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 2600:1700:fb00:9c00:6156:f38d:548f:695b (talk) at 16:40, 26 March 2018 (→‎Strandflat: the usual geological whatever). 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.

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.


Robin Surgeoner

Robin Surgeoner is currently in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. I realize it's pretty late in the process, but as I read the article, I immediately noticed that it doesn't mention what his disability is. That seems like a pretty glaring omission. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So please add it to the article. Yoninah (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a little searching, and can't find any sources for this information. In fact, I hate to say this, but looking at the sources in the article, and what I found myself (in an admittedly rather cursory search), I'm not sure this has enough WP:RS to pass AfD. Is this really front-page material for the encyclopedia? I'm tempted to bring this to AfD myself, but don't want to disrupt the DYK process. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORTS says he's notable (i thought a little on the same line) for having won a medal at the Paralympic Games - and thus is likely to be kept Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising these issues, RoySmith. I thought you were the nominator, so that's why I asked you to fix it. Meanwhile, I found a dead link in a source. I'm returning this to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A nine-time Paralympic gold medal winner is being considered for AfD?! That's somewhat patronising! At least his MBE gave him some recognition if this place isn't able to! His actual disability is not something that must be discussed. His category is noted and, given that he doesn't even go into detail about his disability himself on his own, very thorough site, I don't think that it is necessarily our place to describe it. violet/riga [talk] 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking right?! Pulling a hook and suggesting an AfD on a 9 time Paralympic gold medallist. Ridiculous. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I pulled the hook for the article not mentioning his disability, and for a dead link, not for his being a 9-time medalist (which the hook doesn't say). Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Questions were raised so it's fair enough holding fire on the nom. violet/riga [talk] 20:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to throw a wrench into the works here. My concern is that most of the references in the article look like primary sources to me. I'm not seeing the reliable secondary sources required by WP:BLPSTYLE. I'm not an expert on sports articles, and I know there's a long-standing controversy about what presumed notable means with respect to WP:NSPORTS vs WP:GNG. Maybe the sources are sufficient to pass NSPORTS, but I don't think they're enough to pass WP:BLPPRIMARY. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WP:NOLY is pretty clear: "Athletes ... are presumed notable if they ... have won a medal at the Paralympic Games". That criterion is satisfied. Regarding secondary sources, most of the links are to the IPC or BPA which are certainly secondary sources. violet/riga [talk] 22:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That answers whether Surgeoner meets the "presumed notable" clause of sports notability, but not what "presumed notable" means. If it's the same as "notable", what is the purpose of the extra word "presumed"? And if it's not the same as "notable", then we would still need to determine whether they are notable in some other way. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That might be something to discuss on that talk page - it is a little vague. violet/riga [talk] 22:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are we able to move forward with this now? violet/riga [talk] 13:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumed notable" means that normally, for Paralympic medalists, there will be sufficient sources available (like here); however, especially for the first few games, there are quite a few medalists where we don't have enough information to identify them (e.g. the South African "Bosch" won the 100m freestyle 5 in 1972), and if there are no other sources with more information on them, we shouldn't create an article on them. Note that at the early paralympics, the participation standards were very low, and most participants didn't get attention in the press for being at the Games or even winning. People participated at the same games in e.g. swimming, table tennis and athletics, not because they were good at all sports but because they were there anyway and wanted to have a good time / get the most out of it. See e.g. this Canadian gold medal winner for whom further information is missing. They are for our purposes just a name in a database, and until some secondary source does the research and pays personal attention to them, they are just not notable, even though they were pioneers in their own way. But all this doesn't apply to Surgeoner, for whom we have the required additional information and attention. Fram (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm right in saying that this is all resolved?, right? violet/riga [talk] 16:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My initial objection (i.e. not saying what his disability is) has been resolved. I'm still not 100% convinced the sources are good enough to pass WP:GNG, but neither am I convinced that they're not, so I'm not going to stand in the way. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: - could you now move this forwards? violet/riga [talk] 23:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ready for the main page! Yoninah (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Rector v. MLB

Having a bit of difficulty with this nomination: I'm not sure if the hooks proposed here are fine or not: while the hooks are interesting, they seem too BLPish for me considering they focus on the lawsuit's plaintiff sleeping. I also struck ALT1 because, while it was my preferred hook had the hook been less-BLPish, it was cited to The Daily Beast, which seems to be discouraged at the moment. Additional advice is welcome here regarding the eligibility of the hooks, and the possibility of proposing alternative hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, my view is that there is no BLP issue as the hooks proposed are NPOV, Verifiable and NOR as well as not being "unduly negative" as they feature only the facts as they were presented in the case (which is what the hook is about), without any particular angle or opinion on the person involved. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a view on this please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I prefer ALT2 proposed by Yoninah. It's unnecessary for a hook to be borderline sensational and explicit in order to make it interesting. Alex Shih (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The C of E requested an April 2 posting date; April 2 is a week away, so a prompt response to this is welcome. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

Currently in Prep 5 there are two hooks related, and linking to, 1900 English beer poisoning. This struck me as odd, and I thought it best to bring it up, just in case it's unintentional. Dahn (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like the endless parade of Japanese voice actors, we need to separate them into at least their own sets, if not separated by a few days just to stave off the possible boredom our readers would experience by reading the same thing, same day... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is intentional and was by special request of the nominator here. If we can have eight women's bios on one day I don't see why two poisoned beer items can't appear together. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but seeing them together, even spaced apart, does look a little odd, as the beer poisoning article is the subject in one and a secondary link in the other. I think they would work better separately. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks clumsy and rubbish, fix it please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eight women, and even eight Japanese voice actors, will have at most a theme in common. However, in this case, the common characteristic is much narrower: it is the exact same event, with the exact same link, twice in the same queue; also: the poisoning is a regular link in the top entry, and the actual subject of the hook in the second, which is even weirder. Dahn (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, this needs to be fixed. If not by the prep builder themsleves, I'll do it myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It appears the two articles were inserted into the same set by request of the nominator, but I agree it's not a good idea. Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Admin role RFC

