed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main question of the RFC asks Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy?. Now, the question immediately indicates that there are some reasons for which the article/hook should not go on the main page? But, what are the reasons— that has not been clarified. Guesses— a) all/mostly unreliable refs; if so, please add tags and templates in the article b) fails notability; please add tag and take to AFD if needed c) CoI/written like advertisement/neutrality disputed; add templates if applicable and discuss at talk. These tags and/or AFD (if applicable) will help (read "stop") both the review and the reviewer ("immediately"). --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an abuse of RfC and a waste of time. In the past DYKs have been stopped from appearing on the main page because of concerns about whether e.g. Sexy Cora's hospitalization from giving blow jobs or death nth boob-job surgery deserved to be on the main page, on the nomination page (not even here). IMHO, this DYK would serve as an informal apology and resolution to do better with abusive editors (aided by abusive administrators), particularly on BLPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ Tito Dutta: Oh, OK, sure. Well, first of all, this has been a slightly contentious nomination so far, and it seems to have aroused some strong feelings. I think that that alone is sufficient, probably. When something is contentious, it's probably a good idea to thrash it out. A case could be made -- I think this is where you're coming from -- is that if a DYK fulfills the DYK team's internal requirements of a DYK nomination, then that nomination must be accepted; it's a purely mechanical process. I'm not sure I'd agree, and I'm not sure that others would either. That's what we're here to find out, partly. A counter-case could be made that the community has a right to oversee DYKs appearing -- we are talking about the Wikipedia main page after all -- and discuss any one that they want to. That may be wrong, but in my opinion its not crazy or idiotic.
(BTW and FWIW, it has been established (de facto, as a political reality) that this doesn't apply to the daily featured articles; the Featured Article team publishes what it wants to (which may be a good thing, not sure). Whether this should apply to DYK I'm not sure. I don't think it should, but lack of such a standard could lead to a lot of unwarranted meddling in DYK I suppose (but much doubt). Anyway, that's a matter of whether the DYK team wants to establish that as the prevailing state of affairs and has the support to do so. Probably the best way to determine this would be to WP:MFD this RfC.) Herostratus (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As to the merits of whether or not the DYK should appear, here are some of the points made at earlier discussions:
  • Whether the article is stable is perhaps open to question (it appears that it is being or recently has been actively edited).
  • Whether the entity is notable is perhaps open to question.
  • Most of the creators and editors of the article are associated with the entity. This could possibly bring conflict of interest questions into play.
And here's a point I'll add for my own part:
  • While there aren't any specific rules or guidelines I can point to regarding this matter, the whole issue of intent here could have some bearing, if one is inclined to consider such matters. Whether we're being trolled here, whether that matters, what we should do about that (if anything), to what extent we as normal human beings with normal human emotions should have to put up with stuff like this, and how any of this actually improves or is intended to improve the Wikipedia, are all questions that might arise in the minds of some. (I do note that the nominator features prominently on his user page the motto "Make articles, not drama", which, given that he made this nomination, is I suppose intended to enrage, or maybe sarcasm is the intent. Whatever it is, I don't much care for that sort of thing. Again, that may not be germane, but we are supposed to here to try to get along and to improve the Wikipedia, and how much shrift we are willing to give to folks who aren't is a reasonable question I think. The Wikipedia is not a suicide pact.) As a counter-argument, "We're bigger than that" is a valid point, which is why I haven't made up my mind yet. Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kiefer... an "informal apology"? Or in short, basically you want this posted to prove a WP:POINT? I am sorry, but that is simply asinine. If this is to be posted, it should be only on its own merits as a qualifying article. If the desire to put this on the main page is based on internal political considerations, then it most certainly should not be posted - any more than we should post any positive-themed naval gazing. Regardless, as I have indicated in the DYK nom, I oppose the posting of this article at this time because it lacks evidence of notability (and yes, I have read the AFD which was snowed under by superficial 'it passes GNG because I say so' comments), lacks non-trivial independent coverage and is nothing more than a WP:COATRACK operating primarily as a duplication of the criticism of Wikipedia article rather than something dedicated to Wikipediocracy itself. But that latter part should be expected given there is no significant, independent coverage to be found. Resolute 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't we require that "editors" pass a quiz on WP:Point before they are allowed to miscite it? (Everything I write has a point, pilgrims, so please stop telling me that I am being pointy....) