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 91.96.115.68 (talk) at 21:34, 27 November 2018 (→‎Finally time to remove "interesting to a broad audience" from the rules of DYK). 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 processes can be discussed.

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived early this morning; here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through October 29. Right now we have a total of 383 nominations, of which 220 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three that remain from August and September.

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) 22:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the list above. There are still quite a few that need reviews. Oldest is October 10th. Flibirigit (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empty queue with 16 hours to go

Here we are again. Just a polite reminder that someone needs to populate the next queue by checking the integrity of the prep set currently next in line and moving it across. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And once again.... And some pretty shoddy work on the main page right now, but your DYK admin has said they're all fine, even the one which is self-contradictory, so that's okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And once again. Nudging. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations to whoever decided to increase the number of hooks in today's set. If we continue to do this, we may be able to whittle away at the enormous backlog of approved hooks. This currently stands at 218, enough for 27 days of sets of eight hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was done simply to balance the main page. Nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the DYK section generally looks a few hooks short. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It's entirely dependent on the number and length of the ITN and OTD hooks. It's variable but eight DYK hooks is about the average required to balance the main page. But then again it's down to browser, zoom level etc, so for some people the main page is often out of kilter, for some people that same main page is just fine. This is not a sanction for DYK to go to ten hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It also depends on the length of the hooks. If several hooks are quite long, then eight hooks in a set is probably adequate. This is the case with Prep 5 now, whereas Prep 6 looks decidedly skimpy, with one long hook and seven single line hooks on my screen, and could usefully have an extra hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not directly address me until you are prepared to apologise for accusing me of lying. You also have no idea what the main page will look like by the time Prep 5 and Prep 6 gets the main page so stop tinkering. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have NOT accused TRM of lying. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated that my reasoning for doing what I do when and how I do it is not accurate. That means you are suggesting that I am not telling the truth, i.e. that I am a liar. When you're ready to strike it out, fine, in the meantime do not respond to me or address me directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please consider that the latest queue of eight had no fewer than five issues. Please work harder to stop such problematic content. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How very demeaning and belittling. That's an invented accusation. 86.187.173.177 (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is? The fact that five issues existed in the last queue of eight? Hardly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gern Nagler in Queue 4

Caknuck Giants2008 Cwmhiraeth - Gern Nagler needs more citations. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, it needs to meet the requirements of DYK, which the person who promoted it overlooked. But hey, it's QPQ, what does one expect? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, folks. Should have seen that it needed a little more work, but even those of us who are highly experienced can overlook stuff by accident. As a show of my good faith and as an apology, I went and added a reference to the one tagged item I could fix by myself and took out the others, so that the DYK nom can proceed. I don't have access to most of the sources around the uncited bits, so if the primary contributor wants to re-add them with cites, that would be ideal. Otherwise, sorry that I seem to have caused this issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse me if I'm a pain, but I don't see the Nagler article at either the main DYK nom area or the list of approved noms, and it's not in any of the prep areas. Is this what is supposed to happen after a pull, or should the nom be placed back in line at one of the nom lists? Giants2008 (Talk) 20:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should go back to noms, or if all concerns addressed, could be placed back into a prep set. Often when items get pulled at or near the last minute, the arcane requirements of DYK template transclusions etc, get overlooked or are simply just left to the nominator/reviewer/promoter to deal with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'll go take care of this momentarily. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex

When do nominations that no one wants to fix, and has been open for over 3 months, get closed as failed? It seems odd to me that Template:Did you know nominations/Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex is still open. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations here have an indefinite shelf life. They keep on keeping on. Nothing realistically gets closed as failed unless they fail the technical specifics. The subjective rules, such as "interesting to a broad audience" are perennially ignored. So this nomination will continue to "exist" until it somehow runs in some form on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations have a very long shelf life, but it is not indefinite nor are they immune from closure. One was closed on November 19, and this one could certainly be closed at any time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Love Interruption in Prep 5

Amakuru Why did you add the Love Interruption hook to Prep 5? That hook was part of our November 16, It ran for more than 24 hours then, because that is the set that was in place when the bot quit working, so it had 24 hours plus another 6-1/2 on the main page. — Maile (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maile, it looks like Amakuru didn't add anything intentionally, but reverted back to a four days prior version of the prep, and in so doing not only brought back Love Interruption, which had run, but also Leo Holzer, which was moved to prep 2 and has also already run. I have undone their edit with the exception of the wording change to the Ryder Jackson hook, which was supposed to be the purpose of the edit, but which had a great many unintended and undesirable consequences along with it. I think Prep 5 is now in a position to be promoted to queue, which it wasn't after that edit. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: @BlueMoonset: crap, really sorry about that. I must have hit the edit button when I was looking at an old revision of the page. It seems a little too easy to do that... Even though there's a red box it's easy to miss it. Thanks for sorting.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru Yeah, it kind of looked to me like you picked it up accidentally. Working in the preps or queues can be like hopping back and forth through hoops. BlueMoonset thanks for your help with this. — Maile (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empty queues

Hello. Right now all the preps are filled, but no sets are currently on the Queue. In order to prevent backlogs, it is requested that at least two or maybe even three sets be promoted as soon as possible. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Late nom best on 22 November

Sorry, Template:Did you know nominations/Cecilia, vergine romana, - the article looked to short for DYK but now is long enough, and would be best on 22 November, the day of the saint for music. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ready for promotion to Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the promotion. I think I should not even mention Phantasy Quartet, which I heard in summer, postponed to appear on the composer's birthday, wrote in time but forgot to nominate. As two hooks about music in the same set will not be wanted, and nobody American will look at DYK on Thanksgiving anyway, we can probably just leave it alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4: Who?