First off, please note this RFC has been copied over from Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 146 for the purposes of closing it, as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. As the RFC is neatly itemized, as will be the closing summary. I am pretty much uninvolved with this process (disclaimer - I have put a couple of articles through the DYK process).
  1. Hook interest - consensus is that no, administrators should not be expected to check hooks to ensure they are reasonably interesting.
  2. Formatting - yes, administrators should check hook formatting for any errors.
  3. Image license - although not an absolute requirement, administrators should check that a license exists, and they can always look into whether the image's license is correct should they have any concerns.
  4. Hook BLP compliance - yes, administrators should only move the hook into a queue if it is compliant with WP:BLP.
  5. Hook neutrality - yes, administrators should only move the hook into a queue if it is compliant with WP:NPOV.
  6. Hook citation - no, this should not be a requirement, as this should have already been checked, but there is no reason why the administrator cannot recheck, should they wish to do so.
  7. DYK eligibility - no, administrators should not be required to check if the article meets the length/age/expansion/QPQ requirements, this is part of the reviewer's role.
  8. Article copyright - no, administrators should not be expected to check the article for copyright issues, this is part of the reviewer's role, but the admin may pick up on and address any obvious issues that have been missed.
  9. Article verifiability - no, as above, administrators should not be expected to check the article for verifiability issues, but they may pick up on and address any obvious issues.
  10. Article BLP compliance - no, administrators should not be expected to check the article for BLP compliance issues, but may pick up on and address any obvious issues.
  11. Article neutrality - no, administrators should not be expected to check the article for NPOV compliance issues, but may pick up on and address any obvious issues.
So, in summary, the consensus is that there is more responsibility on the administrator moving the hook from a prep area to a queue to check the hook than there is to check the parent article, which should be addressed within the review process. The threaded discussion goes into considerable depth on the fundamental issues some perceive within the DYK review process (as opposed to the administrative tasks which take place following review, which are the subject of this RFC), and I suspect further reform discussions will inevitably take place at some point addressing those, which are not in the scope of this request for comment. Fish+Karate 12:07, 19 March 2018 (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.

The role of admins in the DYK process as defined in the instructions, and the role as practiced, differ widely. Moreover, different admins treat their role differently, and based on past discussions, have widely divergent views on what the role should be. For folks unfamiliar with the process, admins are required to move approved DYK hooks from Prep areas to Queues. The question here is what, if any, further checks admins are required to perform during this process.

Since there are many possible combinations here, I have structured this to permit maximum flexibility in the outcome. Therefore, please feel free to add additional checks that you think admins are required to do, that I may have left out. Vanamonde (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Hook interest

Should administrators be required to check hooks to ensure they are reasonably interesting?