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, sort of. Subject to the general WP:RFC guidelines, which discourage idiosyncratic RfC's (which are generally disallowed by nature, that is they will garner no support and fail or be WP:SNOW closed anyway). Should you not be able to? We're generally pretty lax about these things -- it's a wiki after all. Anyway, I didn't open the RfC so much because I didn't like the DYK (I may vote to pass it through, not sure yet) but because there was already argument and discussion on the matter. Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summarily close this RFC. The article was taken to AFD, where it was snow kept as containing sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I noticed the speedy keep and size of the article, which was largely created in two waves by Volunteer Marek and Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I figured that Marek probably would not nominate it since he had not written as much of the articleas Alf had, and Alf was too quiet and nervous to nominate it, so I nominated it for them. Don't use an RFC to make the DYK fail the technical requirements for DYK articles simply because you don't like the subject matter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or is the opposition to Wikipediocracy appearing on the DYK section of the main page actually due to its exposure of serious COI concerns with GibraltarpediA, which was blatantly spammed across the main page for months? Hmmm...one has to wonder, given the stuff regularly posted.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that that's true, at all. The "M" stands for "miscellany" and includes everything not covered by another specific XfD, including sections of pages, I would think. If it doesn't include sections of pages, we can make it so now -- this is a wiki after all -- unless there's a specific rule saying that doesn't. It'd probably be the appropriate thing to do in this case. There are now two entirely different things being contended here:
  • Whether this particular DYK should or should not appear on the main page.
  • Whether an RfC may be requested on any DYK.
Some people are seeming to say "no" to the second question, so rather than interleaving and confusing the two issues it'd be better to separate them I think. This could take the form of a separate RfC, but that would be confusing and it'd actually be much better to run an MfD on this RfC (if the MfD succeeds, we can probably assume that no RfC's on DYKs should be made in future). There's no hurry, so we can work through these things one at a time. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said over there, the problem I have with this is that it was a drastic big step in the dispute resolution process that didn't seem to be necessary. RfCs should be called to help settle prolonged and intractable debates, which that DYK discussion really wasn't, once it went got past the initial ERMAHGERD TEH WIKIPEDIOCRACY commentary. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that it's not contentious (beyond the knee-jerk opposition you describe), based partly on my reading of the thread higher up on this page. But if you're right, the RfC will be accepted with flying colors and only a bit of time will be lost, so why not see it through? Herostratus (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this: This is an out of process RfC on a non-issue which is sorting itself out as we speak. Although my own views on Wikipediocracy are fairly public knowledge, I must stress that we do not prevent articles from running just because the subject is related to Wikipedia or because we don't like it. This goes for the Wikipediocracy article and, ironically enough considering the forum's reaction, the Sarah Stierch article. Both are/were neutral articles which can/could stand on their own legs and thus get/got the same chances as every other article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, if it's a non-issue, what's the problem? Everyone will vote "Yes" and the DYK will go through. Go up to the Survey section and add your Yes to the cavalcade of unanimity there and Bob's your uncle. You could also read my argument there: it doesn't matter if the article was about Saint Alda, DYK exists for a specific purpose, and this nomination doesn't fit it. That doesn't have to matter to you, but it matters to me, and notwithstanding that you think that that's not a fit subject to even be discussed (individual DYK nominations are not a good venue for discussing larger issues like this) I respectfully submit that it might matter to other editors. Or maybe not. I'd rather know, since I prefer data to no data. Herostratus (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there've been a number of editors contending that this is out of process and should be summarily closed. Any uninvolved editor can close an RfC. I don't think it'd be a good idea to summarily close this one, since it's not clear that it is disallowed I don't think. But I'm sensitive to the contention that RfC's on DYK's are out of line (I don't agree with it, but I suppose I could be wrong), so here's what I suggest:

  • Let this one go through. It's too late to stop it now without drama, and it's only one RfC -- the Wikipedia will survive.
  • Go to the thread I've opened here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Question re RfC on main page issues. and (if enough people go there and support the proposition), add the suggested text to the page. This will prevent this situation arising in future.

Does this seem like a reasonable way to address this question of legitimacy? Herostratus (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources and DYK

My question is, how exactly do primary sources factor into DYK nominations? Because there are a fair amount of primary sources in use in the article that are referencing a fair amount of content that doesn't otherwise have a secondary source. What are the normal DYK rules about this? SilverserenC 01:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable for certain details and most of the sources being used are reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are being used conservatively for a small number of details, a quote and two sentences about contributors, where their use falls well within policy. Even without those sections the article would still be over the 1500 character limit.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should think that standard SPS procedure should be followed: non-controversial, non-self serving, actually about the subject itself. As of my writing there is no rule against using SPSes to source a hook fact — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any admins watching

There are 5 notices about DYK being overdue on this page. Could admins be more watchful?PumpkinSky talk 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quirky's

The supply of good quirkys has been very weak lately.PumpkinSky talk 00:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ checker

Why doesn't the QPQ checker work anymore? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean SnottyWong's tool on the review template itself? When I click it, it brings up The tool with a blank for the name. If you were to input a user name, it would bring up results. Since I'd never used it from the template, I don't know if that was what it was doing before, or if it was supposed to bring up results without the reviewer having to input a name. Other than that, it's still on Toolserver, and Toolserver has had some reliability issues of late. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer did have to manually enter the user's name. The toolbox was initially set up to count a user's edits to T:TDYK. I changed it to instead use my original specifications, as I suggested in January 2012, to count DYKUpdateBot's edits to a user's talk page. See the discussion at User talk:Mandarax#QPQ check. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two hooks about fire currently in Prep 2

As a first-time nominator, I don't want to criticize the judgement of any long-standing administrator involved in the DYK process, but is it really wise to group Wawel Dragon (statue) and Düsseldorf Airport fire together? Both hooks end with the word "fire".--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see this before separating them, but glad you pointed it out in case I hadn't noticed the problem: they really should not have been together, and it's why I had moved your hook to Prep 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hook shortage

Currently only 123 hooks listed, should we be thinking about reducing the number of updates?

Also, why has the "List of DYK hooks by date" been removed from the nominations page? I found it very useful. Gatoclass (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I mean this list, it used to be on the nominations page itself.
Also, regardless of whether 30 hooks were just moved to the queue, 123 is still not many hooks, we wouldn't want that number to get any smaller. Gatoclass (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Six hooks or seven?

There seems to be confusion at the moment as to whether we should be using six hooks or seven hooks in a prep set. We appear to have gone to six hooks starting on the first set to be archived on May 20, and stayed there until the current set, which follows six days later, and now we have two queues with seven hooks and one with six.

Given that we're averaging well under 21 new hooks per day, maintaining seven per set (21 per day) to the main page seems dicey, given a total of 137 nominated hooks. But six or seven, what we should be is consistent from set to set. So which is it? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven. Six looks bad on the main page and if people would review more instead of arguing so much about whether it should be 6 or 7 we wouldn't have a problem. There are plenty of older noms to work through, which would resolve this issue.PumpkinSky talk 23:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well as I see it the only way to compromise would be to have 6-and-a-half.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two-and-a-half sets of six-and-a-half hooks sounds like a truly fair way to go... BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now we have a total of 129 hooks, including 22 verified. If you say six-and-a-half, do you mean 18 to 20 hooks per day? I think right now 21 per day would be too much after prep areas are cleared. Two sets of six-per-queue and one set of seven-per-queue would suffice; maybe two sets of seven-per-queue and one set of six. Otherwise, three sets of six-per-queue. --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very true, but I do agree with both Gatoclass and George, and disagree with PumpkinSky: we need to reduce, whether to six per set or two sets per day. It's one thing to say "go review more", but at the rate we're burning hooks, eventually there will be too few. 120 noms seems like a reasonable line in the sand. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I suggest that if the number of noms goes below 120, we either go to six hooks per set or two sets per day until the numbers build back up again. 120 is about the minimum practical number one can work with to create balanced sets, below that it gets much more difficult. I note for example that someone is already complaining of a shortage of quirky hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what people are saying, but again, the root of the problem is lack of reviews. Go review more and we won't have this problem. And yes, that was me that brought the paucity of good quirky hooks. All of this is one of multiple symptoms of nosediving wiki participation. I'm sure I don't need to go into why on that.PumpkinSky talk 10:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of them seem to be reviewed already, the reviews simply haven't been finalized because of outstanding problems. This is another reason we generally need a bigger pool of noms IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Arlington Memorial Amphitheater