@Yorkshiresky: @David Eppstein: @Cwmhiraeth:
If I knew what the Met Office is, this hook might be interesting. As it is, Met Office will probably get more clicks from curious readers. Isn't there anything hooky to say about Penelope? Yoninah (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Met Office is highly notable and has been around for about 150 years. And it's linked to help you out. But the main problem is that the hook is not even accurate. She won't be Chief Exec until December. A lot of things could happen between now and then. Another triumphant QPQ. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Things have come a long way since Michael Fish then, I guess. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My attitude approving the original hook was that Brits would know what the Met Office was and that Americans and others could become intrigued by not knowing and click on the link (what DYK is supposed to be for). So I don't see that aspect as particularly problematic. But I agree that blowing shit up is more exciting than talking about the weather. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yorkshiresky, David Eppstein, and Cwmhiraeth: Are we good to go with TRM's suggest hook? Personally I feel that it could be made a little shorter, but I like the idea and it could be a good hook if it could be made tighter. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • TRM has been unpleasant to me enough times in the past (and in this thread) that I have no interest in reviewing any of his DYK hook proposals, ever. Someone else can do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unpleasant to you in this thread? Give me a break. The QPQ was an abject failure once again because it promoted a hook which was simply untrue. If that's being "unpleasant", sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no intention of being goaded into making legal threats. And I think your choice of wording in this response merely confirms what I said about unpleasantness. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you can't take criticism of your work, don't submit it. The review was wholly inadequate. The promotion was wholly inadequate. But nothing new around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Wholly?" The review was off only on a minor detail of timing, which can best be described as an inaccuracy rather than a falsehood. Less of a falsehood than your use of the word "wholly" here, certainly. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, the hook mentioned one "fact", and that one fact was 100% incorrect. I'm afraid if you dislike having the basics of QPQ and the expectations of our readers (i.e. no false hooks) pointed out to you, this isn't the project for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not afraid to admit that your unpleasantness is causing me only to avoid assisting with your DYK hooks, and not to go away altogether as you seem to prefer. With this attitude so frequently on display here it's no wonder we have so few regular DYK reviewers that we have to bribe inexperienced newcomers to do QPQs with the prospect of the approval of their own hooks. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Pardon? My hooks? Your assistance? What are you talking about? FYI, DYK hasn't been for newcomers for years now, that's nothing to do with me. The main problem is with the so-called experienced editors passing and promoting error after error after error to the main page. If there were no errors, there'd be no need for me to keep close eyes on this part of the project which has more than its fair share of space on the encyclopedia's main page. It's not a sandbox, the QPQ system is an abject failure, as demonstrated here, at my errors page and elsewhere. Focus on fixing those issues before you start trying to shift the blame for all this project's shortcomings on me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a recipient of the "clunkiest hook of the month award", and as someone TRM has banned from responding to him or addressing him directly (a sort of unilateral interaction ban) I notice his suggested hook describes her as an "expert on electric and intelligent armour", a fact not present in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Until you retract your accusations of lying, I have asked you to stop referring to me or talking to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am commenting on a hook. Where is it mentioned in the article that she is an "expert"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Until you retract your accusation of me being a liar, I will not engage in any conversation with you. As you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Please do not promote the hook suggested by TRM as it has a factual error. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: It's fine. I checked the source (novel, I know) and it backs up the proposed hook 100%. I even adjusted the article. So this one is good to go now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How kind of TRM to adjust the article so that it included the hook fact. However, TRM has just ignored the basic DYK principle that one is not permitted to approve one's own hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not approving anything. I'm just saying this is accurate and ready. Please stop accusing me of being a liar. And please, please stop promoting hooks that are factually inaccurate (like your accusations against me). It's becoming very tiresome to have to continually fix it up. Just look above (and below!) at the common theme in many of these duff hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed "is" to "will become". Alex Shih (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've returned the hook to WP:DYKN for further work on the hook and an uninvolved reviewer's verification of TRM's suggestion. Yoninah (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two hooks removed from Prep 5 (probably the next queue to hit the main page)

Template:Did you know nominations/Claus Leininger @Gerda Arendt, Narutolovehinata5, and Cwmhiraeth:

First part ("Ruhr-Scala") is mentioned in one source I could find (the one in the article), second part ("for...") is not sourced in article, and not mentioned in that one source.