  • Yes. Administrators should absolutely be checking whether hooks are sufficiently interesting in my view, and removing them if they think they are not up to scratch. It does no harm to return a suspect hook for further discussion, while replacement hooks (from other nominations) are readily available. I think this is the first thing admins should be doing in checking a set. It's something I have done for years, it takes only a few seconds and there is no excuse for allowing a potentially substandard hook to reach the main page IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm probably going against the grain here, but no, at the moment, because the DYK community has not come to a consensus about what constitutes an interesting hook anyway. Some folks have far higher standards for "interesting" than others do. Furthermore, I think this check is less about keeping the main page problem-free and more about making it as good as it could be; which is a responsibility I'm okay leaving with reviewers and promoters. Or to put it another way: I think admins may be said to have a better idea of what constitutes a BLP violation or a WP:V violation. I don't think we necessarily know better than the average community member what constitutes an interesting hook. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that there's a surprising amount of confusion about what constitutes "interest". I personally think there are some very clear criteria one can look for in assessing that and I have intended to add a guideline to that end a number of times but never quite gotten around to it. This is one of the many things I am hoping to be able to address in the near future. Gatoclass (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that in my original comment I managed to conflate two different issues and that some users have responded to the wrong issue here. I have since refactored my comment for clarity. But Vanamonde, while I agree that administrators "don't necessarily know better" than other users what constitutes an appealing hook, they do constitute a third check on hook quality after the initial reviewer and set builder, and if any of the three checkers feel a hook is not up to scratch, chances are it isn't and it needs further work. My point is that the promoting administrator cannot renege on his responsibility in this regard, any more than the initial reviewer or set builder should. If in doubt, pull, because it's better to be safe than sorry. If the pull turns out to be unnecessary, nothing is lost because the original hook can simply be restored at a later time. In my experience however, further discussion about a hook's interest factor almost invariably results in a much better hook than the one that was originally proposed. Gatoclass (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I feel really old? I really didn't think it was that long ago... I just remember it because it happened to one of my hooks and no one notified me-- I was absolutely livid and it was a pretty big deal here then. I think if this is implemented, it has be made sure that admins don't remove hooks from the main page, but instead make sure to address the process while they are still in the queue/in the nominations phase. Nomader (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, that hook pull was done out of process and generated quite a bit of controversy.[2] I should also add that "mak[ing] sure to address the process while they are still in the queue/in the nominations phase" is precisely what I am advocating here. Gatoclass (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that hook pull addresses exactly why administrators shouldn't be *required* to look for hook interest, though. It's a subjective call-- I disagree that it should be a requirement but I think it should be something they *can* do before it goes onto the front page. An administrator can bring these issues up and so can anyone else-- the requirement issue is the problem here. Nomader (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Nomader, I've given it my best shot and I can't keep repeating myself. I maintain that it's very important for admins to ask themselves whether or not they think hooks are sufficiently interesting before promoting them to the queue, because it never hurts to pull a hook for further discussion if there is any doubt. But for some reason, it seems that argument is just not getting any traction here. Regardless, thank you for at least considering my point of view. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand where you're coming from and thanks for continuing the discussion-- I'm sorry that I can't agree. Thanks for putting all of the work behind it though, Gatoclass. Nomader (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because what constitutes interest to one person may not be interesting to another. Any "uninteresting hooks" should be discussed on a case by case basis. An administrator can definitely bring this issue up. epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might also add that when an administrator pulls a potentially problematic hook from prep or the queue for further discussion, they are actually doing the nominator a favour, because if a hook with issues makes it to the main page without those issues being first addressed, it becomes liable to summary yanking by any drive-by admin and once removed, it can be impossible to return to the main page in a timely manner, resulting in the hook losing the main page exposure the nominator might otherwise have expected because the issues with it weren't ironed out first. Gatoclass (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Subjective opinions should play no part in if a hook can run. I have always said exactly what Epicgenius said above and I stand by it here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No What's is "interesting" and "not interesting" is very subjective. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • But hook interest is not merely subjective. Hooks, for example, which highlight only the everyday or mundane are, by definition, uninteresting. "Did you know that Littletown, Texas has both rainy and sunny days?" is clearly an uninteresting hook because you can say exactly the same thing about virtually any town on earth. Contrary to popular opinion, there are plainly some objective criteria that can be applied when assessing hook interest. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I would much prefer that hooks were boring and accurately reflect the most important parts of an article than "interesting" and misleading. Interesting hooks should be WAY down the list of concerns. --Jayron32 15:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Interesting" does not equate to "misleading". I happen to agree though that some hooks try too hard to be interesting when all that is necessary in many cases is to simply outline what is notable about a particular topic - in fact I was arguing as much just days ago on this page - but that's a separate issue. The point I have tried to make in this section is simply that administrators have a responsibility to try and prevent plainly substandard hooks getting to the main page (like the example given above). What I am finding particularly ironic about this entire debate thus far is that DYK has been pilloried for years about the number of fatuous hooks that have made it to the main page, but when given the opportunity to !vote on even the mildest and most obvious preventative measure, the community's attitude seems to be oh no, we couldn't possibly do that. Gatoclass (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because people "own" their hooks and don't like the idea of someone telling them that they're boring. People continually forget that it's one of DYK's major themes (interesting to a broad audience) and summarily ignore it. Of course, very little is done about it and those of us who highlight hooks which are mediocre in this regard are cast as the pantomime villains. People want to "pile it high, sell it cheap" on DYK, and given the voting across this RFC, that's been certainly reinforced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: I've had to fight in WP:ERRORS to keep a hook of mine up that an editor thought was "meh", and yet it ended up doing well with 6,000 views -- clearly not everyone is in agreement on what is interesting or not, and hooks shouldn't be removed due to one person's subjective opinions. Umimmak (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: A hook may be unexciting to a broad audience, but may still be the most interesting hook available. Boring hooks should be intercepted earlier in the process, as admins have more important matters to deal with when moving sets into queues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Too subjective. Everyone has different interests. There is no evidence admins are better at judging whether something is interesting or not than non-admins. feminist (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request to close

I think it's become clear at this point that I messed up this proposal by phrasing the question in the wrong way. The question should have said something like: Should administrators be required to check that hooks are not unacceptably banal or uninteresting? By stating the question as I did, proposing that admins be required to decide whether or not hooks are "reasonably interesting", it seems I have given the impression, judging by the responses above, that I was proposing that administrators be encouraged to return hooks from the prep/queue areas based on what they personally do or do not fancy.

That was absolutely not my intended meaning, rather, I had in mind something more akin to Alex Shih's suggestion that hooks only be pulled if they are "seriously substandard", as he put it - or else in accordance with clear criteria, such as the one I outlined in the "Littletown, Texas" example above.

What I think I should probably do at this point is go and work on establishing some clear criteria for identifying substandard hooks, and then based on that put a modified version of the above question to the community, perhaps in a few week's time. I would like to suggest therefore that this proposal be closed forthwith by an uninvolved administrator, with no prejudice toward a possible future RFC on a related question. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: I'm involved here and am not going to close, but FWIW, I do think you got your point across; just that myself and some other folks are unwilling to get behind it given the current uncertainty in the community as to what counts as interesting. That is a problem I would be interested in helping fix, and if we manage that, in implementing a requirement for admins to check it. I'm unwilling at the moment not so much because I'm worried about admins abusing the criterion and making arbitrary pulls. I'm more worried that if we require admins to pull "uninteresting" hooks without defining "uninteresting", we're going to have situations where folks are going to yell and shout about admin incompetence because a hook they disliked was not pulled. Vanamonde (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should remove the interesting to a broad audience aim of DYK in that case. By the time a hook gets to a queue, it's only going to be looked at by two people in general, the reviewer who is looking for a QPQ and the promoting admin (who we're led to believe here is not the right person to judge "interesting"). So beyond the person who wrote the hook (which they'd inevitably believe or hope would be interesting) and the reviewer (QPQ done!), no-one is looking at this fundamental tenet of DYK. Absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Should administrators be required to check hook formatting for any errors?

Image license

Should administrators be required to check the licensing and use of the image in each set?

Hook BLP compliance

Should admins be required to check whether hooks are compliant with WP:BLP?

Hook neutrality

Should admins be required to check whether hooks are compliant with WP:NPOV?

