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 Northamerica1000 (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 26 October 2014 (→The irony of it all: +c). 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.

Informal tracking of the stats

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

Proposal to decrease to one set per day

Thanks to everyone who contributed constructively. When I suggested this, we were down to bare bones of suitable hooks, the pull rate was high again (still is), but now we have a suitable enough pocket full of hooks to maintain the rotation of two sets per day. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

  • Oppose – "I had some hope that the quality was improving" – that's not what you said a few days ago when you pompously proclaimed that "DYK has stablised nicely with an improved quality of late". Basically, you made one claim in order to get DYK down to two sets a day, and you're now doing a complete 180º and claiming the exact opposite in order to further decrease to one set. Could you please make up your mind and decide which argument you want to stick with? And with regards to your claim about the WikiCup – prove it. You did the same thing in July's Signpost when arguing with J Milburn, and you're doing it here again. Substantiate your claims, show us your evidence or shove it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The one thing I will say right away is, where are all the hooks?! Once again your hysteria is obnoxiously and toxically destroying any logical discussion. I haven't reversed any position at all, I've just noted a sudden "upsurge in pisspoor reviews" (perhaps you hadn't noticed, just look at the previous four or so sections here!). You're making yourself look more and more idiotic by the post, but hey, perhaps that's something you've striving for. You've excelled. (P.S. I didn't argue with Milburn, I stated my position, he, like you, didn't like it. Get over it, the rush for points in contests is clouding several people's judgement!) (P.P.S. As User:EEng asked you, what's this big dog thing you have with rushing hooks through? What's the point of it? What are you trying to achieve? Why are you so freaking angry about it all? I'd suggest it'd do your health some good to just chill out a little...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the quoted statement comes across as a contradiction...because you omitted "and I still believe it is", thereby distorting its meaning. —David Levy 20:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem with DYK is The Rambling Man. No, I don't have any evidence. No, I don't have any arguments. Stop asking me for reasons and evidence. Get over it. I'm just stating my opinion, man. No, of course I'm not being divisive. Just chill out. I'm not arguing with anyone. It's The Rambling Man's Fault. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work Milburn. I never attributed the issues at DYK to any single editor. In fact I just want quality output. That relies on the numerous editors who regularly pass pisspoor quality hooks. I'm not starting the discussion all over again. Your "input" is disappointing, but just as I expected from someone running a competition designed to rush mediocrity to the main page. A pity really, it could be so much better. Similarly your "input" here could have been helpful and effective, but no, it was just childish, cynical and ultimately harmful. DYK is currently dying (once again) and all those screaming for something different are doing absolutely nothing about it. Other than screaming. (As for evidence, see above, pulled hooks a-plenty, as for arguments, see here, reduce the throughput, improve the quality... what, Milburn, are you actually trying to say?) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here and elsewhere, you have asserted, without trying to provide any evidence or argument, that whatever problem you choose to say exists at DYK is the fault of the WikiCup. You have then refused to provide any evidence and argument (and even brushed off the possibility of engaging in reasonable discussion- "I didn't argue with Milburn, I stated my position, he, like you, didn't like it. Get over it"). My point, which, unsurprisingly, you've missed, is that what I said about you is exactly what you say about the WikiCup. When I say it, you respond with BLOCKCAPS and call me all kinds of names. When you say it, others have got to "get over it" and "chill out a little", and our motives are questioned. I really don't care what you have to say about DYK, but your insistence that everything is the WikiCup's fault is bordering on the obsessive. J Milburn (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've actually said that WikiCup makes the situation worse, that's all. We've already agreed that we disagree on this, why you keep trying to restart an argument with me is odd, bordering on an obsession with me. I don't like it, stop doing it or I'll call the Wiki Police. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We haven't agreed anything of the sort. You've asserted, I've pointed out that your assertion is baseless. If you don't want me to keep challenging your baseless assertions, stop bringing it up, especially in such an arrogant way ("Sorry WikiCup guys, rushing things through just isn't working.") J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We haven't agreed that we disagree? Then why are you continually disagreeing with me? You're starting to make no sense at all. I think you need to remove yourself for a while to calm down. Or better still, review some DYK hooks! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't tell me what I have and have not agreed to, and don't tell me what to do. Again, if we disagree, it's because you make baseless assertions and then will say anything to avoid actually backing them up. If you're not going to provide any evidence or argument, stop with the sniping. J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had counselling about this and it seems like you need it too! Just relax and stop denying the sky is blue! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm saying is that you haven't provided any evidence/argument for your claims and that you'll do anything to avoid doing so. Especially given the you're now suggesting that I need counseling rather than actually addressing the issue, I don't think this is particularly controversial. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sniping and personal attacks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • J's right – you've just been smokescreening the issue all along, claiming people need to "relax" and "calm down" (as if you know their emotions) and using that as a illogical reason to dismiss their arguments and proof. Meanwhile, you operate with the deluded notion that we need to provide diffs for claims we didn't make, while you can make any false unsubstantiated claim about DYK and the WikiCup without a shred of evidence. It's good that you went for counselling because it is clear that you are in desperate need of it. You've exported this discussion elsewhere to an AFD I started, where you blatantly lied about how an AFD cannot lead to the renaming of the article (Truth: the third sentence of WP:AFD clearly lists it as one of the options). It's quite evident that the discussion here is causing you to personalize this issue and is clouding your judgment elsewhere on completely unrelated matters. For shame! —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been advised many times in several locations by various editors to try to control your emotions. I'm afraid this is yet another example of you needing to do try hard to do the same. Please try to stay calm and on-topic! Good luck with your AFD and good luck defending your position in which you and Milburn strenuously believe there's no call from the remaining WikiCup entrants to increase the rate of DYK. Did you read this page from top to bottom and also the archives? No? I didn't think so. "For shame!" (great quote, I'll using that wherever possible!). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Prove that I'm not calm (right you can't, as it's another one of those silly unsubstantiated arguments you're so good at making). I honestly don't need to heed "advice" from admin hypocrites like you or your tag team partner, who tried warning me to "stop over-personalis[ing] things" and then proceeds to do exactly just that [1][2]. You can try getting as many people to warn me as you want TRM, but in the end you and others of your ilk have no credibility whatsoever. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your paranoia is of significant concern. I have no idea who HJMitchell, nor have I ever interacted with him/her, so please your hysterical accusations of "tag teaming" need to be refined. You also need to learn how to make diffs work for you. The first showed nothing, the second was nothing to do with anything related here. Your "concerns" (or "opinions") over admins are certainly fascinating for you but unless you intend to do something about it, I'd focus on the matter in hand, that of the WikiCup finalists (nearly 50% of the finalists) yearning for an increase in the DYK rate. Meanwhile the rest of the community are advocating quality over quantity. You seem to have no answer for that at all. Whatever credibility you thought you might have had has evaporated some weeks ago. For shame! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your lying is of significant concern (not to mention your paranoia with the WikiCup). Lie #1 – [N]early 50% of the finalists yearn for an increase in the DYK rate. What utter rubbish. Only me and Cwmhiraeth have called for an increase (25% of finalists), while there are 4 non-WikiCup finalists who oppose your silly plan. That was actually previously mentioned, but since you're an egomaniac with a WP:DONTLIKE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU syndrome, of course you wouldn't have picked up on that. Lie #2 – I have no idea who HJMitchell, nor have I ever interacted with him/her. Actually, you interacted with him less than a month ago. Explain this discussion. And don't even get me started on private emails, or is that something else we need to talk about? So what "credibility" were you talking about again? Right, you got none to speak of now, so shove it … and don't let the door hit you on the way out. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your whole attitude is of significant concern. Of course, you have your paranoia and your little contest to keep you going. The rest of us will just get on with improving Wikipedia rather than going for little trinkets to validate your existence. (For what it's worth, when you claim " What utter rubbish. Only me and Cwmhiraeth have called for an increase (25% of finalists)", of course you overlooked Cas Liber who also said "i reckon we go to 3 sets/day." and you overlook the fact that Adam Cuerden has withdrawn, that makes it "three out of seven", do the "math"! Anyway, this is done now, it ceased to be productive the moment you lost the plot for the umpteenth time. Go shout at someone who cares about your opinion, although I don't see anyone matching that description anywhere around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Lie #4 – "[Y]ou overlook the fact that Adam Cuerden has withdrawn". How do you explain this then? He may have listed himself as withdrawn, but he's adding submissions like any other active finalist would do. I've done the math, and it looks all good, because your "three out of seven" argument has been rendered moot – but nice try in deceiving everyone as usual. And your claim on Fram's talkpage that my "accus[ing you] of outright lying which has since been clearly disproved is a direct personal attack which should be retracted" is pure nonsense. It doesn't constitute a personal attack since it is true. Not only have you failed to "clearly disprove" it, you've actually perpetuated it here and shown that, time and time again, you're simply unable to tell the truth. It's unfortunate you've now had to resort to pig-headed antics like edit warring[3][4][5][6] and defying talkpage archive guidelines, all because you didn't get your way with your proposal here of one set a day. It says a lot about a person's maturity when they stoop to this level in areas unrelated to this discussion here after being overridden by community consensus. Fortunately, Mandarax was able to make the correct and logical move of archiving the month-old discussion (i.e. what any admin – uninvolved, unbiased, with an unclouded judgment and without a vendetta – would have done in this situation), in stark contrast to the reactionary and regressive reverts initiated by you. For shame! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agreed. Perhaps Milburn and Bloom can just talk about the situation rather than snipe at me personally. Right now we have just two complete queues in preparation for the main page, while we've have had at least four hooks pulled in the past few days. Things are not looking up and the suggestion to slow down the queue (despite the personalised sniping) is intended to help keep DYK running. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rambling Man that the quantity and quality of prep-ready hooks is way down. Most of our good reviewers have disappeared. I find myself tagging many nominations that have been approved but that still have issues. I don't know anything about managing the number of daily queues, but I am distressed by the downturn in quantity and quality. Yoninah (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototime: See my comment above beginning "Here and elsewhere". My comment is of exactly the same structure as The Rambling Man's continued, well, rambling, but, as you rightly point out, it's ridiculous. Why, then, do we continue to take him seriously? God only knows. J Milburn (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TRM [J]ust talk about the situation rather than snipe at me personally – we've been talking about the situation all this time; you haven't. You've labelled me "idiotic", called J Milburn "childish, and yet you still try to play the WP:CIVIL card? Hypocrisy at its finest! (P.S. You stated your unsubstantiated position, J asked for proof and you smokescreen'd the issue as usual) —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about. What evidence is required to let you know that if you run out of hooks, you can't update DYK twice a day? That doesn't take a genius, does it? There's no evidence required for that, no smokescreen, and yet you continue to screech and yell and stamp your feet. There are several other editors here who put quality over quantity, it's just that you and Milburn are not among them. That's fine. All part of life's rich tapestry. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make assumptions about me, that's completely unfair. The evidence I want to hear is the evidence for how this is all the WikiCup's fault. If you don't have that evidence, perhaps you'd like to stop the sideswipes? J Milburn (talk)