Template:Did you know nominations/Willie Borsch @Trekphiler, Reidgreg, and Cwmhiraeth:

So, he didn't win a national title, he won a race at a racing festival, which wasn't even the national championships to begin with (that seems to be the NHRA U.S. Nationals or the NHRA Mello Yello Drag Racing Series, not the Winternationals). Fram (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leininger: Template:Did you know nominations/Claus Leininger - the first proposed hook had no explanation, and the source says it was named so (implying by many). We can say it the other way: ... when Claus Leininger was general manager of the Musiktheater im Revier, he won international opera singers to perform there? - It was quite a miracle, DYK? Better wording welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And what "festival" did Borsch win? Since even in 1967, the Winternats was a national event. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no sense at all (with regards to the hook): "He raced Winged Express for ten years, winning AA/FA (supercharged A-category Fuel Altered) at the NHRA Winternationals in 1967 and 1968.[2] Since AA/FA was not recognized as a class by the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) until 1967, Borsch was never credited with a national title." It wasn't recognized until 1967, and he won in 1967 and 1968, so he was never credited??? That's not logical at all. In any case, the source[1] doesn't say anything about "national titles", he won an event at a national festival in an unrecognised class (even though the class was recognized in 1967 according to our article?), so he didn't win a national title. It's like winning a demonstration sport at the Olympics, you have won at the Olympics but you don't have an olympic title or medal. With that difference that "national titles" in the NHRA are a dime a dozen apparently. Fram (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for approving it, it was the nominator's preferred hook. Rephrasing it would probably be convoluted. Can we strike that for one of the two ALTs when the "national title" issue is resolved? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queue time?

With barely six hours to go, we have no queues loaded. Anyone going to address that issue? Given the recent surge in errors (just take a look above if you need any pointers on that), I'd suggest whichever admin fills the queue spends some time checking each hook... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a surge in errors, I would suggest a saner option would be to not put a queue up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we could just stick to the current set forever. Eventually all the errors will be ironed out and DYK will be forever error-free! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently reviewing the prep for promotion but if anyone sees anything that jumps out at them, I am always happy for others to help. Best, Mifter (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have promoted the prep to the queue. I will be around for a little bit if anyone finds anything that needs to be changed. Best, Mifter (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK approved noms

I puzzled: I have had three approved DYK noms in the top 20 entries at WP:DYKNA for at least a week and none have been promoted yet to a prep. On the other hand, a much newer article, Amazone, has been placed in prep. Don't noms from the top get promoted first at DYKNA? L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally yes, we work oldest to newest. However, when putting together sets we try to manage balance (not too many biography articles, a spread of topics, etc.) within the set which does push us out of order occasionally. Additionally, if an even older nom gets approved in the interim it might bump one of yours slightly further down. As we are currently running one set of hooks a day (as opposed to some times when we are running two) it is taking a bit longer for hooks to be promoted and to run as we are cycling through fewer overall. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@L293D: I was the one who skipped over your other ship nominations to promote Amazone. It was late, and the other nomination pages just had too much discussion to wade through. Eventually everything will get promoted. Yoninah (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5 and Solo 66

I pulled the image for Solo 66 as the lead hook in Prep 5 because it is likely non-free as a derivative work of the copyrighted item packaging. I would rearrange the hook to run in another slot with no image but as all the preps are full I am leaving a note here for it to be swapped out once we have a chance (as we have a few days before Prep 5 and Q5 are used again I do not believe we need to fully bump the hook back to approved and then re-promote). Courtsey ping to Bermicourt, Narutolovehinata5, and Flibirigit. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice now that I omitted reviewing the photo when doing the rest of the nomination. Mistake noted. We could switch the top slot with the second slot, as it has an eligible photo, despite that it wasn't in that nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That should work, thanks! Mifter (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Credit edits

A credit in Queue 1 is missing its subpage parameter. The credit should be: 

* {{DYKmake|Podocarpus parlatorei|Cwmhiraeth|subpage=Abrothrix illuteus}}

Also, both of the {{DYKnom}}s in that queue should be removed, as they're both self-noms, with the users already credited via {{DYKmake}}s. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Thanks! Mifter (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list would normally have been archived around now; here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through November 6. Right now we have a total of 373 nominations, of which 210 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones that remain from early October.

Over three months old:

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) 04:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Dan

It looks like Yang Dan is in preps 1 and 3. Since I’m new to DYK, could someone please confirm that this is erroneous and that one of the DYKs should be removed? If not, please let me know what I’m missing here. Thanks! Upjav (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is two different people with similar names in separate articles. Flibirigit (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Flibirigit. Late night where I was and on mobile... saw the names and bio-related things, didn't think it through. Upjav (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need to promote more queues?

The preps are getting pretty backlogged right now, and it's getting more difficult to build preps due to a lack of space. Maybe we should be promoting two or even three preps at a time instead of just one? It could also be insurance against late-promoting preps (meaning it could prevent cases where a queue isn't ready). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about how many queues you have, it's about the quality control that sees them through to the main page. Today, I witnessed a group of DYK hooks which were passable, with no obvious errors, and it's been about a month since that happened. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the back log is due to many administrators in the Unites States being occupied by their Thanksgiving holiday season. IT should be back to normal soon. Flibirigit (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All queues empty? valereee (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and error-free! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was the very thing that I wanted to prevent. Any admins online right now who want to promote a queue? {@Vanamonde93, Maile66, and Gatoclass: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually a little concerned about this one: that during World War II, the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS were thought to have committed war crimes against Italians in retaliation for Italy's surrender? The hook seems to be directly contradicted by the article's lead. I think it's actually just poor wording, but still.valereee (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Less than six hours to go... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask specifically the same thing. @Vanamonde93 and Maile66: could some online admin fill in a queue? L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm online, but rather busy with work. I'll try to get to this within an hour, but I can't promise anything, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Please do so, it's less than an hour to go now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I ended up being rather busy: Maile66 fixed it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:05, 25 November 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 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about a hook in Prep area 2