  • Yes, as above. I do not believe flagging NPOV violations on the mainpage constitutes a violation of WP:INVOLVED, if the admin is already involved, or that it would make an admin INVOLVED, if they weren't. Vanamonde (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Vanamonde93, you cannot as an administrator simply stand by and allow blatant POV hooks to hit the main page because you think it might compromise your UNINVOLVED status to prevent that occurring. Indeed, if you promote a blatantly POV hook to the queue which then goes to the main page, you have arguably done far more damage to your uninvolved status than you would have done simply by returning the hook to the nominations page and asking for a less contentious hook. As I said below, hooks are not, strictly speaking, content in any case, they are pointers to content. I have challenged plenty of hooks for being too contentious and nobody has ever accused me as a result of being INVOLVED. I also think it would be quite a stretch to make such an argument given that in most cases I've never even made a single edit in the topic area in question. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is similar to errors and BLP. epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, especially if it is blatant. I think the process for taking hooks down needs to be made clear and the correct editors and this page must be notified. Nomader (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but if an admin perceives that a hook may violate NPOV but isn't blatant, the correct approach is to discuss it with other editors, rather than to remove it unilaterally. feminist (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hook citation

Should admins be required to check if hooks are mentioned in the article, and have a citation in support?

Hook verification

Should admins be required to check if hooks are supported by the cited source, if possible?

  • No, but should be strongly encouraged to do so. I would love to be able to say yes to this question, but given the lack of participation by admins in prep promotion now, we need all the help we can get and can't afford to add requirements that very few admins will be willing to take on. I think "strong encouragement" is the best we can hope for here. Gatoclass (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this should be checked by the reviewer. But an admin can definitely have a re-review. epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Encourage, but not require. Too time-consuming if all promoting admins are required to check to see if all hooks are supported by their sources. This should be checked by the hook reviewer. feminist (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK eligibility

Should administrators be required to check if the article meets the length/age/expansion/QPQ requirements?

Article copyright

Should admins be required to check the article for copyright issues?

  • No, but should be encouraged to do so. See my response to hook verification question above for reasons. Gatoclass (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because it places too much of a burden on the promoting admin. I would certainly spot-check articles occasionally, as a way of keeping reviewers accountable, but I think we cannot require the promoting admin to check everything. Vanamonde (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this should be a discretionary call. Promoting admin should read the article to see if there are any issues, and if any suspicions are raised, than it makes sense to double check with the nomination page and run a copyvio check if deemed necessary. It's counter-intuitive to force promoting admin to manually check every single article in a 8-hooks set for copyright issues when it's something that should have been done at the very beginning of a DYK review. If the process is broken, it's the review part that needs to be addressed and fixed in this case. Alex Shih (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as this should already have been done before. Since this is time consuming, few admins would bother. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this should be checked by the reviewer. An admin or set builder can use the copyvio detector if there are any concerns. epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article verifiability

Should administrators be required to check sourcing in the article?

  • That depends on what is meant by "check". I would say admins have a responsibility to do a quick scan of the article to see that it is well presented and that content is appropriately cited. I don't think you can expect them to go combing through sources trying to figure out whether or not they are sufficiently reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of. I'd say admins are required to check if references are present where they should be, and that appear reliable. If somebody uses facebook as a source, I do think admins are required to catch that, in the unlikely event that reviewers and promoters have missed it. Vanamonde (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. An admin could have a quick look but this should be checked by the reviewer. Admin intervention should only be required if there is a blatant and obvious violation. epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article BLP compliance

Should administrators be required to check the article for BLP issues?

Article neutrality

Should administrators be required to check the article for NPOV issues?