Diff where I said "this is all WikiCup's fault" please! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only mostly the WikiCup's fault, I'd still like to see evidence. If it's neither all nor mostly the WikiCup's fault, why do you continue to poke fun? You made a snide comment about the WikiCup in your Signpost piece, and you make one here. Why? J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat: Diff where I said "this is all WikiCup's fault" please or pipe down and retract it. (By the way, try a search on WikiCup on this page, you might find a surprise!) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear God. Do you enjoy being this obtuse? I didn't say you said it was all the WikiCup's fault. I said "The evidence I want to hear is the evidence for how this is all the WikiCup's fault." The way you take great pleasure in swiping at the WikiCup suggests that you think the competition is at least partly to blame for whatever problem you feel exists, so perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence of that, retract your comments or just shut the hell up? J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to invoke superpowers! Check out the folks here, gagging to increase the rate so they get more WikiCup points! It's obvious. I don't want you to be embarrassed by the whole thing, if you'd like to take a moment to reflect that's fine! Anyway, quality is down, those involved in WikiCup want the rate in increased. These are simple facts. Whether there's a relationship between them, hey, I'll leave that to the independent observer. In the meantime, please remain calm! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? One person who has commented in this thread is currently participating in the WikiCup, and that person did not once mention increasing the rate, nor mention WikiCup points. I am slightly embarrassed, but that's only because I assumed there was actually something behind your weird statements- I now see that you're just deeply, deeply confused. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remain calm Milburn, seriously. No confusion here! Up the rate for the WikiCup!! Keep the rate low or lower it for quality!! Simple, diametrically opposed views (i.e. we can at least agree that we disagree, as I said earlier!). Simple! Have a great Sunday. (P.S. try reading the "page" not the "thread"! It may help you with your ongoing embarrassment issues!) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TRM's fantasy: current WikiCup participants advocate an increase the rate at DYK to maximize points.
Fact: No one here is calling for an increase. We're voting on your ludicrous plan to reduce DYK to one set a day. I have not used the argument of maximizing points as a reason to increase, nor am I interested in doing so – evident in that I'm hundreds of points out from the top half (and thousands of points out from first) with less than 3 weeks remaining. And I'm the only one from the WikiCup opposed to your plan. Others who oppose – BlueMoonset, The C of E, Daniel Case, Andrew Davidson – are not part of the WikiCup. Consensus has flatly rejected your deluded proposal. Time to move on. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fact, if there are insufficient hooks to go to the main page, the rate should decrease accordingly. If you wish to review more then please do so. It is beyond question that WikiCup participants want an increase in throughput. Check this page and its history. Denying it is simply a demonstration of ICANTHEARYOU. "No one here is calling for an increase"? Just a matter of weeks back it was "about time we went three times a day" or more desperately "why not go from seven hooks to eight?". Short and defective memory. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those in favour of increasing the rate include three of the remaining seven WikiCup finalists. We also have quotes such as: "It probably is about time, especially with the final push for the Wikicup underway" & "(I must admit to a WikiCup-related vested interest here :-) )" (directly with relation to increasing the rate of hooks), and that's just on this single talk page. Those in favour of calming it all down and seeking "quality over quantity" include many long-term editors, none of whom participate in WikiCup. Now then, take that as you find it. I couldn't care less, and I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your contest cronies, but simply put, there's a group who want to push items to the main page as quickly as possible (with no reason why) and there's a group who wish to push items to the main page after a serious amount of consideration and review (to reduce ERRORS and trips to ANI to explain the various offensive and appalling hooks that made it to the main page). I know which group I'd prefer to be part of. And I know that a contest designed to get people to win as many points as possible no matter what will always result in a shortfall in quality. If you need that to be explained, perhaps you shouldn't be running the contest. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The silence is deafening! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: at the moment, there are enough approved hooks to fill all the remaining prep slots, which would in turn cover the next three days. There's no need to change the frequency just now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when (if) the approved reserve (sum of the hooks in Q, in prep, and in the "verified" column of the scoreboard) drops below 50 (we're at 54 now). I continue to champion the following very simply protocol:
  • Below 50 hooks: 1 set per day, until the # hooks climbs back to 100, when we return to 2 sets/day.
  • Above 150 hooks: 3 sets/day, until the # hooks drops below 100, when we return to 2 sets/day.
This gives a very stable, self-correcting system that "wants" to run 2 sets/day, and "wants" to have around 100 hooks in reserve at any given time (that being about 7 days' worth of hooks). And it ends all this arguing. EEng (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While obviously not the intent, this would effectively set specific numerical targets (with rewards for meeting them and punishments for falling short), thereby encouraging DYK participants to prioritize quantity over quality (either to increase the updates' frequency or to prevent it from decreasing), particularly when a deadline looms. —David Levy 05:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I understand. You're saying that as the reserve begins to approach 50 (from above), people will start to favor quantity over quality, to avoid hitting that mark? Yes, I can see that. But won't the same thin happen (and in fact we've certainly observed it happening) with greater intensity when the reserve approaches or hits zero? The purpose of the auto-adjust feature is that it makes sure there's always a few dozen hooks available, so that in assembling preps we're never in the position of holding our noses as we scrape questionable hooks, approved just minutes prior, from the bottom of the barrel. EEng (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're in agreement that failure to maintain a reasonably large pool of approved hooks is evidence of a need for adjustment. But I disagree that it would be helpful to set precise numerical thresholds at which rewards or punishments (from a DYK contributor's perspective) are triggered.
Basing the update schedule upon periodic assessments of DYK's current state (with both quantity and quality considered) encourages overall improvement. Basing it upon raw numbers would encourage editors to hastily replenish the hooks when fifty or one hundred remain and the clock is ticking.
In other words, editor performance should dictate the update schedule — not the inverse. The general concept that the level of output is a factor is very different from the concept that "we weed to approve seven hooks within the hour...or else!". —David Levy 15:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have plenty of articles up on the nominations page, they just need reviews. There is no need to drop the number of sets. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that as though reaching the nomination stage is the important part (and the review is "just" a formality). Such an attitude can only exacerbate the quality control problem discussed above. —David Levy 11:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an ordinary nominator/reviewer, I would just like to say I find it very challenging to find a nomination for my QPQs that does not require a complete rewrite or is a full GA article that would take days to review. The review process is exhausting and I can understand why things fall through the cracks. Even when one tries to do a proper job with the best of intentions, it is hard to see the wood for the trees and easy to miss mistakes or just stop at a "good enough" review (although it isn't really, and I admit being guilty of this). I don't recall it being this hard before, something is broken. It seems too simplistic to blame the reviewers completely. What is their incentive after all? I only see a stick here. HelenOnline 09:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely the incentive is a QPQ review which means that the reviewer gets to see their name (well, their DYK) in lights on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but that doesn't address the quality of the review or tackling nominations requiring extra work. HelenOnline 09:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, which is why the tough ones just get left to linger for weeks and months. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be par for the course all over Wikipedia. Either have a massive backlog or a load of half-assed reviews. Pick one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the two, "have a massive backlog" seems preferable. If maintaining the current pace necessitates tolerating "a load of half-assed reviews", reducing the update frequency is the only acceptable course of action. —David Levy 11:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, things are slow enough already. Maybe we could have a separate queue for the WikiCup-related noms? Not all of us who are frequent nominators are participants in that, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind saying why you think "things are slow enough"? I mean, what is the necessity in pushing as many DYKs round the main page as possible? We don't do that with other parts of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There doesn't seem to be any numerical evidence to support the proposal. In any case, it's not clear that having a bigger backlog would improve quality. One might equally argue that, if weak stuff is getting through, it's better that it not be on the main page for a full day. Andrew (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No strong opinion on reducing the number of sets, but there does seem to have been an increase in hooks being pulled recently if Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed is accurate—we're 10 days into October and already half as many hooks have been pulled as in the whole of September and more than in the whole of August. This suggests to me that something needs to be done, but I'm not sure that reducing the number of sets would actually improve quality control. I don't want to create a blame culture, but reviewers need to carefully check the hooks, and prep-builders and admins need to check things for themselves (or ourselves, I've failed to catch things that I should have recently) rather than relying on the first review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too, but that will not solve the problem at hand. Whether a hook is pulled from a queue, or a prep area, or simply marked for re-review on the nomination page, the effect is the same: another review is required. QPQ will never deliver enough reviews to reduce the backlog of unreviewed hooks! What needs to be done — the only thing that needs to be done — is for the people commenting here to go and review 20 or 30 hooks each. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have we got the rush to push more and more hooks to the main page? Why is this part of the main page different from all others? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that isn't "the only thing that needs to be done". Simply increasing turnover won't address matters of quality.
    It's insulting and fallacious to imply that persons not directly involved in maintaining DYK have no right to criticize. Each of us chooses to contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with our interests, abilities and availability. If this proposal were based on a complaint that the rate at which DYK hooks are reviewed is inherently insufficient, "I don't see you pitching in" might be a valid response. But it isn't. The concern is that DYK is attempting to operate on a scale exceeding its manageable capacity. The demand isn't that more content be prepared; it's that poor content not be rushed onto the main page (even if that that means delivering less content). —David Levy 06:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Shouldn't the hook fact be in the article? Removed one from main page