I feel that the promotion was premature. There are objections outlined on the nomination page, which remain unresolved:

I did not see the consensus to promoted at this time. Here's the past discussion where similar concerns have been expressed:

Courtesy ping @Flibirigit: --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't promote this myself because of the final approval statement alone which included, "The objections appear to be spurious and may be motivated by personal issues between Icewhiz and other editors." That sounds like assuming bad faith to me. SL93 (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is steady as there have been no edits in over a week, nor any discussion on its talk page. I do not see any issue with the article in its current state, nor do I see the requested move discussion as an issue since the title of the article makes no difference. This is a well-written article that should be featured in DYK. Flibirigit (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the "final approval statement" was actually an approval statement. Three editors objected, while one supported. I don't see a consensus to promote. Multiple discussions with the nominator (Piotrus) took place elsewhere, such as:
There are clearly outstanding issues. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an open RM. I fully intend to AfD this article, as it is a NOTDICTIONARY and GNG fail, if the topic continues to be the 17th century antisemitic saying (as opposed to a derived concept), which is sourced to a large extent from PRIMARY 17th-19th century sources of a dubious nature. The reason the article has been stable for the past week is the RM waiting closure. Tags were removed from the article by an involved editor, without consensus. As for the hook - it presents an antisemitic saying (repeated in full in the title) as merely "sarcastic" and not antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the promotion. I encourage further discussion and edits on the article. Flibirigit (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no problem with this being put on hold until Icewhiz gets his AfD which I predict will be closed as an easy keep, but per rules, Icewhiz is entitled to waste our time with said AfD, and the nom can be put on hold, we have no deadlines to worry about. I will note that the article has been stable for a week with no copyediting/neutality/etc. tags to be resolved, and no discussion is taking place on the talk page as all the issues but one (ongoing RM) appear to have been resolved (if Icehwiz disagrees, well, he is neither participating in any discussions anymore, nor is anyone else supporting his POV). The mentioned RM is currently at 6 oppose to 4 support (counting the nom), so it is unlikely that the article will be moved, or deleted (since nobody but Icewhiz even mention this is as a possibility). Effectively, this is already a stable, neutral article, and the only reason it is not DYKed is because a single editor keeps raising hell about it. Since we don't tend to give editors veto power, this is all a colossal and disruptive waste of time - but, as I said earlier, might as well till the AfD is closed, assuming it is started in a timely manner. PS. I want to stress that outside the ongoing RM and the threads of AfD from a single editor, the claim of K.e.coffman that 'There are objections outlined on the nomination page, which remain unresolved' is incorrect. All issues have been addressed (proof: no tags in the article, no edit warring, no ongoing discussions on talk except the RM). I have explicit and directly reached out to Icehwiz (User_talk:Icewhiz#Proverb_article) and asked him on his talk page what issues remain outside said RM and he hasn't replied to this issue on his talk or elsewhere for over a week, so again, let's be clear - the only 'ongoing' issue is the RM which seems almost certain to fail and the thread of AfD which also looks like it is going to be nothing but a procedural waste of time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does queuing require admin?