Threaded discussion

@Vanamonde93: Are you asking if admins should perform or re-check all reviews? I'm just wondering, since this is what the RFC sounds like. epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar question, when you say "are they" do you mean "should they"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Are" and "should" are very different questions, and I would answer them differently: are they now supposed to versus should they do it. If this RfC is to produce useful information, I'd suggest going with one or the other rather than a mixture of both, and I imagine that "should" will point the way forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO I think the current admin instruction is clear on that the key role for admins at DYK is to approve hooks to queue. I presume that's why they are being asked with "should" here. But I don't see any questions surrounding this. Running a copyvio check prior to approving is ideal but quite unrealistic in real time (unless if there are obvious concerns from a quick reading; this is when I'd move on to check the nomination page, as checking for copyvio is one of the first tasks in a proper review, which I think will be addressed in the next planned RfC?). Alex Shih (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely not unrealistic for admins to run a copyvio check (apparently Earwig doesn't take too long), and since articles can change drastically between review and promotion, it's absolutely incumbent on admins to not promote items to the main page with copyvios (for instance) so they must check for that, and abuse of fair use images too in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically any admin moving something to a queue should check for anything that's not policy-compliant (BLP, NFCC, COPYVIO). Anything else (i.e. hooks that are wrong or misleading) should have been picked up previously (hollow laugh). Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that this is going to result in less admins working in this area, right? The (very) few times I've promoted a hook I've viewed it as a purely technical task. I'll obviously look for BLP vios but am trusting the DYK reviewers have done their jobs. I'm not saying there's anything wrong if the community wants to assign extra responsibility to the promoting admin, just that the admins who occasionally assist might not want to do so going forward. --NeilN talk to me 03:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epicgenius: Hmm. I thought I had created a clear rfc, but apparently not. I'm asking each question separately. We can decide that admins should check everything, some things, or nothing. That is up to the community. @The Rambling Man: I will amend the wording inconsistencies,but I'm essentially asking what admins should be doing. Given your statement here, might I ask you to vote yes on the relevant options above? Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 03:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: TRM: I've now fixed the wording. I didn't realize it was confusing, but it was. There are of course several things admins are required to do at the moment according to the instructions, but current practice (and, I suspect, consensus) has moved away from some of them. @Black Kite: Since I've now fixed the wording, would you care to express those opinions above? Vanamonde (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I am wondering about with regard to this RFC is, should responses be limited to administrators only? After all, this only pertains to admin responsibilities, these are not questions that non-admins are ever going to have to consider. I'm not sure it's even possible to limit RFCs in such a way though. Gatoclass (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gatoclass: I did consider this; in particular, I was worried that a set of responsibilities considered too burdensome may drive admins away. But fundamentally I think this is about the DYK process and main-page integrity, questions which I do not think we can limit to admins. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a little concerned that non-admins are going to look at these options, think to themselves, oh sure, it would great if admins did all these checks! - without considering the burden it would add to administrators who might otherwise be willing to contribute to the running of DYK and the likely exodus of admins from participation as a result (see comment by NeilN as an example of the likely response). Gatoclass (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; but I'd rather try to sort that out by asking admins concerned about the burden of these checks to comment above and make it clear that a large number of tasks would lead to them reducing their participation, rather than by limiting participation in the RFC, which would lead to tremendous ill-feeling (even if there was a basis in policy for it, which I'm unsure about). Vanamonde (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sadly a waste of time really. This isn't really where the conversation needs to be going. What's the primary issue with DYK at the moment? Bad quality reviews leading to items being passed. The admin role at the very end of the process may need some examination, but if all the checks and measures that should have been performed correctly by the reviewers has been performed correctly by the reviewers, the admin role is perfunctory. We need to talk about the root cause of the problem, not the peripheral issues which, it's already clear, is not going to change anything. But as far as I'm concerned, right now the admin has to do the whole review process from scratch because the system is so broken. That's the reality of the situation. Hooks can't be trusted, sources can't be trusted, articles are being promoted regularly which fail DYK rules and supplementary rules. Hooks are going into sets days or weeks after they're ticked during which time anything can have happened to them so they need re-review.... there's too much wrong at the source here to worry about the role of the individual at the last step of the process right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but there are a lot of things that need addressing at DYK and we can't deal with all of them at once. Vanamonde93 has long wanted clarification of the role of administrators and since it's a relatively straightforward issue to examine, it just happens to have become the first thing we are looking at. Accountability of reviewers and other matters have also been raised in the process of discussion and I'm sure we will be getting to some of these other more complex issues soon enough. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not clear what the expectations of the role of an admin here are until we have defined what they are faced with which, at the moment, is a load of unreliable reviews which need to get re-done from scratch. People who are charged with promoting items to the main page have to be 100% responsible for the content, so if they're not bothering to do the job properly knowing that what they're promoting is probably deficient then they ought not to do the job at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The admin role is generally perfunctory. All the checks should have already been already performed by the reviewers. It is possible for the article to have changed in the meantime. We must be more tolerant of errors if we are to promote a collegial atmosphere where people enjoy contributing to DYK (and Wikipedia). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a social club, we're not here to be "nice", we're here to create quality content and serve our readers. Remember: we are here for the readers. We absolutely must not tolerate errors, especially from those who make them time after time. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, nobody is avoiding any issues here, and I am sorry you see this RFC that way. I agree that the core issue is review quality; which is why I have made proposals above to address this. Those proposals are just not ripe for an RFC yet, in my view, and require further discussion. If you feel otherwise, feel free to start such an RFC. The admin role was ripe for an RFC, and so I started one. It's a manageable problem. Nobody's saying it's the only one. Vanamonde (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting anyone is avoiding issues, just not focusing on the real issues. A little like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. If reviews are conducted 100% correctly, then admins should do nothing beside promote preps. If reviews aren't conducted 100% correctly, what an admin needs to do is on a sliding scale from nothing to complete re-review. That seems obvious to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes the review process is going to remain unchanged, though: whereas there are proposals above to fix those. I'm trying to find a comprehensive set of fixes, not a single magic bullet. Vanamonde (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it just assumes that reviewers aren't good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the neutrality questions combining NPOV and BLP issues? Admins are empowered to address BLP issues anywhere on the project but there's no way in hell I'm judging NPOV (content issue) as an admin. That opens me up to WP:INVOLVED accusations, and rightfully so. --NeilN talk to me 13:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Fair point; would you like to split those off into separate questions? Vanamonde (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Probably should as I'd imagine most admins feel the same way. As in, yes I'll go the extra mile and check for BLP issues the reviewers might have missed but addressing NPOV is beyond my remit. --NeilN talk to me 14:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, sometimes we get incredibly biased hooks, for example, demonizing one side in a political conflict. As an administrator, you can't just stand idly by and let crap like that hit the main page, because if you do there may well be an uproar (and rightly so). So you have to be prepared to simply say "this hook isn't ready for prime time, you need to come up with something less contentious." I don't think that will fatally compromise your UNINVOLVED status at all. Hooks are not, strictly speaking, content in any case, they are pointers to content. But if you are keen to remain strictly UNINVOLVED, there's no harm in you simply skipping a queue promotion with NPOV issues and leaving it to another administrator. Far better to do that than make yourself party to a blatant POV violation on the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: Can you please give some examples of these hooks where an admin overrode editor consensus? --NeilN talk to me 14:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We actually very rarely get blatantly POV hooks, and I don't have the inclination to go searching for an example right now. Maybe I'll take a look tomorrow if I can find time. But pulling a hook is not "overriding consensus" anyhow, it's more like asking for a clearer consensus. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are not editors (although they are editors with extra buttons, it's a different function). We should not give admins per se editorial function, so I will again suggest something I had suggested awhile ago, we have an elected board of overseers or coordinators, who oversee, including editorial, resolve disputes, etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, are you talking about DYK specifically or the project as a whole? Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! :) No, I don't think we can take on the whole project, here, just DYK. (My idea partly comes from FAC, which at one time elected coords, I assume they still do and partly just the idea of a semi-editorial board that allows for ease of functioning not fighting - or delegating to committee, if you will) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, the old "DYK directorate" notion. At one time I probably would have been strongly in favour of that. These days, they would probably have to offer me a very attractive wage to serve on it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well some others might (just like some volunteer to be admins :)) and you would have the legitimacy of a beautiful hat, or rather, visor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is, as I predicted, a complete waste of time. We have no agreement over the fundamental and important issues of what an admin should be doing here, moreover we have complete failure to understand the fact that no-one besides the QPQ (yes, it passes!) reviewer is doing all this heavy work. My original point (reviewers aren't doing the job properly) completely defines what admins need to do, not the other way round, until such a time that we have confidence that the review process works. In the meantime, this well-meaning poll of DYK regulars is of no use at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the set builders are also supposed to fact check the hooks. So there are three levels of built-in review: initial reviewer, set builder and promoting administrator, not two as you have stated here. Gatoclass (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I suspect the three levels of built-in review were meant to be the case, to maximize the chances that errors in the original review would be caught before hooks made it to the main page, there has never been agreement that it should be done. So we currently have a hodge-podge: some set builders do comprehensive checks, while others will do only a few, generally related to the hook. Some admins will do comprehensive checks before moving a set from prep to queue, while others will just do a quick look-over. So instead of guaranteed redundancy in all checking, we have some sets that are well checked, while there are others that get minimal checking at both prep and queue stages.
It seems to me that this RfC has put the cart before the horse: until we determine what we're going to require of DYK reviewers and what strategies we're going to employ at the review stage to try to ensure the best possible results at that stage, we don't know what level of checking we're going to need from people putting prep sets together—where the redundancies need to be—and then, based on that, what checks are most critical for admins to make. Not just whether the original reviewer caught everything, but also what we want in terms of checking changes to the article since the most recent review, because articles can be the same, enhanced, or made less reliable while waiting to be promoted and while sitting in prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. There is no disagreement whatsoever over what an initial reviewer is supposed to do; which is, to thoroughly check each and every one of the DYK criteria. The question we have to work out is how to ensure that they perform these checks. This issue isn't yet ripe for an RFC, but there are proposals above (why do I keep having to repeat this?) to address this issue. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts there. Vanamonde (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree BlueMoonset. This is rearranging deckchairs. We need to understand what's so wrong with the review process before we worry about what an admin needs to do. Admins should be just promoting preps to queues and nothing more. The fact they can't because of quality issues means they have to effectively do the whole review again themselves as in promoting to queues, they're accepting responsibility for what's going to appear on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I disagree with you both. Vanamonde, no matter how carefully one thinks one has done a review, it's always possible to overlook something: we have to allow for error despite general competence in addition to error due to lack of understanding or inexperience or failure to adequately check all the criteria. (It isn't just how to ensure they perform the checks; it's how to ensure they perform them well. Earwig is a blessing and a curse: a blessing in that sometimes copyvios/close paraphrasing is found, and a curse in that most people do not understand its limitations and miss copyvios due to misunderstanding the results and close paraphrasing because they don't realize Earwig rarely finds it.) The next line of defense is currently at the point of promotion to prep, though there could be others added at the review stage. However, unlike The Rambling Man, I don't see admin promotion to queue ever being a straight promotion without checking because admins have to take responsibility for what's going to appear on the main page. I don't see how they can safely trust that everything was done perfectly at the prior stages; even with the best of intentions and following the expected process, human error will occur. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you truly believe that, than admins need to fully re-review hooks - they don't get credits, they're not gaining QPQs, so they're ideally placed to check every rule of DYK is being followed. Too much COI for reviewers seeking out QPQ, or WikiCup points or whatever, the end result being that there's no real quality control going on at DYK at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you BlueMoonset that administrator promotion to the queue can never be a rubber stamp for the reasons you outline. But neither can we expect admins to do complete reviews of entire sets. The question is where to strike the right balance. That's what this RFC is about, and for the reasons given, I don't think it matters a great deal whether we hold it now or wait to see what additional safeguards can be added to the earlier reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's absurd. There is no "right balance", either admins believe reviews have been conducted correctly, or they don't. If they don't, they need to review articles from scratch because there's no telling what could be wrong. If they do, they just promote to a queue and accept that when the shit hits the fan, it's their responsibility or at least they defer their responsibility to the one reviewer. That's what makes this entire RFC a waste of time. What a promoting admin should do is ensure that everything that goes to the main page is suitable. How that's achieved is entirely down to the quality of review beforehand. Let's deal with that first, and then worry about what admins should be doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What it all boils down to is whether admins can rely on the nominator, reviewer and promoter to get things right. When promoting an article, the main check I always make is whether the hook is accurate, the hook facts are in the article and are backed up by inline citations. Sometimes this is easy and sometimes it isn't, and on occasions it is a matter of opinion and I don't always get it right. The admin moving the set into the queue needs to ensure that things have not changed materially since each hook was reviewed and promoted. I think it questionable whether they need to check the hook in detail again, and think their time is better used if they check that the article is policy compliant and free from copyvios. In this regard, people like TRM and Nikkimaria, who informally check the hooks in prep, are performing a useful service. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2018 (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.