The illustration from Power of ten uses trillion as an example. At the top of the large block it says 1,000,000,000,000 = 1012 (large because the text is small)

Template:Did you know nominations/Molecular gyroscope @RTG, Jinkinson, Hawkeye7, and Casliber:

  • ... that a molecular gyroscope (pictured) can spin at 2,400,000,000,000 revolutions per second?

I have removed the leading hook plus image from the main page, as the hook doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article at all (it wasn't there at the time of the nomination or the promotion apparently either, it's not that it has been removed since). The queue had only been filled some 21 minutes before it was moved to the main page, so I didn't have time to catch it there. I'm not claiming that the hook fact is incorrect, I don't know, but a hook fact should always be included in the article. Fram (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...and the rate for inertially rotating p-phenylene without barriers is estimated to be approximately 1012 per second." @Fram: Which is shorthand for 2,400,000,000,000 RPS. ~ R.T.G 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So put it back quickly or we won't get the proper stats! ~ R.T.G 12:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"approximately 1012" is shorthand for 2.4 * 1012? That's, um, rather imprecise. We don't say that the speed of light is approximately 108 km/s either, do we? Any reason that the hook has the more precise figure, and the article the very wide approximation? Any reason that the hook fact couldn't simply be included in the article as it is, and that no one seemed to notice this? Fram (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we did, not long ago @Fram:. We can't see things like light and molecular gyroscopes. You can't measure individual revolutions, two and a half trillion of them per second. This article is about the beginning of recording those speeds. And it's not a wide approximation at all. It is a directly precise one. It gives a single speed for each test condition. There is no one speed of light. It is a spectrum. 1012 is not only a precise figure, it is the exact same figure as 2,400,000,000,000. (see Power of ten). Add it back! ~ R.T.G 12:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er, not to prolong this, but @ RTG "There is no one speed of light. It is a spectrum."??? Someone needs to tell Einstein he was wrong: speed of light is, of course, a constant. You may have been thinking of electromagnetic spectrum and wavelengths and frequencies. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My dissertation on phase propagation will have to be completely rewritten. ~ R.T.G 08:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How so? 10^12 is 1,000,000,000,000. (≠2,400,000,000,000) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with 78.26 here, I'm not following your logic or maths here at all. Power of ten doesn't seem to agree with you either (not a surprise, but I checked nevertheless). Fram (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I added the "2.4" to the article, because that is what the source said, which directly supports the hook. Now that the article and the hook match, I don't see why this can't be added back to the mainpage. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: From Power of ten, "Trillion (Billion) [number beside the 10 in <sup>superscript</sup>]12 1,000,000,000,000 T tera" It's completely precise. It should say 2.4 times 1012. If it doesn't, then that's an error. ~ R.T.G 12:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fram are you serious?? Did you not know that 2,400,000,000,000 = 2.4 x 1012?? Re-added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what Fram is saying. What is odd is this: "1012 is not only a precise figure, it is the exact same figure as 2,400,000,000,000." which is completely false. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What TRM said. Casliber, did you even take the time to check this section and the article history before coming back in, guns all ablaze, to wheel war on this? You were wrong to add it to the queue, and you were wrong in your assumptions on readding it (edit summary) and in posting here. You should know by now that I'm perfectly serious when I remove DYK hooks. Fram (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original hook was unreferenced in the article. And then a false assertion was made to suggest that two vastly different numbers (in fact, the point of the hookiness of the hook) were, in fact, the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could say that part of the equation was omitted erroneously, but whos tellin. ~ R.T.G 13:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)Sheesh, I know what a trillion is. Not only did none of you read the article when checking the hook, you don't read what is said here either. Now User:Casliber has reinstated the hook (which is technically wheel warring), claiming "(err yes it is)" as edit summary / justification, ignoring that it wasn't at the time of his promotion of the hook to the queue, and that it wasn't at the time of the removal of the hook by me. First checking here was obviously too difficult. I'll not remove the hook again, tempting though it is. Wondering whether, if all the people that reviewed the hook didn't even notice that the fact wasn't mentioned in the article, we can even trust such an article, obviously never crossed his mind. No, we need to have it back on the main page as soon as possible, because of, as RTG so clearly and bafflingly put it, "the stats"! If you consider the stats more important than getting it right, then please stay away from DYK. If you make statements like "1012 is not only a precise figure, it is the exact same figure as 2,400,000,000,000. " after your error has been pointed out, then stay away from any scientific article. Fram (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm afraid we're all talking past each other, instead of collaborating. The article has been fixed (per RTG, it was a omission typo), the DYK hook has been restored, now that it has been shown to be correct. That should satisfy us. Kittens for everybody! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more that there seems to be some ongoing and increasing decline in standards once again. This hook wasn't checked properly, that's the whole point of this thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That, plus the sense some people have that getting things on the front page is more important than checking and correcting. RTG demanded repeatedly to get this back on the main page before it was corrected, claiming that there was no problem. Casliber rushed to put it back, not bothering to check this discussion or the page history, and then rushed here to proclaim his disbelief, again apparently not bothering to check the discussion and the facts. The hook should have been checked against the article by 4 people. Add to all this that Casliber should not have reinstated the hook without checking the discussion per WP:WHEEL (no admin should have done this without checking the discussion, but least of all Casliber). Not "kittens for everybody" (although a cuddly kitten for you, 78.26, is well-deserved). The problems with DYK are seriously worrying by now, the rate of problematic hooks is getting way too high. Fram (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting a fact does not equate pointing out an error. It's fixed. I've realised my error. You don't need to berate me. I was the nominator. It's a good DYK. I'm glad to have spotted it and known it would be interesting to see how many clicks it got. I'm glad you've spotted and corrected errors made by the reviewers and authors. That's it. I'm telling. ~ R.T.G 13:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what? You're "telling"? What does that mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm not telling. ~ R.T.G 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now you really got me curious, what did you "threaten with telling." OR did someone threaten you? I don't get what yo are pointing at, but writing an edit summary as if you have some secret or as if someone else has made a serious error which you are threatening to tell is not the way to resolve a conflict. Starting with "Quoting a fact does not equate pointing out an error." may be correct in many instances, but not here. That you read over your error many times before someone else fixed it does not mean that no one pointed out the error, again and again. Would you have slowed down and read what you were writing, you might have found and fixed the error yourself. Instead, you were demanding to get it immediately reinstated because of the stats. That's a very worrying attitude. Fram (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram:, I've put it back (telling). If you want to fight about it I will. You think that an interest in the stats is an unhealthy DYK attitude? Come on. I only nominated it. Am I being berated? A fact is always a fact, including such as, pointing out an error is not the same thing as displaying a fact, even if you displayed the fact but didn't point it out.
Telling someone that you are telling is a classic infantile response synonymous with "Waaah!" and "No!", that I expect the odds to be good that any native level English speaker so spot it for what it is when it is that, but you are quite right to voice your suspicions and it is quite incorrect of me to use such frivolous text, even though the matter had been resolved with no telling needed, I should not have been telling at this particular time... ~ R.T.G 13:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not if I expected to be stood under anyway. ~ R.T.G 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"If you want to fight about it I will." Fight about what? I think I'll simply ignore you, as I can make heads nor tails of your responses here. Some of your sentences are perfectly clear and lucid, and then you add things like "A fact is always a fact, including such as, pointing out an error is not the same thing as displaying a fact, even if you displayed the fact but didn't point it out." which doesn't make any sense no matter how you look at it. Fram (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram:[shorter] ...but displaying a fact has only a relation to pointing out an error based on that fact. Even in retrospect, by your response, I do not see indication that the particular error (omitted 2.4x) was one you were aware of, so you can't beat me up for it. You said it was not mentioned in the article, at all... and yet, without even looking, there are half a dozen references to the item dealt with in the hook:frequencies of meloecular rotation... ~ R.T.G 14:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet in your very first response here, you pointed immediately to the right sentence (the one with the error), but just couldn't see it, which continued for many back and forths afterwards. No, the 2.4... wasn't mentioned at all. Of course there were quite a few numbers of rotations, but not the one included in the hook. So I don't see why you are still defending this, or what you hope to achieve by prolonging this. Fram (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, you are addressing me at length. You have a position of seniority with me here. So I am circumstantially more compelled to respond than in another situation. I have assessed the issue, back up there when I said I saw it. And I am at fault there. So all the while of the time I have been thinking, less of a fart than a hiccup, but your consequential tone is accusatory and requestive of me directly. Yes User:Fram I do review my conributions and, though I do not fix them all, I do purpose myself for the correction of content in the manner and intention as requested of me by the website. If someone thinks I am stepping out of line I want to hear it. If you don't want me to say that, I have a lengthy response, just for you... Why are you prolonging it, ~ R.T.G 14:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen: Isn't this now cured. It really now belongs on the main page, and remedial steps were promptly taken,
We have fixed the problem, and have only an unresolved failure to communicate. Fixing the blame and discussing the cause was important only so that we can learn from it. Further carping about this is not constructive.
Aren't we beating a dead horse?
Can't we move on? Please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hook fact and the "discussion" with RTG can be left behind, as far as I am concerned. The wheel warring is now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#DYK wheel warring, a swheel warring is taken quite seriously and normally always results in an immediate ArbCom case. Fram (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a very interesting article. Well done for persevering to get this on the main page. I suspect that the scientists would be quite happy to know that their estimation is of the correct order - and it appears that ArbCom is inclined to agree. Apologies. Victuallers (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You start with two good sentences, and then decline into irrelevant babbling in the final three. Which scientists? Where has it been shown that their estimation is of the correct order? We repeat their estimation, we don't make it more or less correct. What is ArbCom agreeing with? With the scientists? No idea where you get that. And "apologies"? You were not involved with the DYK or the discussion, so no idea what you are apologizing for or to whom. All very strange and confusing, and not really helping anything. Fram (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12,000 clicks! ~ R.T.G 08:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