Can this be unbundled? Honestly there have to be some experienced editors here who can be trusted to move stuff from prep to queue so we don't have six empty queues two hours before the new DYK is supposed to go up. valereee (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never understood that either. It's not like the updating admins always do a thorough re-review of the articles and hooks. SL93 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All features on the main page require admin approval, including "In the news", "On this date", "Did you know", et cetera. I doubt this policy will ever change. Flibirigit (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it also. It just seems like a waste to scramble around last minute. SL93 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a holiday weekend in the United States, where the majority of admins live, and they are entitled to a family life. I am sure things will be back to normal after Monday. Flibirigit (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand that if the only times that this happens was during holiday weekends. SL93 (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the unbundled tools once required admin to use, but over the years we've slowly decided that trusted editors can also be trusted to use many of those tools. We don't have to make it a tool every editor gets. Just a few -- trusted editors who are interested in doing THIS job for WP, but not interested in running the whole RfA gantlet. valereee (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the almost perennial proposals; I am very supportive of the prospect, but not sure how to make it work: WP:VPR is the place for this kind of proposals. Alex Shih (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Shih SL93 Flibirigit I asked for discussion at WP:VPI valereee (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC) and Maile66[reply]
I left a message over there. You asked that at the wrong place. You are asking for non-admins to be able to edit content on Wikipediia's Main Page. I think there is a general Main Page policy to deal with, and why would DYK be an except to the policy? Just guessing - It would mean that anybody could (and probably would) vandalize the Main Page at will. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mail66 Not 'anybody.' Just a few trusted editors who had significant experience at DYK and who would be responsible for just this one job. Why would those people be more likely to vandalize the Main Page than an admin? valereee (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You would want to allow editing access to Queues by "trusted editors". Right? Queues are restricted to admins. The more specific question is for DYK to lift the restriction, as there is no way to restrict it to "trusted editors" unless Wikipedia wants to add a whole new bureaucratic level called "Trusted editors" So, Queues are either restricted to Admins, or open to everybody. A number of people here became admins specifically to help with the Queue issue. Where are they now? People get tired of the drama and the abuse, and they take their admin duties somewhere else. Even editors with no privileges edit for a time, then move on to other interests. Editors and admins get blocked, banned, move on, or otherwise disappear. Very few editing DYK today are the same editors I saw a year or two ago. All of Wikipedia is transitory. Who keeps track of who has the privileges? — Maile (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66 Forgive my ignorance, but would it be difficult to develop such a level? It seems like there are other permissions that are given to only a certain specific subset of users, like checkuser stuff. And the people actually doing the job would be keeping track, as they'd have every motivation to do so since their job would be made harder by having someone wander off and not be replaced. Someone goes AWOL, their teammates bring it to crat attention, the permission is stripped, and a new user is selected. Maybe there's something I don't know that would prevent this? valereee (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PP and then WP:PERM. You would need a new level set up by Wikipedia, and at the very least I would think you would need to convince them you had consensus to make the request. Perhaps start a WP:RFC discussion. If anyone else can offer insight, maybe they can guide you. — Maile (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maile yes, I understand how protection works; my question was whether it could be unbundled. And, yes, I know that would mean these editors would be able to edit other protected pages. I don't know that I'm ready to go to RfC, that's why I opened a discussion at Idea Lab, because it seemed to be saying it was a place to develop ideas, and this idea would affect other places, not just DYK. You brought it back here because you said this project was the decision maker on this issue, but I think you were saying this project is the decision maker on whether to protect DYK, which obviously we should. Is an RfC here a better place to brainstorm this than Idea Lab? valereee (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC) ETA Maile66[reply]
Others need to weigh in here, not just me. My personal opinion, is that issues affecting a project are decided at the project. Until (and if) the project has a consensus that requires action higher up at Wikipedia. If you not doing a formal RFC, then start a new Section Heading asking for consensus. Or maybe a subsection of this thread. But below that should be three separate subsections: Support, Oppose and Discussion. Or however you want to do it..You have to have consensus here before anything can happen. — Maile (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66 I hate to keep doing this to you, and you've been extremely patient with a discussion that clearly doesn't enthrall you (for which I thank you) but the reason I wanted to go to idea lab was because I wasn't ready to propose anything and have people !vote. I just want to discuss the germ of a seed of an idea that would represent a big change, and find out what kinds of better ideas there might be. Again, apologies for all the pinging, you must be getting pretty irritated with me by now valereee (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FINAL COMMENT, I will not respond further on this issue. The discussion to alter any project policy should be had on the project's talk page. Here. End of discussion for me. Please do not ask for any other input from me. — Maile (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flibirigit How do you know "where the majority of admins live"? Nobody knows, not even the Wikimedia Foundation. To become an admin, no personal information is disclosed. It is based on editing history and being nominated at WP:RFA. We currently have a little over 1,000 admins on Wikipedia. You can't even tell by an admin's focus on editing topics, for the same reason people read books and like entertainment about places other than where they live. I've been around over a decade, and my personal guess would be that the majority of admins are either European or somewhere in the Asia-Pacific area. But that's only a guess. For all I know, there could be an secret admin enclave in Peru. I haven't yet figured out where the recurring DYK admins are located. — Maile (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, unbundling this is a great idea. The simplest way to do it would be to unbundle the edit-protected flag, and then give that to a few trusted users. To be honest, though, it wouldn't change things a whole lot. We have about four editors here at DYK who do a lot of promotions to prep but are not admins, who would potentially benefit from this user-right: but really what we need is more people to be active, so that the work is spread among a larger group. I would support the creation of this userright, but previous discussions that I know of haven't gone anywhere. Vanamonde (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93 Thanks -- it seems like even four more people would be a helpful start when we're talking about six empty queues less than two hours from a new DYK going up. And perhaps people might even be more likely to ask for this if they knew they were going to be part of a queuing team who were responsible for seeing an important job to its end. There's something uniquely satisfying about running that final leg of a relay. I guess I see it as something that at minimum slightly helps without much risk of harm. I would think this would likely only be given to people who could probably survive RfA if they wanted to put themselves through it. Can you give me any pointer in how to find previous discussions, like what archives/terms to probably search? If there really is no other option for developing half-baked ideas but to do a full RfC, I at least want to see what's been proposed before. valereee (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Valeree: I can try to find previous discussions, but it might take a while: in the meantime you could try searching the Village Pump archives for proposals related to unbundling that right. There might also be stuff at AN. Vanamonde (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: thanks, I'll go searching! And no worries, don't go to any trouble, just wanted your best guess where I'd find them! valereee (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

  • ... that on the 1939 American K2 expedition, Dudley Wolfe and three Sherpas died high on the mountain (K2 pictured) after the Sherpas had climbed from base camp to rescue Wolfe but he would not come down?
@Thincat: @SounderBruce: @Cwmhiraeth:
I'm having trouble finding the hook fact in the article with an inline cite. The fact that he refused to come down isn't mentioned in the lead at all. The hook should also mention the mountain; otherwise it looks like another mountain is pictured. Yoninah (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.. but it is mentioned in the second paragraph of "Second rescue attempt". I did check the reference before promoting the hook and have now added an extra reference. It was a "K2 expedition" so I don't think the mountain needs to be named again in the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) ::It isn't mentioned in the lead. It could be if this is necessary – I'd be happy to include it if you think it best. Would I then have to put a reference in the lead that is otherwise unreferenced? In the article the relevant section is in "Second rescue attempt", in particular "He was uninterested in the letters they brought and refused to go down, telling them to return tomorrow when he would be ready". The references are at the end of the paragraph so I've duplicated them at the end of the sentence. The nomination also details the sources here. Thincat (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Everything looks fine. Yoninah (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