Someone forgot about the American holiday, Memorial Day (May 27). What can we do about Prep 1? --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's done now. --George Ho (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local times

I was just wondering why there are two US cities in the timings. Could one of these be replaced by another capital\large city in another country but in the same time zone e.g. Los Angeles with Vancouver or New York with Bogotá? Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 10:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slaps or slabs?

A hook currently in Queue 1 mentions "smouldering polystyrene slaps in a ceiling". Should this be "slabs", or something else? The cited source in Düsseldorf Airport fire uses neither word. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

- thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Campbell

May I request that the DYK for Stuart Campbell (games journalist) be moved from Queue 3 to the more UK-friendly Queue 4, as the figure is more of note in Scotland than the US. Cheers. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 18:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hook wordings

  • What's with the recent anal retentiveness over hook wordings? Reviewers can fix it and get the nomination over with, rather than hold up nominations for weeks because of wording concerns over hooks which are grammatical and accurate. For instance, Template:Did you know nominations/Art Lassiter has:

Sorry! The hook is phrased in a way that it emphasizes Turner more than Lassiter. Please rephrase it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That article is still unreviewed, almost three weeks later. Template:Did you know nominations/Birmingham crisis is another, although at least in this case the reviewer added a possible ALT:

I have to say, I don't like the diction in the hook. Crises can't really escalate--better to say something like caused a crisis in the city that culminated in an unprecedented military operation? "Begin" and "bombings" isn't a real happy combination either. One more thing: this is Alabama. The involvement of federalistas is a HUGE thing, still (we're kind of moronic that way), and that would make for a catchier and more appropriate hook than the rather neutral "military operation". So let me put all that together. ... Drmies (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we please just fix fairly minor grammatical issues without derailing nominations? This isn't FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another, unrelated issue is hook interest. If we're already running low on hooks, do we really want to burden ourselves by fighting to the death about the relative interest of a hook? Offer ALTs, please, if you don't like what's there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYKSG A4

There has been a discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Business tourism about changing rule DYKSG A4:

A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it was up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article. Twofold expansion for newly sourced BLPs similarly means from the version prior to the expansion and addition of sources.

The discussion on Business Tourism is more complex and involved several other issues, but the core spin-off question is: Can and should DYKSG A4 be changed to have not only copyright violations as exceptions but also unverifiable and/or unreferenced and/or unencyclopedic content? --Pgallert (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provided that content is removed. We already require that all of DYK's content is referenced. If an editor finds that s/he cannot find references, and/or that the content is irrelevant, I think it only stands to reason that such content is removed, and should not be held against the editor who is expanding the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with that. Articles (not DYKs) are permitted to have unsourced content, so removing it is a negative for the article. So the original size has to be counted. If the expander removes any text we have to count the size before they start working on it. The idea is after all to have more text added, rather than removed. It is getting too much a matter of opinion whether text is unverifyable or unencyclopedic, so best not to have to let some one make a judgment on whether it is really or not. Counting the characters is much more clear cut. It is no big loss not to have a DYK approved. We already give a chance for more expansion to take place if the article is not expanded enough. Sometimes we also get poepl claiming text was a copyvio, when only part of it was too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Graeme. Another issue, is that with older articles, a lot of times "references" are provided in the External links section or in some other fashion. So while there aren't inline references supporting the information, there is an actual reference, but people often don't notice that. It also makes it hard to tell what is and isn't supported by that reference, (hence the move to inline references.) So as Graeme says, it would make it an easy system to "game" and would also somewhat defeat the point of DYK, which is to facilitate the addition of more information to the encyclopaedia. Harrias talk 09:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However when we get large articles is becomes very hard to expand 5 times, so perhaps we could have a rule 2 times expansion and 20000 readable characters added. Then expansion becomes possible for DYK. However I think I like GA appearance better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination template protected?