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March Women's History Month

I've moved 13 approved women's hooks to the special occasions holding area for March. Let's try to promote them all! Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also try to review open ones, and I will do what I can to nominate some more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the 6-week limit for Special occasion hooks

Where is this rule discussed? I can't seem to see it either on the main DYK or the supplementary guidelines page. I'm asking because I'm planning to expand Yurika Endō, an article about a soon-to-retire Japanese voice actress and singer, and I was planning to request for it to go up on June 1 (the date of her final concert). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5, this is part of the instructions for the Special occasion holding area itself, which can be found at WP:DYKNA#Special occasion holding area. I would recommend waiting to start the expansion of Yurika Endō until April 20 if you wish to request a June 1 date. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Noted. I've started a userspace draft at User:Narutolovehinata5/Yurika Endo and I plan to move its content to the mainspace article after April 20. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK date offset by 1 day from UTC

At WP:DYKA, it appears that the date in the heading for archived DYKs is 1 day ahead. (This is not the offset between UTC and any particular timezone; it's that the UTC date doesn't match the DYK date.) For example, Talk:Smashburger (and my own recollection) state that the DYK was posted on on March 21 (UTC), but the heading states 00:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC). Am I missing something, or can this be addressed? TheFeds 02:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYKUpdateBot by Shubinator updates Wikipedia:Recent additions. It seems the archiving has always given the date and time it was added to the archive which is when it's removed from {{Did you know}} and not when it's added there. DYK entries can be edited while in {{Did you know}} so they have to be archived when they are removed. The time between DYK updates has varied and is currently 24 hours. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles LiMandri removed from Main Page

  • .. that San Diego attorney Charles LiMandri won a decades-long court battle against the ACLU to prevent the destruction of the Mount Soledad Cross (pictured)?

Template:Did you know nominations/Charles LiMandri

The hook was sourced to this, a blog article on an utterly unreliable and partisan site (with among other articles gems like "Global Warming: The Evolution of a Hoax"[3] from yesterday). Just take a look at that site for yourself and you'll swiftly get a feeling of the general position it takes, and the strength of the arguments underpinning it.

The hook wsa not only very, very poorly sourced, it was also wrong. No single court battle was won, they had to accept that the court had decided that the cross wasn't allowed on that government-owned location, and solved it by selling the ground. That's not "winning a court battle", that's choosing the best (for them) of two possible solutions to comply with a court battle they lost.

Please make sure that hooks with this very poor level of sourcing, which is contradicted by the linked article on the cross anyway, don't make it unto our front page. Fram (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionelt, Yoninah, Narutolovehinata5, and Cwmhiraeth: pings failed. Fram (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this. I was skeptical of the website myself, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt as I didn't want to decline a source solely because of its political orientation. I'll be more careful with checking questionable sources next time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that so many faults were found with the article here and at Errors. I didn't see that blog page; I read the source at the end of the paragraph about his litigation on behalf of the Cross. Thanks to a note at ERRORS, "prevented the destruction" was rightly changed to "prevented the removal". But now I see the hook was sensationalized and not based on the source I read, either. Yoninah (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers needed for 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament noms

I am rooting for my Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team via DYK and hoping for a final four. Given Michigan is the highest remaining seed in its region of the 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament, I hope I can run two noms next week. I need reviewers at Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Poole and Template:Did you know nominations/Zavier Simpson. #GoBlue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a day ago. Here is an updated list with 38 older nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through March 6. Right now we have a total of 274 nominations, of which 135 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from January.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion!

Hey y'all, I did a review for Chinese characters for transcribing Slavonic. I initially failed it but the author has added more sources in-- I would love if someone that isn't involved in the discussion already could review the article to see if it meets the criteria. Nomader (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion provided. Yoninah (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nominations not transcluded in December 2017

The following three DYK nominations were never transcluded after they were created in mid-December 2017 as part of the Sociology of Globalization course, for which Piotrus is listed as Facilitator. The nominations all appear to have been immediately following moves into mainspace (or, in one case, anticipating the move by two days).

  • Template:Did you know nominations/Gabjil: the article was subsequently moved from Gabjil to Gapjil, and has both neutrality and copy edit templates on it. It obviously cannot pass DYK in that condition; the proposed hook may have NPOV issues as well. The nomination was the creator's most recent edit.
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Hanbit Unit: while the template needs fixing up, there aren't any obvious issues with the article. (I don't consider a template saying that more categories are needed, even though there are five listed, as a significant issue.)
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Jeju Oreum: the hook may need work ("outstanding beauty" strikes me as puffery), and the article needs a copyedit: I had trouble understanding a number of passages.

Since the course is long over, it doesn't make sense to resurrect any of these unless someone is willing to address any issues found during the review process (or the ones already mentioned here). Are there any volunteers to take these on? (After three months absence, Yeon So Jeong, a creator of Jeju Oreum, and Byung chan kim, who created Hanbit Unit, have made edits to other articles within the past week. If they are interested in pursuing the nominations and addressing issues that come up, that could work.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Those students signed up for another wikipedia-editing class of mine, which should explain the otherwise miraculous reactivation of their accounts. I'd suggest relisting those articles in whatever section allows it, and when the reviews are posted, hopefully they'll notice this fact on their userpage and edit the articles with whatever fixes necessary. I'll of course try to help. For Gabjil, we should probable close the nom as unsuccessful and move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, in the past we have not transcluded forgotten nominations without a commitment from the nominators to work on the nomination once it is reviewed. I'll post a note soon on their respective talk pages; if they make said commitment, I'll be happy to restore the nomination in question, but without that agreement the nominations will lapse. Per your suggestion, I have closed Gabjil/Gapjil. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's totally fair. I talked to the student responsible for Jeju Oreum, and I hope she will get back to you. One minor problem is that without a review, ie. a formal list of things to fix, I am a bit hard pressed explaining to students what they need to do now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas D. Keizur DYK nomination