There is currently a backlog of over 300 unreviewed DYK nominations. I would like to propose that any nomination that needs a QPQ review in order to be complete, and where the nominator has not done such a review, should be removed from the queue, after perhaps a month, as a failed nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better ask for three reviews QPQ for self nominations and introduce that notice period of two months starting from 1/1/2015. It would help as well to gain less self nominations Serten (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Cwmhiraeth, all nominators should be required to review another nomination! – Editør (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I would like to add that any reviewer who has one of their reviewed hooks removed from one the queues or prep areas is banned from the process for a week, and those involved with hooks that are removed from the main page are banned fro the process for a month. That way we may focus the mind of those desperate to push through reviews. Of course, since all reviewers are so dedicated to improving Wikipedia, this shouldn't be a problem at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose such a heavy-handed method is grossly unfair, especially when so many hooks are pulled over technicalities. For instance, one of my reviews was recently pulled from the prep because someone had changed the hook to one that I hadn't approved. Should I be banned from DYK for that? Then there's the matter of extremely subtle mistakes that no reasonable person could be expected to notice. And it could be gamed too. Suppose there was an admin who didn't like a certain DYK nominator. The admin could just make up a random reason to pull one of the nominator's hooks (or they could deliberately wait until it gets to the Main Page to slow the nominator down even more).
The OP's idea seems reasonable, but I don't think it would have that much of an effect since most DYKs are self-nominated by DYK veterans.
Serten's idea would either send the number of nominations into a nosedive (because nobody will want to review so many nominations) or send the quality of the reviews into a nosedive (because people will want to get the reviews over and done with).
A better idea might be to organize a DYK reviewing drive (sort of like the GA Cup, but for DYKs). That would certainly get people to do a lot of reviewing. Like the GA Cup, competitors could be warned and/or lose points and eventually be disqualified for doing crappy reviews. --Jakob (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"technicalities"? That's the whole point that DYK gets the "technicalities" correct. DYK has to get one fundamental thing right, a correctly referenced hook. There are other aspects (e.g. interesting hook, overall article quality) but so many times we see hooks being pulled because they're not referenced correctly. Whoever changed your hook to something incorrect would be banned from the process for a week (or a month if it had been a pull from the main page). Since everyone here is so focused on quality, this should never happen. And only those who truly transgress will be prevented from participating for a while, during which time they can learn how to improve their quality control approach. We have plenty of "contests" which appear to do nothing but encourage rate and not quality, so let's not do that... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the original idea of jettisoning "stale" nominations is a sound one. It would help remove this idea that just about anything that's nominated at DYK will eventually drag its sorry self onto the main page... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the idea of banning any user for review mistakes has arisen before, and has once again risen above, herewith are pertinent instructions and information for banning anyone on Wikipedia, and who has the authority to do it. Just for the record, it takes community consensus on a case by case basis...every time it's done...and I don't see anything that gives one individual authority to impose this with the same free-flying leeway of yanking hooks. i.e....how would it be enforced, except for a lengthy debate every time somebody gets a hair up their nose and yanks a hook. Sounds to me like a great way to sidetrack the whole DYK process and bog it down in even more infighting (oh, excuse me..."debate") than has already been going on. WP:CBAN, WP:TBAN. — Maile (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, also, this REALLY important little detail: Bans are not intended as a short-term measure. Sometimes a ban may be for a fixed period of some months. More often no period is specified, because the ban is a decision that the editor may not edit or participate in the specified matters on this site. WP:BANLENGTH — Maile (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this whole proposal would be very counterproductive. QPQ merely leads to poor reviews. This isn't a result of QPQ reviewers not caring or being negligent, but of them not having a sufficient understanding of DYK. Requiring total newbies to review nominations would further exacerbate this problem. The only reasonable solution to the backlog is experienced DYK contributors being willing to review and being more selective as far as hook quality goes.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66:, I think you misunderstand my point entirely. I'm not talking about a site ban, I'm talking about a DYK review ban (hence I said "is banned from the process" not "is banned from Wikipedia" or simply "is banned"). Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with all DYK nominations requiring a QPQ. If anyone doesn't understand the review process, they probably shouldn't be submitting any nominations either as the processes mirror each other. Three QPQs would definitely put me off submitting any nominations of my own, which are probably above average quality albeit not perfect (it's immodest of me to say that I know, but I generally take care with my work). One QPQ is already quite a deterrent for me with the general poor quality of nominations (because I generally take care with my work). So the quality of nominations and reviews could actually get worse, as people who take them seriously withdraw. I don't think clearing a backlog by some miracle will help, we will just get more and more low quality nominations and more and more backlogs. The real issue we need to address is the quality of nominations. HelenOnline 06:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that even more people should contribute by submitting "other's" articles, based on interesting aspects, fullfilling basic WP regularities. Those contributions should not at all being hindered by hooksourcing subleties or review regulations. The review process needs to focus on basic WP regularities, the hook requirements are more "wilfully maiming" than anything reasonable. Serten (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC) PS.: The main page is a navigation page and no article. If you e.g. refer to recent good articles with "DYK that XYZ is now a good article", you save a lot of work, are within WP policy, and no hook must be sourced at all for that purpose. The hook should refer to a longstanding or important aspect of the article (which has to fullfill basic WP needs) but the hook needs neither a citation per se nor is there any need to stress a "correctly referenced hook". Serten (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point. WP:V is not negotiable. If the hook cannot be reliably sourced it shouldn't be on Wikipedia end of story. HelenOnline 07:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever seen a footnote on a navigation page? The main page does not belong to Wikipedia mainspace. Start of story. And its ridiculous to ask just for a citation end of sentence, a hook may describe a section or even larger aspect of an article, described in a variety of sources, take "Pluto is not longer a planet" as hook for Definition of planet. A hook like "XYZ has now received good article status" would refer to a WP internal process, no external sourcing possible. Serten (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand you sorry. There are no footnotes on the main page for DYK hooks. DYK highlights encyclopedic content in the mainspace, which should be reliably sourced. Requiring inline citations for the hook is one way of ensuring our hooks are actually correct. A lower standard of verifiability will only reduce the credibility of Wikipedia. Lowering quality control standards to hide poor quality lowers the value of the product. HelenOnline 08:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As said, the main page is not mainspace, its a navigation page. DYK may be interpreted (thats my proposal) as mere highlighting (navigating / pointing) from a navigation page to specific content in the mainspace. That mainspace content refered to and the article per se needs to be sound, stable and being based on basic policy. Thats the task of the review. Sourcing a navigation link is overkill, WP:V does not require that at all. Serten (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If providing such a source is a problem, requiring it is clearly not overkill. HelenOnline 09:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As said, if you want to block DYK with red tape on navigation links, feel free. Its not at all required by basic policy. Serten (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