I just tried to make a nomination, and when I clicked the nomination button, it said the page could be edited only by admins. I nominate infrequently, so it's possible I'm doing something dumb … but clicking a button is usually not beyond my technical grasp. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ... which page did you try to nominate? It works for me. If the article has been nomm'ed in the past, I could imagine the button would count as deleting and re-creating a page.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait: I see what I did wrong. Forgot to type in the title. If you click without typing in the title, it takes you t the protected template. How idiotic of me. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new proposal for "stale" old articles

In my opinion, one of the project priorities should be to get articles on really notable topics which have been unedited in years and are severely lacking up to a decent status. But at present we lack a mechanism to do so. I wondered if anybody would be interested in introducing a new scheme for DYK in which "stale old articles", e.g those which have not been significantly expanded beyond 1kb in the last two years, have lower expansion requirements for DYK. I'd propose something rather like a x2 expansion like for BLPs or a 3 kb requirement for stubs which are under 1kb of prose which would give editors an incentive to focus on improving what we have. I'd also propose that a number of people get together and decide say a bank of 1000 or so articles which all parties can agree on as "core" which are very important but badly in need of expansion and do a similar thing. We badly need to attract people to expand them, I;ve proposed an monthly award system but given the foundation's stance on such things DYK seems the only way to try to get more editors expanding them, What do you think?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement, or something like it? And, BTW, what happened with TAFI going on the main page beneath DYK? It was there one day, and now it's not. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, I now see under the section "Failure" on that page, that being on the main page didn't help the project, and they yanked it. — Maile (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because in my experience people rarely fall for that. I'm simply talking about lowering the requirement for articles which haven't been expanded over 1kb within the last 2 years and reduce x5 to x2 expansion for them to encourage more editors to expand "stale" articles.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it up to GA, and then make it a DYK. Sorry if I seem to be pushing my proposal too much, I'm waiting for the Main Page RfC to close.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see by the lack of response and decision making over such things, not many at DYK really care about improving quality of wikipedia or DYK.... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, add it as an option, and wait for someone willing to revert and discuss it. Idealistic I may be, naïve even, but it's worth a try, and I've seen it work before.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Post notability

The William Post article has a notability tag on it, and as such, the nomination can't really be promoted. I've suggested a way forward; can others please have a look and assist? Schwede66 23:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved - thanks. Schwede66 18:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Sarafian Jehl image question

Someone who is knowledgeable about imagse, please offer some guidance on Sue Sarafian Jehl — Maile (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it can be proven that it was taken by a member of the US armed forces in an official capacity (Army Signal Corps, Navy, etc.), the family (Jehl's heirs) needs to release the rights to the photo through OTRS. That's assuming the photographer is unknown and the heirs have the right to release the image (could turn into a quagmire). It looks like a scan from a print source. It was not published prior to 1923 so PD rules do not apply. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Award Hooks needing reviews

There are still 4 DYK hooks that need to be approved for the Tony Award June 10 date, which is now less than two weeks away:

  1. Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/Cinderella (2013 Broadway production)
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Rob Howell
  4. Template:Did you know nominations/Valisia LeKae

The latter two seem to be having trouble getting approved and if they don't I don't really care. I am an uninvolved editor in both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12 hour 2 a days

I have been hearing about a hook shortage. Any chance we will be going to 12 hour 2-a-days?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

43 hooks are verified, so... chance would be not likely. But, to make it "unlikely", you must promote the hooks. As for me, I have to take a wikibreak for a while, even though I've promoted some hooks previously. Otherwise, chances will be slightly likely. Right now, three prep areas are almost empty. --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK candidate in queue - Zorotypus impolitus.

The language of the hook that I wrote in DYK is accurate but the wording of the hook in the queue is incorrect. It is the spermatophore that is the among the smallest in the insect world, not the insect itself.