prep 1

Just did my first move to prep for Alastair MacLlennan to the 'quirky' spot, someone might want to check my work valereee (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems. feminist (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: did you read the article? The page had been moved, so the bold link in the hook was a redirect. I corrected the link and also adjusted the DYK credit line. Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah yes, read the article quite closely, including the history, trying to follow all the directions for what to check before moving to prep and exactly how to move to prep and what to do with both pages after, which basically meant I had four different pages open at the same time and was moving bits here and there, checking for a pale blue background, checking to make sure there weren't extra bits of spare code left behind, etc. Must have missed the redirect because I was focusing on the directions. This is exactly why I asked someone to check my work. Thank you for catching that. valereee (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re the hook:
  • ... that Professor Alastair MacLennan and his wife Alice, both doctors specializing in reproduction, were caught by surprise and he had to deliver their own baby at home?
@Gronk Oz: @Iainmacintyre:
Re-reading the article, it appears that the specialty which Dr. MacLlennan and his wife shared was menopause, not "reproduction". Yoninah (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that didn't seem like a problem to me -- he's a gynecologist, she "received awards for her work in reproductive health"... maybe change to 'reproductive health'? valereee (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the hook facts have to be in the article, with inline cites. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: his career has covered a range of areas, so I like valereee's suggestion of changing to the broader term "reproductive health" - would you be happy with that? --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gronk Oz: yes, that also occurred to me. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1: Beattie

@The Rambling Man:@Dweller:@MX:
The last 8 words of the hook are copied from the source (they are not an exact quote, but an exact quote of the writer's words). I know about WP:LIMITED, but perhaps the word "seen" could be changed? Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this hook is satisfactory as it is. It is clear and accurate, whereas if you started substituting "he had ever come across" or somesuch it would no longer be accurate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the hook wording, although I'm not exactly happy with two repeated uses of the word "England" here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

queue 2 1 has a redirect

Robin Sparkles is redirecting to Robin Scherbatsky#Early life at Template:Did_you_know/Queue/1 valereee (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet reviews

User:Frayae has been identified as a sock. What should we do about his reviews?

I agree, a second review would be best. Flibirigit (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Arritt

As some of you are no doubt already aware, Raymond Arritt died a few days ago. He was an active Wikipedian, posting originally under his own name and later as user:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. His son, Sarritt, has confirmed the news in a post at a memorial on his father's talk page. IntoThinAir has created an article on Prof. Arritt and it is new enough to qualify for DYK. I think it would be good to see it nominated, with something that pays tribute to his work and Wikipedia contribution. However, I don't see an obvious hook to use, so I thought I'd post here and call for ideas. Many of us knew and respected SBHB and are saddened by his sudden death, and I hope we can discuss a potential nomination without unnecessary macro issues intruding. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? Flibirigit (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK ... that Raymond Arritt's research for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change led to sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize?
I will gladly donate a QPQ and submit a nomination a bit later today, maybe in a couple hours. Flibirigit (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we use his comment on that event, as a little hint at his kind of humor? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no harm in having more hooks proposed. Flibirigit (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better start the nom, and we do it there. I would if I had more time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Raymond Arritt, and am open to sharing nomination credits. Gerda Arendt, please feel free to add yourself! Flibirigit (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to access the discussion for hooks that are in prep?

Where are the discussions for hooks that are already in prep? I can find noms awaiting approval and noms approved, but not those already in a prep unless they were added to an article's talk page. Is there any handy page that lists discussions for hooks that are in prep? Thanks! valereee (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just create a new heading with the prep and name of the article in it that you have a concern about as you can see above on this page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) no, but you can just see what links to an article (on the left, "What links here" under Tools), and the nom will be among the links, typically one of the last links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the page to discuss hooks in a prep area. Flibirigit (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt thanks! The C of E Flibirigit sorry, I meant the review discussion, so I could go back and see what had already been discussed/decided before bringing something up. valereee (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To make it easier to find, especially if there are a lot of links, after you go to "What links here", select "Template" from the "Namespace:" drop-down. The easiest way, however, while it's still in Prep or Queue, is to go to the individual Prep or Queue (for example Prep 3 or Queue 4), and under "Credits" there's a link to "View nom subpage". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax said: The easiest way, however, while it's still in Prep or Queue, is to go to the individual Prep or Queue (for example Prep 3 or Queue 4), and under "Credits" there's a link to "View nom subpage". That's what I was looking for! Thanks! valereee (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 concern -- support for hook is from Bitcoin news

Prep 2 -- support for hook

... that during the 2018 cryptocurrency crash, pink Wojaks were used by traders to express their distress over losses?

is from Bitcoin news? What's bitcoin news?