More freedom for DYK contributors

Hmmm. How difficult is it to change the current policy of asking for a "sourced hook"?
  • A hook is a (sourced) factoid found in the article.
  • The deWP doesnt use hooks, but "de:teasers", (meaning a short sentence worthy for Teaser campaigning).

Teasers are small, cryptic, challenging, catchy descriptions of a pecularity in the article. To mention smaller, unknown articles which nevertheless deserve some attention to a larger audience is the main purpose of deWP's DYK. They base their teaser approach on the main page being NOT an article - it doesnt need footnotes - the main page provides the core navigation fork into WP. That said, the main page doesnt need sources per se and the navigation for the DYK articles may come along "teasing". Its up to us to come to a consensus on such a policy for DYK, I assume it would easen life a lot. Serten (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No way to get it through

What would this take?

Let us know how you get on. EEng (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get serious. If DYK doesnt fonction any more, somethings has to be done by those which work on DYK. Would you agree with the approach? I wont propose it without support from here. Serten (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am serious, at least in communicating the impossibility of what you're proposing. To be honest, I don't understand it entirely, but you seem, at least, to be proposing moving away from the "new content" theme, and that's a hopeless quest (though personally I'd support such a change -- the whole new content fetish is a complete waste of time and resources -- an arbitrary way of limiting

nominations). EEng (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point is, a teaser may adress "new" or "interesting" (and of cause sourced) content, but may itself be misleading, funny and needs no sourcing itself. I took the freedom to redress the section. Some examples where the hook approach leds to fruitless discussions. Serten (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Janet Colquhoun}} {{Template:Did you know nominations/Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg}} {{Template:Did you know nominations/Namacpacan Church}}

I still don't understand what this proposal entails exactly. The content needs to be sourced but not the hook fact? Do you mean that we should require all of the proposed articles to be sourced except for the fact used in the hook? Shouldn't we be holding the hook to a higher standard than the rest of the article?

There is currently no rule against hooks being funny or misleading. In fact, the best hooks are. The Colquhoun hook on the other hand is just wrong. I'm not sure what those other nominations are supposed to demonstrate.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article (and the current hooks) have to be sourced-based, the teaser do not need to be based on a source per se.

  • Take the Janet Colquhoun article, her "believe in blind faith" was a possible teaser, but never a suitable hook.
  • Namacpacan Church: The lengthy discussion about the hooks factual accuracy would be much shorter and less controversial on a teaser base.
  • Max: The first hook was meant as a teaser, but failed.Serten (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

DYK aims to achieve the following five goals:

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

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

(....)

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

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

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

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

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

(...)

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

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

* The hook should be neutral.

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

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

Discussion

Compare the current Marina Chan discussion. Its a showcase for the current policy doing more harm than good. The article has about 80 sources, for each sentence, uses all templates you might imagine, but is as worse as you could imagine. The hook is nice, based on a true claim / aspect of the article, but using a wording probably never to be found in any source. Why bother? Serten (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article criteria

File:Waldorf Statler Wall Painting.jpg
Main page commentators

Please read Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC from 2013. Should you want to change anything about the inclusion of GA, I suggest you start a separate RFC on it. This is a touchy subject for some, either direction. — Maile (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look on it, good idea to involve @Gilderien:. As said, my proposal doesnt touch the GA inclusion per se, but simplifies the current process. DYK should be proud to mention "small" and start class articles as well, but check the content navigated to as said. Serten (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - the image is perfect! — Maile (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to spoil the fun, but that's a fair use image. --Jakob (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now from Commons. These guys... Serten (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to laugh at our collective selves. Eerie how Statler and Waldorf fit the mood of so much that has happened at DYK over the years. Either direction. — Maile (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our collective selves take different roles, on stage, from the balcony and behind the curtains. ;) Serten (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently over 500 articles on Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles would be interested in doing a dedicated section. At first it might seem that it would depreciate the current DYK, but in fact it might draw attention to it, ~ R.T.G 16:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winds of change

If you complain about the current lag, do something or quit complaining. Possibilities:

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

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

Serten, the statement that "its not our task to challenge GA reviews" is misguided at best, and dangerous at worst. GA reviewers can be excellent, incompetent, and anywhere in between, and it's usually just one person, which is why the original GA RfC made it clear that we were supposed to do a complete DYK review. We've had GA nominations that have had copyvios, close paraphrasing, inadequate sourcing, and so on. Nominated articles have been submitted to GAR and AfD, and have ultimately not appeared at DYK because they flunked the subsequent review there.
I'm also puzzled by your apparent wish to penalize self-nominations in favor of nominations of other's articles. Self-nominations are subject to the quid pro quo review, while nominating someone else's article means that no article reviews are required. It seems to me that this would do more to increase the current lag than any other proposal I've seen. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the GA "automatic hook", it would reduce hook-bickering to a minimum. Let the balcony work on GA, no need for DYK to contribute. You need more reviewers? Attract them! If someones contribution is nominated, you may interest them as well to do reviews. Serten (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I have no idea what you're attempting to propose with an "automatic hook". How would it reduce "hook-bickering" if the hook is bland, unsourced, and so on? Who is "the balcony"? Why shouldn't DYK be involved in checking GAs that are nominated for DYK? (Just ran across another GA with close paraphrasing caught in the DYK review.) As for the last, we have a large number of nominations of other people's articles. Some do stick around and become reviewers, usually because they start nominating their own articles and eventually hit the QPQ requirement, forcing them to start reviewing, which they find they like doing. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem w/ DYK article in prep 3 -- Dominik Kuhn