The hook written by me :

The hook as appearing in Prep are 1 :

The easiest way to resolve this is to reproduce the hook as I wrote it, alternatively, the hook needs to be rewritten accurately.

AshLin (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the original wording. If anyone feels it would benefit from rewording, go for it (carefully). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed "despite being". If the spermatophore really is among the smallest, then the single sperm cell is not necessarily "despite" its size. If it were among the largest, then we'd be going somewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unique as the only known insect in the world to feature a giant single spermatazoon.(vide "Divergent mating patterns and a unique mode of external sperm transfer in Zoraptera: an enigmatic group of pterygote insects". Naturwissenschaften (May 2013). Springer-Verlag: 1–14. 2013. doi:10.1007/s00114-013-1055-0. Retrieved 22 May 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)).
If you feel that's a better hook, I have no objection! AshLin (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it's not the fact, it's the wording (the logic of the sentence, if you will... readers may think it similar to "despite weighing 500 kilograms (1,100 lb), Arthur was immensely fat" in terms of how "despite" is used) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approving ALTs

I've seen a few cases recently where an ALT has been approved, rather than the main hook, but then the editor creating the queues fails to notice this, and we end up running the original hook (in fact, there is one on the main page at the moment, Dejanović noble family.) To help make this clearer, could reviewers possibly try and get in the habit of striking out the original hook so that the hook or hooks that they have approved are the only ones that can be read? Harrias talk 06:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom dictionary

It's probably too late to do anything about it now but Idiom dictionary is currently on the main page in the quirky slot and it has no references in the majority of paragraphs. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, this whole paragraph is unreferenced, yet presents quite specific claims: "The second category of reader is any citizen of the world today who, whether a student or not, finds himself more and more often in the situation of having to speak a language other than his mother tongue. And this person will find a dictionary with illustrations, words and phrases - a modern engravings of technological society; a book which he wants to carry with him (hence it must have a compact format), to leaf through and also to read, dipping into it less to verify a word than to become impregnated with a culture."

And just a small point—has anyone checked the gender-neutral guideline? And could we please have a dash, not a crappy hyphen, as the interruptor, as insisted on by CMOS, Oxford, and en.WP's very own house style. Who let this onto the main page??? Tony (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that whole paragraph, word for word, is a straight copyvio, is it? (Including the grammatical blooper "engravings".) Tony (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, apologies if that's the case. It is often so hard to tell the vector; but I took their own home page as being not a mirror-site of WP: how strange that they should take WP text for it. Could we, then, fix the grammar, the punctuation, the repeated generic male pronoun, and maybe clean up and tighten the general prose? I take it the copyvio tag is no longer needed (ah, it's been removed, fine); please advise if otherwise. Tony (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't exactly say it's strange. I've seen many sites which are not wikipedia mirrors but use text which seems to clearly be from wikipedia to define something. While this particular site is non compliant if they did copy from us, they did keep the wikipedia links. In some cases there's no clear sign at all it came from wikipedia beyond the fact that the text matches exactly some intermediate version of our article that has been developed over time. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The potential copyvio is relevant for DYK (if it is an issue; judging from the above it looks like you guys have decided there's not copyvio); the other stuff is not. Last I checked, the DYK guidelines only require inline citations on the fact that's going in the hook, not through the whole article. (Guideline #4, "within policy", is I guess a bit open to interpretation anymore.) I'm not saying this is in any way a good article; I'm just saying things like lack of FA/GA-quality inline citations and lack of MoS-compliant punctuation do not in of themselves make an article not qualify for DYK. If there is a consensus that those things should disqualify an article from DYK, then the DYK guidelines should be changed to reflect that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I made the initial comment, which seems to have stirred up this hornets nest, is because the DYK supplementary rules require "as a rule of thumb" one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro etc - see D2 here, so it was a requirement, and not something I 'just made up' and irrelevant 'other stuff'. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rjanag, those matters I pointed out are just plain, simple quality issues for any text. I think you need to stop banging MOS and FA rules and start thinking about generic quality for DYK. Short and recent does not equal sloppy and unprofessional; this confusion has been at the heart of much tension about DYK for quite a few years. Tony (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I did not say the article was of high quality. I said that those things are not listed in the DYK rules, and so they can't be haphazardly enforced on whatever DYKs happen to come under your line of fire; if you want to change the rules then go work on changing the rules. I agree that crappy writing is crappy writing, but DYK (at least the last time I looked at the rules) does not require the same level of quality as some other parts of the encyclopedia. Again, if you think DYK should require the same level of quality, then you're welcome to drum up consensus and get the rules changed. This is a really simple concept, I don't know how after so many years you still don't understand it.
Sagacious: thanks for pointing out D2, I had forgotten about that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@rj: Think about it.... The problems seem to be of a rather fundamental nature. I hope you don't mean that because the DYK rules say only the hook needs to be properly sourced, whereas any other claim elsewhere in the article, however potentially contentious, doesn't need to be because there's nothing in the rules about it. That "there only needs to be one citation for a DYK article" seems to be the takeaway here. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Serious problems like that are covered elsewhere in the rules (e.g., if an unsourced controversial claim is in there, it will run afoul of NPOV and therefore of the DYK guideline relating to "within policy"). As far as I can tell the OP didn't mention anything about controversial claims. I have not read the article so I don't know the details; all I'm saying is that DYK reviewers should not haphazardly apply 'criteria' that aren't listed in the criteria. The example you just gave is covered by the criteria; the examples I was responding to above are not (at least the MoS thing; the one citation per paragraph is, as Sagacious pointed out, covered at least by an 'unofficial' criterion). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While there are some obvious rules to follow, it's not a given that they are observed. Unfortunately for articles of this type/topic area, it's all too common to see what often resembles original research, so sourcing/citations in this subject area would appear to me to need more attention. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queue