valereee (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the news portion of Bitcoin.com. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SL93 Is that a reliable source? I don't even see it mentioned in the bitcoin.com article except a passing mention that they provide news, which could literally mean anything. valereee (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that bitcoin.com is a reliable source for cryptocurrency and the news side is part of that website if you pay attention to the URL. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a news source that literally didn't even have a redlink until I made one valereee (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link is literally Bitcoin.com. Bitcoin News is not even a separate property or website. SL93 (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but that's kind of my point: is it a reliable source for a hook, given that we know nothing about it other than that it's on bitcoin.com and they're calling it news? valereee (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of Bitcoin.com, which is a reliable source for cryptocurrency, and Bitcoin.com themselves are responsible for the news that is published. If someone searches for bitcoin information on Google News, they will run into bitcoin's news section depending on what they search. SL93 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we're going around in circles. The fact bitcoin.com exists and bitcoin news exists as part of their organization and can be found on the internet doesn't turn them into a reliable source. I'm trying to find any mention of 4chan plus bitcoin plus wojak and having a hard time finding anything outside of a nymag piece where bitcoin is only mentioned in the comments. I feel like this hook might not actually be anything other than anecdotal. Even the bitcoin news article doesn't clearly connect the pieces of the hook. valereee (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact bitcoin.com exists and bitcoin news exists as part of their organization and can be found on the internet doesn't turn them into a reliable source." I never said that. I'm done here. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okey-doke. Maybe someone else will chime in. valereee (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally time to remove "interesting to a broad audience" from the rules of DYK

So in three of the last four sets we've had:

In each case it's evident that the hook is desperately uninteresting and certainly not "interesting to broad audience" which is mentioned as part of rule 3a of DYK, to whit: The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. (bold comes from the rules page).

We've tried to cover this off a few times, but to no avail, yet we're now still seeing around one hook promoted to the main page (i.e. nominated, reviewed, promoted to a set and then promoted to a queue) which is clearly in breach of 3a. We've gone round the houses too many times. Either this rule should be enforced rigorously (like other rules, e.g. cited hook, long enough, QPQ passed etc) or it should be dropped entirely. This can't continue, drop the requirement or enforce the requirement. If you can't enforce it with current approaches, we need a new way to do QPQ to ensure such dross doesn't keep getting to the main page in absolute contravention of the DYK rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think we should be removing this rule. I find the Amazons hook quite interesting; the mythological tribe is known far less well than the river, which is what most readers would assume the sub was named for. The solution here is not to scrap it but to make the rule enforceable by fleshing out our definition of what constitutes a broadly interesting hook. I would be interested to hear proposals about that instead. I have a few ideas myself, but I'm too busy in RL to propose anything at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vanamonde here. Sometimes, "obvious" hooks can work if they impart new knowledge or teach something that might not be completely well-known to a broad audience. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the three hooks (in the past four sets) are clearly in breach of that rule. It's not being enforced, it should be scrapped. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an exercise, what is interesting to a broad audience about the third hook, for example? Remember, a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were already told that the tribe and the river have the same etymological background, so that's a non-starter. The only route to enforcing this is to pass the hook by more than just the four individuals who get it to the main page. Ironically, you Vanamonde unilaterally dismissed a hook which had four editors sanctioning it, and a fifth upon discussion, in favour of your own erroneous version which was then binned out through ERRORS, and then I withdrew as a result of your unnecessary tinkering. The only way to ensure "broad audience" engagement is through more eyes on hooks at promotion time. QPQ does not support that right now, nor does last-minute unilateral admin action. In the meantime (and not waiting around for the availability of one admin), the rule is unenforceable and should be scrapped. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Interest" is subjective. What could be considered "interesting" to one person might not be so for others, and vice-versa. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the three hooks (in the past four sets) are clearly in breach of that rule. It's not being enforced, it should be scrapped. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's being enforced in a significant majority of cases, but being missed in others. The argument that because it isn't being universally enforced it should be scrapped is rather like saying that all speed limits should be scrapped because the police don't pull over everyone going over the speed limit. Let's keep this rule, thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We should look into how it can be made easier to enforce, not dumping it altogether. There's a number of fairly concrete ways in which we can operationally define "interesting" and "broad audience": we should be looking to elaborate those concepts in a way that's broadly acceptable. The rule shouldn't be scrapped unless the principle behind it is flawed, and I cannot think of more than a couple of people who believe that it is. Vanamonde (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The project is failing to enforce one of the fundamental tenets of DYK. Either start to apply it properly (e.g. today's set has a hook about an actress who rehearsed, it needs to be pulled) or bin the requirement. But it is curious that one hook which had consensus even beyond the nomination that it was just fine was tampered with and made erroneous unilaterally, while this hook which has universal agreement of its blandness is just given a free pass on the main page. Little wonder the project as a whole is a laughing stock. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I erred in not double-checking the hook I promoted, but other than that, switching in a more interesting ALT hook is routine, and something you recommend frequently. If you think I misused my tools please feel free to raise this at ARBCOM. Short of doing that, continually accusing me of misbehavior in a forum not intended to resolve this is disruptive, so please stop. Vanamonde (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You edited against consensus, that’s what you did wrong. And you refused to restore the perfectly acceptable hook. And then you tried to claim it was all kosher and not even apologise for the double standards and disruption. You acted unilaterally on the hook I created but didn’t do anything about this one? That’s disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are shoehorning your belief that I acted inappropriately into a completely unrelated discussion which you initiated. And that's disruptive, if your purpose in opening it was really to discuss that DYK rule. Vanamonde (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No the clue here is in the inconsistency, why weren’t all these hooks modified or withdrawn? I give up, the continual deflection has worn me out. Please in future use a more consistent approach to boring hooks. That way things will not be so frustrating. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My approach in promoting them is consistent, TRM: yours was far from the only hook I've pulled, switched, or otherwise objected to. At ERRORS yesterday I had the time to perform a quick fix on an inaccurate hook, but not to engage in the lengthy discussion that would inevitably result from a pulled hook or a proposed modification. That's not inconsistency, that's practicality, unless you would rather I had let the error languish? I wasn't otherwise engaged in these other examples you mention. So, once again, are you complaining about my action in that instance (which is irrelevant here) or about why your examples above were not pulled (which is a valid question, but again, has nothing to do with me personally?) I'm happy to discuss the latter. Vanamonde (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, FTR, you "corrected" the incredibly boring hook that ran today over at ERRORS, instead of pulling it. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally what I said, TRM. Vanamonde (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the need for interesting hooks is vitally important for DYK. Could it be that part of the problem is the QPQ system, which encourages poor reviewing? Or the scheduling demands which mean huge amounts of meat are needed for the grinder, reducing the attention to detail. Both are fixable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think another possibly bigger problem is that editors feel entitled to have their articles included in DYK even when they cannot come up with an interesting hook. The assumption is that almost all eligible nominated articles will eventually pass rather than that we're doing any amount of filtering for interestingness. See e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Sheng Zhongguo where (as reviewer) I faced a lot of pushback and calls for a new reviewer after refusing to pass a boring hook (and refusing to pass it for other reasons too but the hook part is what's relevant here). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There also is no accountability for reviewers and no mechanism to let reviewers know of bad reviews to potentially improve them in the future or caution them to do a better job. Or remove them from the review process entirely if need be when there is a history of not actually reviewing nominations properly despite being cautioned. The quid pro quo system is fundamentally flawed, just as the name itself suggests really. In the end almost anything is fixable and it probably would not even take that much to reduce the number of similar issues that come up day after day after day. But no one heavily involved in the project wants to do that. So here we are, talking about the same problems with hooks every day, talking about the need to get a handle on that... And what comes of it time and time again? Exactly, nothing. Just anything, even the tiniest of reform would at least be something to get this project out of its apathy towards the problems. But i have little to no hope that will happen. 91.96.115.68 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