I nominated Thomas D. Keizur for DYK on 10 MayMarch, but it's not listed as pending review or approved. I checked original DYK file and it look like noination was approved on 22 March. Could someone tell me what status of this nomination is?--Orygun (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Orygun: the reviewer mistakenly closed the nomination rather than put the approval tick at the bottom of the thread. I reopened the nomination and also asked for a fuller DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tense problem in Sharon Calahan hook

In Prep 1, the hook I wrote has an error, : "...that Sharon Calahan is the first member invited to join the American Society of Cinematographers with a background entirely in computer animation, not live action film?" The tense and grammar don't work. It should say she "became the first member invited to join", not "is the first member"; it's written as if she were already a member before she accepted the invitation. It could also say "...that Sharon Calahan is the first cinematographer in the American Society of Cinematographers whose feature film work had been entirely in computer animation, not live action film?" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dennis Bratland, I'm changing it to:
  • No, it's not her "cinematography background". It's her feature film experience. The ASC doesn't care whether potential members might have previously worked the drive-thru at McDonald's, or drove a truck, or done something or other on TV commercials. It's a feature film organization and until Calahan all members had had at least some experience as Director of Photography on feature films. The fully qualified claim, as it is in the article, would be phrased as "first ASC member whose feature film work had been entirely in animation". That's animation, computer or otherwise. Another way of phrasing it would be "Calahan is the first person invited to join the ASC who had no feature film work as a Director of Photography [cinematographer]. All of her feature film experience was in animated films, and all of them computer animated." Calahan had also worked as an art director at two TV stations and a documentary company, and it's likely that included live action videotaping, but that's not feature film and her title wasn't Director of Photography. Anyway, there are more sources to support the claim than just those I have cited so far: [4][5][6][7][8], etc. Wired wrote "she became its first member to have an all-CG reel." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date wishes

Sorry to ask for help, - I was told not to move "my" approved noms to Special occasions.

Don't forget, Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Today also needs a review in time for Easter. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I "happened" to come across one of these special occasion earmarked hooks of Gerda's and promoted it. I would never have found the others if she didn't mention it here. If reviewers aren't moving the special occasion hooks to the holding area, who will? Yoninah (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah, it ought to be the reviewer or a passing promoter. (There's nothing wrong with the nominator posting here if their hook wasn't moved by the reviewer when the tick was given.) We had an example of a request that was ultimately turned down recently (two related hooks that were promoted, but that decision was questioned on this page); I don't think people should be allowed to give their hooks special occasion status without independent concurrence. There can be other problems as well, such as the two nearly identical hooks in Prep 2 (the initial portion of the hooks shown below sans non-bold links):
  • that the baritone Johannes Hill was the voice of Jesus and Pilate in Bach's Passions
  • that Willem Ravelli was the voice of Christ in Bach's St Matthew Passion
There's nothing wrong with the hooks as hooks, but having two of these in a single set is really a problem. Gerda Arendt, these are both yours. Can one of them be moved to another day during Holy Week, ideally not immediately before or after Good Friday, but as long as they aren't on the same day it would be workable. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the same question on one of the nominations. But in the end I put both hooks in the same set because they talk about different Passions, and because it is the Good Friday set after all. Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I've moved the one that Gerda Arendt said could be moved one day earlier to the next set earlier. The hooks start out almost identically, and "voice of Christ" and "voice of Jesus" are the same thing. They're both talking about singers being the voice of Christ in one or more Bach Passions, and that's way too close. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about not mentioning Jesus in the Hill hook, but the archangel Raphael and Adam (both in The Creation) instead, or additionally? I had agreed to Maundy Thursday, but Pilate is actually not on the scene until Good Friday. - Whe can't get around "voice" twice, because it should show that both singers are not the operatic kind, so only lend their voice to personalities. How is this:
... that the baritone Johannes Hill was the voice of the archangel Raphael, Adam, Jesus, Pilate and Pope Francis? - with our without links to the figures? I think it's even "quirkier" than Ravelli. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, can we avoid the "was the voice of" phrasing? It's unusual, and having it twice in one set is problematic. Even something as simple as "has been" or "has performed as" might work, though something a bit wordier might be preferable. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easter and April Fools Day

...coincide this year. Should I move the approved Easter hook to the AFD holding area? I put it in the Special Occasions holding area. Yoninah (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, this opens a whole set of questions, since this hasn't happened before (at least that I'm aware of): Are we mixing the hooks? Or does one take precedence over the other? Or would it be a meta thing to have a serious Easter hook in the middle of a sea of AFD hooks? Or will the Easter hooks need to also serve double duty as AFD?
I think much will depend on who is putting together the AFD prep sets this year (and note that unlike the days around it, there will be (at least) two sets of hooks being posted that day, a temporary departure from the one a day promotions we currently have). There is a section of the AFD talk page related to this: Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Easter in 2018. However, I don't see much in the way of specifics. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wrote my suggestion there. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strandflat

Strandflat has an approved hook based on a 1982 journal article, but the Wikipedia article says the hook applied up to 2013 and adds a second citation that does not appear to support the hook.

Pick a date. Tie it to an article not written 30 years in its future.

--2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:9F (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a failed citation tag to the hook information within the article and posted a main page error report.[9] --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:6156:F38D:548F:695B (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A straw poll regarding the faux politician hooks to be run on April Fools Day is currently in process at Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know#Quick_straw_poll_on_faux_politician_trio which may be of interest to DYK regulars. Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missed special holding area hook

I've noticed the preps for the 29th are filled but they appear to have missed out Template:Did you know nominations/Major League Baseball Authentication Program which was held for then as the Opening Day of MLB. Can someone please add it to the prep for the 29th please? Also we have Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Today which needs a review in time for Sunday please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the open slot in Prep 1 for March 29 has a hidden note reserving the space for Template:Did you know nominations/Major League Baseball Authentication Program. Since I worked on the article, I can't promote it. Yoninah (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=832540685"