THe hook reads that

  • ... that German TV broadcaster ZDF asked Dominik Kuhn (Dodokay) to fandub a Romney-Obama debate for their coverage of the 2012 U.S. presidential election?
  • the article reports that German ZDF used Kuhn's fandub of a Romney-Obama tv discussion to start reporting about the outcome of the 2012 US presidential election

These are not the same thing at all. The refs are in German. Itt looks like the article was promoted before the review was complete as well?? Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dominik_Kuhn 162.119.128.145 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The review was signed off by User:MisterBee1966 before I promoted it. If you are able to read German, could you fix the article and the hook in the prep? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it myself. The hook did not match the wording in the article, and I replaced it with the correct copy. Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both hooks comply, the end of the video shows a coproduction and they produced the fandub together. Dodokay had major copyvio problems with the star wars video himself, but when that went viral, he was asked to do it legally. The reuters text refers to that in general. I think any issue has been fixed now. Serten (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an action point for me here? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please be so kind to promote it as gtg. Serten (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterBee1966: no more action is necessary. The nomination template is closed. I made the correction to the hook in the prep set and it is now in a queue. Yoninah (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
okay, thanks for clarifying MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

There are only nine unreviewed hooks from the previous list, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing; at the moment, only 44 nominations are approved, leaving 313 of 357 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

The actual hook for Corn Run in this prep area was: ...that Corn Run received its name when bushels of corn fell into it during a flood? But somehow it morphed into ... that Corn Run may have been named for grain washed into it during a flood? Since the hook in the prep is more vague and wishy-washy, can someone please change it back to the actual hook that I nominated (and the hook that was approved)? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the edit history, the initial change was made because while the article and hook state that Corn Run got its name that way, the source actually says "probably after the flood", so the hook made an extraordinary claim that wasn't backed up by the source. Because of this, using the hook exactly as it was approved can't happen. I agree that it's been watered down too far, so I've made a new stab at it, adding a qualifier and restoring "bushels of corn". BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. --Jakob (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/AI Mk. VIII radar

Now at Queue5, Template:Did you know nominations/AI Mk. VIII radar. @Maury Markowitz, Hawkeye7, and 97198:

Two potential problems I see. First, Skinner didn't test its output (that of the Mk. VIII), but of the early version of the magnetron / klystron they had in May 1940, more than a year before the Mk. VIII was ready (or really in development, the described tests happened during development of the Mark VII, if I read it correctly). Second, he didn't use the output to light his cigarettes, but the output lead (where I read the output of a klystron or a radar to be waves, but the output lead to be a physical object).

I don't know enough about the subject to be certain that my objections have any merit, so if anyone involveed or uninvolved can check this? Fram (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's involveed? Sounds like something a cliché foreign-accented cartoon character might say Oh mon cheri! What I vood not geevf to be involveed wit yoo!
Anyway, taking everything you say as correct, this hook would comprehend all the problems you mention:
* ... that during the lab work leading to the AI Mk. VIII radar (pictured), Herbert Skinner would use the klystron as a cigarette lighter?
This works klystron in, which I think is one of the most amusing words in electrical engineering. Oh mon cheri! Your klystron! She is so byooteeful! (Output vs. output lead isn't an issue -- the lead is just how the output is delivered.) EEng (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Igor! Switch on the klystron!" EEng (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, except I'd suggest "...while working with an early model of..." as opposed to the somewhat less direct "... that during lab work leading to". The AIS in question was, functionally, identical to the Mk. VII, and the Mk. VIII was a repackaged version of that. Maury Markowitz (talk)

How about
ALTA ... that during work on a predecessor to the AI Mk. VIII radar (pictured) Herbert Skinner would use its klystron as a cigarette lighter?
ALTB ... that during work on a predecessor to the Royal Air Force's Airborne Interception radar, Mark VIII (pictured) Herbert Skinner would use its klystron as a cigarette lighter?
(There might be more interest with a little context.) EEng (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To allow some more time to discuss this, I have switched this hook with the lead hook from Prep2 (with which I couldn't fine any problems, although it would have been nice to see the Forsythe Saga used in the article as a source :-) ). I hope that this is not a problem. If anything needs to be done (qua protection) with the image that is now in Queue 5, please let me know. Fram (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can protect my own qua, thank you very much Fram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We better hurry or this is going to move from prep to Q in its old form. Can a couple of people verify ALTA or ALTB, and express a preference. (I hope the readers of DYK appreciate all this behind-the-scenes scurrying around.) EEng (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ALTB much more interesting. Unless one is a real radar anorak, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love the subhead at the bottom: "Build a VTVM" -- vacuum-tube voltmeter. What a blast from the past. EEng (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
am still setting my heart on "Minimum $ Hi-Fi", alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Crisco 1492, Fram, The Rambling Man... somebody? EEng (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the old hook with hook ALTB. If anyone has a problem with this, feel free to change it back or to something else, but please drop a note here if you do. Fram (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... an admin has now swapped in my clever brain, thanks EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Well I strongly prefer A of the two options. The second has more words but doesn't really add anything too useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always believe we should give great weight to the preference of the creator/nominator. But I also think, MM, that by injecting "Royal Airforce" and "Airborne", it makes the teensy picture easier to parse. (I hope you don't mind that I cropped it -- though making the device bigger meant getting rid of the propeller.) EEng (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the problem., it's not the RAF's, it was AMES, the Air Ministry. Civilians all the way! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that didn't get acted upon. But war is hell, of course. (Good thing he didn't grill anything with this makeshift microwave, or the fur would really fly! EEng (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The

I've been reading the did you know section for years, and recently I've noticed a strange excess of the word "the". For example, today it says "the Romanian communist Constantin Doncea" where for years it would just say "Romanian communist Constantin Doncea". I wondered why this had been happening and after lots of searching aournd I found the dyk staging area. The example I gave had "the" added with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_5&diff=630211294&oldid=630183847. I checked through the histories of the varieous preparation areas and found that the same person, The Rambling Man, had done this all over the place, justifying it with something like "title". This probably refers to "false title". That article says: "Some usage writers condemn this construction, but others defend it." It also mentions William Safire. He was a highly respected New York Times writer on the subject of the English language, and is regarded as an expert on the matter. Safire says in http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19FOB-OnLanguage-t.html?ref=magazine&_r=0 that it's a trendy practice to avoid, and "inserting the in front of the identifier adds unnecessary emphasis and — to the native speaker — looks and sounds funny." As a native American speaker, I completely agree. Saying "the Romanian communist Constantin Doncea" makes it sound more important than without "the". Is Doncea the only Romanian communist? After all, it says he's THE Romanian communist.