Unfortunately, I don't really see how this hook is interesting to a broad audience. The hook amounts to "local personality founded local organization": while it might be interesting to locals of Forth Worth, its interest to non-Texans may be questionable at best. Could something better be proposed here? The sentences "A bigamy scandal involving her sister's husband (and Fort Worth mayor), W.S. Pendleton, drove Anna Shelton to eschew traditional women's roles", "She ultimately became one of Fort Worth's first female real estate developers and homebuilders, a successful venture that gave her a reputation as a shrewd businesswoman", or her involvement in the women's suffrage movement all could work better than what has currently been proposed. @SaturdayLibrarian, SL93, and GDuwen: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current hook is very uninteresting. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DYK isn't something I have really worked with, but I'm happy to assist GDuwen or whomever craft a better hook. The bigamy scandal is pretty interesting tbh. SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with your analysis if the local organization wasn't notable and didn't have a reasonably well built article, but whatever I guess. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about ... that Anna Shelton was driven to eschew traditional women's roles because of a bigamy scandal involving her sister's husband, a Fort Worth mayor? SL93 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's more colorful, certainly, but I thought we were supposed to be avoiding unnecessarily negative or scandal-mongering hooks? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it’s nothing negative about the article’s subject which I thought was the issue. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly astounding DYK hook

".. that Hina Kino, who became a voice actress after her third year of high school, practiced "rigorously" for her first role?" Who'd have thought that an actor rehearsed for a role? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the section two above. The community are content to completely ignore the "interesting to a broad audience" requirement of DYK, at least one hook every other set should be failed due to this, yet it almost never happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than the actual errors that come out of this project but it still makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!
Well you see that's where my thoughts differ a little. If the process and rules around getting stuff onto the main page are being wilfully ignored, that, to me, is an error. We shouldn't just say "oh well, it's there now, regardless of the fact it's junk and failed to meet the basic requirements of DYK, we'll overlook it on this one (two, two hundred...) occasion". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pull it, then fine. Honestly I'm not really happy with the hook either (it wasn't my original proposal anyway, the one I originally wanted was rejected). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good response. Can you suggest an alt hook here? Let's fix it, rather than pulling it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I pulled it while you were writing your response. Fram (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Let's see if we can get it back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about this simple version of the first hook proposed: "... that Hina Kino was inspired to become a voice actress after watching a talk show"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:...that would almost suggest "... that Hina Kino was inspired to become a voice actress after hearing people talk"  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)
He's not Doug. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the banner at the top of my talk page explains, I'm more Doug-less. Sorry the ping, Doug. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll treat that as a serious response. I don't think so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the other individuals involved in this hook: Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah (reviewers), Flibirigit (promoter). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, never mind. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another hook on the main page under scrutiny

See WP:ERRORS, the hook relating to the Neil Matthews (footballer, born 1967) article is cited using a blog which almost certainly fails WP:RS. Shouldn't have made it to the main page, and probably should be quickly revised to something reliably sourced, or pulled. I've notified Kosack, but the reviewer and promoter should know too. Cwmhiraeth, Flibirigit. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been resolved, FTR: the source is considered reliable. [2], [3], [4]. Vanamonde (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=870930287"