All prep areas are full, and all queues are empty. Can an admin approve some sets please? Thanks --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate hook

The hook for Baisikeli Ugunduzi is currently in slot 3 of Prep 2 and then duplicated in slot 2 of Prep 3. Could someone sort this please? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cap ATTENTION

I keep going back and forth in my mind, whether that one hook in the queue should read "British Queen" or "British queen"? Can someone pass on that before it gets to the main page? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC). At presnet there is only one queue (5) but here is the link: [2][reply]

I believe it should be British queen, as "queen" is not a proper noun.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ proposal

There has been much discussion recently about a lack of reviews for DYK noms and whilst reviewing and promoting hooks I have noticed that there are frequently nominations made by someone otherwise not involved in the article. I propose that there be a minor change to our rules so that the person who nominated an article must give a QPQ if they have more than 5 credits. Otherwise we risk being overwhelmed by articles which haven't had another article reviewed and so increasing the backlog. Reviewing an article isn't that hard, so this would only be a minor inconvenience to those who could otherwise pick up hundreds of DYK credits for little or no effort.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nominating other people's work for DYK is an important contribution to the DYK process that should not be discouraged. It recruits new contributors to get involved in DYK (I'm one of many frequent participants who first got involved after someone else nominated an article of mine) and it tends to add to the diversity of the subject matter here. Moreover, it's often a lot of work to nominate someone else's work -- a lot harder than reviewing a nomination. It requires screening new articles for basic eligibility, looking for possible hooks, and reading the cited sources to make sure they support the hook and haven't been plagiarized. It's usually necessary to do some editing to an article before nominating it. Then, after the nomination, the nominator needs to address the issues that come up during review -- and it's harder to do that with somebody else's work than for one's own work. QPQ was intended to elicit participation from people who would otherwise only use DYK to showcase their work; don't make it an extra hoop for people who are already going far beyond that. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Older unreviewed nominations

The following are older and unreviewed; the rest may have issues, have been approved, or needs another review. I won't list others that need another review; perhaps someone will. --George Ho (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in queue

In the queue, in Prep 4, Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat, it says: "Singapore's first Malayminister"? There should probably be a space between Malay and Minister. As it is also like that in the article. Crispulop (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 is a hook short?

How come Queue 6 has only 6 hooks, but there are 7 hooks in Queue 1 & in Queue 2? --142.1.32.35 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Please consider being more consistent throughout each day. --142.1.32.35 (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=557597592"