Maybe where the person who keeps adding "the" is from, it's normal practice, but in other parts of the world, it sounds odd. One person should not be able to overrule what everybody else has written, and force his personal preference on the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inglefoot (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why isn't he just called Rambling Man?! I think we should be told! The Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That column you cite also mentions that using that the is standard practice in the NYT. I agree with the rationale for using the that's given in that column: omitting the the makes it sound like it's an official title or something.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost: "DYK Debates Indefinite Use of Definite Article". EEng (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definite article should not be used if it would suggest uniqueness or distinction when this is not accurate. For example, the subject in question, Constantin Doncea, is described on that page as "a Romanian communist activist". The indefinite article is used there because he was one of many such communist activists. This issue seems more important than the one of false title. One can usually tell real titles from such descrriptive phrases because the formal titles are capitalised. Andrew (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the case above, the definite article is the correct thing to use, because it is referring to a definite person: namely Constantin Doncea. The fact that he is one of many Romanian communists is beside the point. He is the "Romanian communist Constantin Doncea", not a "Romanian communist Constantin Doncea". If there was a comma, then the indefinite article would be fine: "a Romanian communist, Constantin Doncea". Harrias talk 14:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That however is only a statement that if the or a is used, it should be the, I have no particular feeling either way on whether to include it or not generally! Harrias talk 14:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you what, I'll leave it to you experts to address the issues which make it all the way to the main page. Add WP:ERRORS to your watchlist, ensure you're an admin, and pick these up on a daily basis. It will free up time for me to focus on improving articles. Thanks y'all! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.. you mean improving "the articles"? (Or just improving definite articles?) Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, improving a article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad you're giving this up, TRM, because all your additions of "the" have been driving me crazy. It slows down the reading pace and just adds extra characters to already long hooks. Here are your latest "fixes" - can you "hear" the difference between these hooks:
Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, don't worry. I'm sure you'll be prepared to do all the fixes at WP:ERRORS when they crop up every other day! To my "hearing" and "education" there's nothing wrong with what I've written. But hey, it's up to you now! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flood Swarm of wasp nominations

I recommended that students from a education program class nominate articles for DYK. I'm cleaning up the noms (and hopefully can use this to create better instruction material) and will be reviewing other articles (not ones from this course) in lieu of QPQ reviews. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ozichthys

Now in Queue1, Template:Did you know nominations/Cream-spotted cardinalfish. @Gaff, AshLin, and Hawkeye7:

Some potential problems here. First, the article was created by User:Planonasus, who seems not to have been mentioned at the DYK (even though the nom was only three hours after the article creation, so not some ancient history forgotten in an expansion).

Second, the hook. The species was not described in 2014, it was described in 1976, and the genus was named and characterized in 2014.

Can anyone confirm my misgivings and change the hook accordingly if needed (or if you can't, let me know here and I or some other admin can)? Fram (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hook seems overloaded with bait. It might be simplest to just cut it back hard:
The word "new" seems adequate to explain why we might be interested. Note also that cutting out the fat gives more prominence to the fishy pun "sole". Andrew (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the hook to the above suggested one by Andrew Davidson (only half an hur left until it would hit the main page, so...). As above, feel free to revert, improve, ... if consensus is that what I put there isn't optimal after all. Also @EEng: as the editor who changed the hook from the promoted one to the above current one, thereby making it an incorrect hook... The original wasn't optimal, but one shouldn't change the meaning in an attempt to make it smoother. Fishy! Fram (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, his bark is much worse than his bite. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Monotypic genera are very common in the world of science, nocturnal mouthbrooders are not. However the sole reason imho this could be acceptable here would be due to the pun used here. AshLin (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Takedown, currently in Prep 3

I was debating moving prep 3 into the queue, but the hook for L.A. Takedown appears to be sourced to a blog. Now, it might be that there's something about this blog that makes it a sufficient source, in which case it's fine, but I don't feel qualified to decide such a thing. Could I have some more opinions please? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody? No? Dust. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I've pulled it and reopened Template:Did you know nominations/L.A. Takedown. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the humor-impaired become admins

Actual recent discussion at WP:ERRORS:

".. that while testifying in a 2004 lawsuit involving the meaning of the word steakburger (example pictured) a corporate CEO was grilled on the witness stand?" A CEO (who??) was grilled?? Really?? Tenorcnj (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Went too far"? Have you people lost your minds? A "grilling" is a perfectly common term for an intense line of questioning (see [7]) and as referenced in the article the St. Louis Post Dispatch reported that
Burger King's attorney fired back, grilling the CEO about whether Steak 'n Shake's "Steakburgers" are still made of the "entire carcass" of beef, as an old menu once stated.
Of course it was intentionally chosen to be "amusing". In fact, if I may say so myself, it is amusing, and the editors of the Post-Dispatch think so as well, obviously.
What -- do you really imagine anyone would be horrified because of an inability to understand what's being said? Do you think of our readers as moronic frightened children who will get nightmares?
Next you'll be pulling hooks reporting that a politicial was "pushed" from office by a scandal, that negotiations "collapsed", that someone "floated" a loan, that there was an "avalanche" of complaints, or any other not-strictly-literal wording. EEng (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I won't apologize for referring to certain of my fellow editors as "humor-impaired". I admit that my authorial vanity is wounded (I wrote the hook) but for God's sake, who put the skittish schoolmarms in charge? EEng (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would have been ok on April fools day, however I don't consider it appropriate otherwise. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do lame puns count as "humor"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What, you claim to be be an expert? Requisition me a beat! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I only put "amusing" in speech-marks, because I hadn't even noticed that it was a pun, I just read it straight. It was only when I read this at ERRORS that I even twigged on the pun. So feel free to call me humour-impaired! Harrias talk 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you understand the metaphorical nature of the term grilled but didn't notice the tie-in to the steakburger topic -- if that's the way in which you're humor-impaired, there's no crime in that. But certain editors apparently feel the hook is not just insufficiently amusing (as they see it) but actually offensive -- and that is, to put it charitably, numbskulled. EEng (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe they pulled it! — Maile (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a great hook -- but for the last, quirky slot. People don't expect humor or amusement to go with a picture. Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I take it you're not saying that this difference of position makes the difference between a great hook and one which should be pulled. I wonder what Belle, 97198, Hawkeye7 and others who worked on the hook think. EEng (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not have been pulled. And the removal of the pic made the DYK slot on the main page look strangely empty. Yoninah (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that some users don't understand that the word "grilled" was used appropriately to mean "subject to intense questioning or interrogation". If they knew that, they would not have pulled it. So it was a good hook and it should not have been pulled. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a brilliant hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a great hook, killed by bureaucracy at its worst. Want to know why editors are abandoning the Wiki? This. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understood immediately and wasn't offended by it at all. Sometimes articles are boring and we need to be a little bit creative with DYK. HelenOnline 12:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other hooks which no doubt will get pulled because they require the reader (and any admins within earshot) to be culturally literate

All in prep or Q now...
  • ... that the upcoming film Freeheld is based on the true story of a police officer's battle to transfer her pension to her domestic partner?
Verdict: PULL No literal battle took place.
Verdict: PULL (a) Name was not lent, but used without authorization; (b) no actual gods were involved.
Verdict: PULL Cathedral did not "return", but in fact remained stationary the entire time.
Verdict: PULL Horse trainers do not win races‍—‌horses do.

EEng (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of it all

Never fails to amaze me, the contradictions that happen here all the time. The lead hook on August 23, 2013 could be seen as genuinely offensive to some. And the article was written and nominated by an editor who was blocked indefinitely the day after nominating it. OK, I get we - we don't censor. But heaven forbid that a hook should be boring to any individual with the power to pull it. And even worse that something should make it if requires the ability to think above the level of a kindergarten child without a computer. If only Freud were alive today, he could use DYK as his basis for an entire book. — Maile (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the offense seems to be, not that the hook was boring, but that it was lively. It's a shame, too, because with 10,000 views after less than 6 hours on MP, this was well on its way to being one of the most-viewed DYKs ever. EEng (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, with only 10k views, it wasn't even close. --Jakob (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said one of the most viewed. 25K gets you on the board (given it was in the first slot) so with next-day spillover included it could easily have reached that. EEng (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proving once again that hookers don't get the respect they deserve, despite providing an important service.
Perhaps administrator Phil Knight, who pulled the hook, will have the courtesy to drop by and explain in what sense the hook was "over the line". He may find himself on the hot seat, subjected to a grilling by incensed editors. (Disclaimer: Seat is not actually hot, visitor will not literally be grilled, and editors will not in truth be incensed i.e. actually alight with anger. Visitor will not be expected to draw a literal line.) EEng (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody needs a roasting around here
Sheesh! Some of these saintly admins deserve a roasting. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC) important civility caveat: this is not a real threat of torture and death using a device from Ancient Rome c.AD 258[reply]
Actually, I think I'll take this page off my watchlist. PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you can see the funny side, Phil. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ....hmmm, must stock up on my dry roasteds ... [reply]
Phil Knight, I'm not kidding about this. As an admin you are expected to explain your actions on request. Now please do that. EEng (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read it, Phil's personal taste had nothing to do with it. He was responding to comments by pulling it. My comment above was not directed at Phil's actions, by the way. It was more a general comment about what gets pulled around here. And, yes, I do recall that some hooks were pulled for being boring, although I think the persons who pulled them said "not interesting". Give Phil some credit - at least he wasn't blowing his own horn and going on and on and on and on and on....and on. Really, some around here are in love with what they perceive as their own brilliance. — Maile (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Authorial Vanity

Every author, however modest, keeps a most outrageous vanity chained like a madman in the padded cell of his breast.

Logan Pearsall Smith (1931). Afterthoughts.

OK then, he was making a knee-jerk pull based on two other persons' personal tastes ("A CEO (who??) was grilled?? Really??" and "atrocious"), and that's even worse. And the first doesn't even seem to be an objection, but a cry for enlightenment from someone with a gap in his or her vocabulary.
Hooks do get pulled from prep or Q for being boring, but not from MP -- that requires something being either seriously incorrect or genuinely offensive.
As for what you call "being in love with [one's] brilliance", I'm sorry if that's a sentiment you're incapable of sharing in, because an almost universal requirement for good craftsmanship (whether in wordsmithing or ironsmithing) is pride in one's work. See right. EEng (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
nosh on. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time in a few months that wiki-panic has set in over a hook and resulted in unilateral action that no one seems to agree with post-facto. It's our job to protect our readers from zealots, not kowtow to the first (or second) zealot that complains. But I'm not sure further debate will help, it seems pretty clear consensus has been reached in terms of the original action, the only remaining question is what to do about it? Now that we're into the water-under-bridge era, do we want to consider future binding changes, or simply let it drop? I'm not adverse to the later in spite of being upset by this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the systemic problem, my only immediate thought is that it's too bad that, just at the moment a set moves to MP, it is stripped of all the links back to the nom discussions and so on. Perhaps if there was an easier way to reach those, while the set is live, there might be more consideration and less knee-jerk reaction to ridiculous "complaints". Perhaps immediately after each hook, on the same line, the link to its nom pages could be carried within a <! -- type comment, for easy access.
And (and this, of course, stems only from my love of my own brilliance) can the hook be run again?EEng (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It ran for 6 hours, right? How many hours do the hooks run for right now? If 12, run it for 6 more hours. At least, even if not run, the hook could be put in the archives, and listed on the stats page. I'm surprised, though, that with all the hooks about various animal penises, people who said the word "nigga," and legends of castrated dogs, the steak-burger hook about a CEO being "grilled" is what people find offensive? Out of all the numerous, slightly offensive humerus puns?--¿3family6 contribs 14:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to complain about atrocious wording, check out this AP article about Thomas Eric Duncan, the first Ebola patient on US soil: "As infectious in death as he was in life, Duncan’s body was cremated."--¿3family6 contribs 14:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ME123, Official Court Jester of DYK ("... pull the other one, it's got bells on"

Looks like admin Phil Knight is simply going to ignore the repeated requests that he explain what in the world he was thinking. I, for one, am willing to interpret this as an implicit apology by him for butting in without knowing which way is up. EEng (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But which way is up? Oh well, "have it your way" (or not). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the amount of time the hook for Steak burger was present on Main page, it received 9,648 page views, per Stats.grok.se. NorthAmerica1000 18:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion holding area

Proposal: That the Special occasion holding area be moved from the bottom of the nomination page to the top. This will increase their visibility. It also means that the prep area builder doesn't have to start by scrolling to the bottom of the page and back again. It decreases the likelihood that a special occasion will be overlooked by increasing their visibility to editors checking the nominations. I open the floor to debate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMS has a point. A change of location would have minor benefit if any, so I doubt it's worth the confusion of changing. I might suggest, however, that we put the hold area in a colored box or something, to prevent what I did once, which was not notice that a hook was for a special date, so that I promoted it prematurely. EEng (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better to store those hooks in a special section on the queue page?--Carabinieri (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead hook in Queue 1

Please have a look at Boston Society for Medical Improvement hook in Queue 1.

  • ALTQ1 ... that in 1849 Henry Jacob Bigelow presented Phineas Gage to the Boston Society for Medical Improvement (pictured), immediately following a phallic stalagmite?

Here's how the mention is in the article:

  • On November 10, 1849, Henry Jacob Bigelow presented Phineas Gage to the Society. (The preceding and subsequent presentations of the day were a stalagmite "remarkable for its singular resemblance to a petrified penis", and a child cured of a swollen ankle by a Dr. Strong.)[21][22][23]

The hook, as reworded after it was promoted, is not what was approved on the template. The wording is awkward, as a stalagmite is inanimate.

— Maile (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Boston_Society_for_Medical_Improvement. The approved hook was
... that in 1849 Henry Jacob Bigelow presented Phineas Gage to the Boston Society for Medical Improvement (pictured) along with a phallic stalagmite?
An inanimate object can indeed be "presented" -- nothing awkward about it. So what's the problem? Don't you think "phallic stalagmite" is an appropriate substitute for "a stalagmite 'remarkable for its singular resemblance to a petrified penis'"? I can't wait for this discussion to really get underway! EEng (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood. The stalagmite was presented, yes. It doesn't say that. I believe you meant it to infer that it was presented, but as worded it doesn't really come across that way. — Maile (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you're saying, which is that there's some potential confusion as who or what followed/​was followed by who or what, though I think it's on the borderline as worth worrying about. What wording would you prefer? (If it helps, I've checked the actual minutes of the Society, and it was HJ Bigelow who presented the stalagmite as well.) How about this?
ALTJ ... that Henry Jacob Bigelow's 1849 presentation of Phineas Gage to the Boston Society for Medical Improvement (pictured) came immediately after the exhibition of a phallic stalagmite?
EEng (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait -- this went live 6 hrs ago. Too late. EEng (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever. As long as you know that all I meant was that it was the sentence structure that seemed a bit off, like a word was missing or something. But as you say...too late now. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good accompaniment for this might be Template:Did you know nominations/William Goforth (doctor) ~ R.T.G 19:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we having a theoretical discussion? The Boston Society for Medical Improvement has had its star turn already. The game's over. Flown the coop. The jig is up. Been and gone. EEng (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

The page featured in the second hook in Prep 6, Parischnogaster jacobsoni, is tagged for excessive disambiguation links, including links back to its own page. Should the hook be returned to the noms page until the issue is cleared up? Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't necessary. A bot tagged it after a series of edits that have since been deemed unhelpful and were reverted, so the tag is gone. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prep area 2 change?

Can the hook for Robotomy be changed to: 

* ... that '''''[[Robotomy]]''''' is the shortest-running show on [[Cartoon Network]]?

The wording in the article was changed to be more definite per GA; it is the shortest. Not sure if this makes it more or less interesting, so I'll ping @G S Palmer. 23W (talk · stalk · pend) 04:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, and the new wording is supported by the source, so I have changed it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approving hooks

Under the heading "Rules for evaluating other people's hooks and articles", supplemental rule H2 states: "You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article". I would like to discuss the meaning of this rule.

DYK is not about approving articles, it is about showcasing articles through the use of teaser hooks. So I think supplemental rule H2 really equates to "You're not allowed to approve your own nomination". However some people seem to equate the rule with "if you suggest an improved hook, a third party is required to evaluate it and approve the nomination." Waiting for a third party slows the review process down and contributes to the backlog (because re-reviewing an article is spending time that could be better spent reviewing another article). Let me give you an example.

I have just reviewed this nomination. It passed all the DYK criteria but the hook read "... that churches in the borough of Guildford include a former telephone exchange, two 19th-century barns and the "Bingo Chapel" (pictured)?" Now I was unhappy with this because not all "places of worship", the term used in the article's title, are called "churches". This gave me three options, either put a and suggest an alternative hook, or put a and request the nominator propose an alternative hook or change the hook myself and approve the nomination. I took the third option, changing "churches" to "places of worship", but expect to be told I shouldn't have done so. In my view various alterations of the hook by the reviewer such as improving the grammar, spelling, punctuation, substituting synonyms and rearranging clauses should be permitted. I also consider that if a completely different hook is suggested by the reviewer and subsequently accepted by the nominator, the reviewer should be allowed to complete the review and approve the nomination. After all, the nominator wants his article to be approved, but the reviewer is independent and has no COI in approving the nomination, so why should third party approval be required? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the rule is over-protective. The only justification I can see for this is to stop some 3rd party from inventing a new hook entirely and then including the new hook in their own approval, without consulting anyone. We do allow reviewers to amend an existing hook. However, a nominator and a reviewer should be able to jointly agree a new hook entirely. Victuallers (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

An administrator needs to devote some attention to filling the queues. All six are currently empty even though all the prep areas are full. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=631219070"