Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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

Slow down

We've had a large surge in error reports for DYK, we've had problems balancing the main page since dropping to 7 hooks per set, can we please go back to 8 hooks but slow things down, perhaps even to one set per day. It's completely unfair on the ITN/OTD side of the main page to have to accommodate such meagre offerings from DYK and it's clear that the rush to try to get even 7 hooks promoted is causing more problems than it's solving. There's no deadline, I don't even know if the WikiCup is running or whatever, so why the need to rush the hooks through? Please, do us a favour and slow down. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

We've slowed down to 7 or even 6 a set plenty of times before and never had any complaints from ITN/OTD, why should it be any different this time? Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"Balancing" is still a thing in an age where screen sizes vary from mobile to 17.3" to 24"+? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at a main page with 7 hooks, and the last two (on my screen) are matched with white space in the ITN/OTD side. Going to 8 hooks would make the imbalance even worse. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

^my point exactly. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Bollocks I'm afraid. I was forced to reduce OTD to four items today because DYK had only six viable hooks. This is unacceptable. Deal with it or I will start to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And you are getting complaints, right now. ITN and OTD are relevant and useful and receive serious pageviews, while DYK is a little bit of fun. We cannot compromise the encyclopedic half of the main page because DYK can't get its act together. Eight hooks, SLOWLY. If not, then it will be easy for me to remove the last entry at DYK whenever I need to in order to balance the main page rather than continually juggle ITN and OTD to suit the vagaries and inadequacies of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not bollocks. I'm far from a DYK cheerleader, but the false notion of "balancing" the main page is (to a point, of course) straight from a decade ago. If you pointedly start removing DYK hooks from the main page for balancing reasons, I will revert you myself. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well perhaps you don't know what you're talking about. And doing that would be wheel warring and you would be de-sysoped, which, by the sounds of it, wouldn't be such a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, back from the hysterical ed, can someone explain why we can't just stick with 8 hooks and slow the rate down, considering we can't fill it properly and we have had a surge in errors because of lackadaisical promotions, prompted by the continued rapid demand for hooks? SLOW it down please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

... I think you need to go re-read WP:WHEEL. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to start trying to be part of the solution, not revel in being part of the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

On one of the suggestions you made above, where we would go back to eight hooks, and it would be up to you to delete whichever one you chose once it was out there, if you felt like it, but not always, sort of hit and miss if you felt it was needed, in order to attain balance. How would you decide which nominator's work gets short-changed, and would that hook be put back in the rotation for another chance? That part of it isn't good. I'm not debating the number of hooks with you, just saying it's not a good idea for you to yank a hook at will, just because you see the balance off. — Maile (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

No, if we went back to eight hooks we'd probably be okay most of the time unless hooks were pulled once on the main page through errors. As for "yanking a hook", that's precisely what we have to do to OTD to make it balance when DYK fouls it up. And I agree, it's not good, so DYK should work harder to avoid it happening to any section of the main page. People have worked hard on all parts of the main page, not just the fun DYK aspects, so it's unfair on them when DYK causes a mess by having fewer and fewer hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem here, folks, is not enough reviewed hooks. The other day, I could only build a couple of prep sets, and in the process I also approved about a half-dozen reviews that had been languishing with tags. I would suggest that qpq alone isn't getting us there, and that perhaps the solution is that anyone who has to put on a tag should also be obligated to find at least ONE article per day (as sometimes it IS necessary to tag multiple problematic articles that they can pass). But in the meantime, we HAVE gone to one set of hooks per day if needed, and that probably is preferable over fewer hooks. (Frankly, when I have an article at DYK, I kind of like it to stay there as long as possible while I tell all my wiki-friends and neighbors, ups the page view count, don't 'cha know? LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 01:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Inre: "How would you decide which nominator's work gets short-changed, and would that hook be put back in the rotation for another chance?" – It's likely that if a valid, qualified hook is to be pulled for balancing purposes, it would simply be placed in a different DYK Queue or back to a Preparation area, rather than the nomination being rejected or hook being erased. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly there would be no "punishment", so reinserting them to a later queue would be fine. But listen, what's the problem with going back to eight hooks and slowing the rate? That way we have a decent chance of not continually having to remove items from ITN and OTD (both were down to just four items yesterday because DYK had slipped to six measly hooks). If we don't have sufficient hooks to fill the sets, slow it down until we do. The rush seems to have resulted in poorer quality DYKs, with hooks being re-written on the fly or removed from the main page, with an increased frequency lately. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Using eight hooks and slowing the rate from time-to-time as necessary seems like it would be the easiest route in terms of making things easier for those involved with other aspects of Main page content. The rate of DYK queue time on Main page can be adjusted accordingly when necessary; slowed when there are lesser promoted hooks and sped up when DYK gets flooded with a bunch of new promoted hooks. It's not like it has to be set in stone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that's certainly my opinion, but there seems to be so much emphasis here on getting things rotated around the main page as quickly as possible, regardless of the lack of quality that ensues. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I keep hearing this assertion that if only we slowed down the number of hooks, quality control would improve, but why would it when it's still the same group of people applying the same procedures? All that slowing down the total number of hooks in that circumstance is likely to achieve is to reduce the amount of time people spend on DYK management, which isn't the same thing as quality control, at all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Why the surge in poor hooks/pulled hooks/errors in preps then? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that we are already promoting fewer hooks, by your reasoning there should have been a corresponding decrease in the number of problems, but since that apparently hasn't been the case, that would appear to support my argument. Gatoclass (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It's the panic to meet the 12-hour deadline that's causing the pisspoor promotions and errors. You know that, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support eight hooks. I'm a fan of working in unison with others to keep things running as smoothly and simply as possible. As such, I'm for using eight hooks on an adjustable/variable time rate for DYK content, based upon content levels in the DYK queues and preparation areas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral about how many hooks. Just for the record, I don't care how many hooks there are, as long as we are decided on what that should be. I don't want this dissolving into a constant edit war on this issue, so I'd like to see more opinions here than two or three people. And maybe some opinions from the very people who have "skin in the game", the people who promote to both prep and queue. — Maile (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment We have run with six and seven hooks for months at a time on many previous occasions, and there were never any complaints about main page imbalance. This just looks like a manufactured issue from a user who has long argued that the number of hooks should be permanently reduced to improve quality control - an assumption which I have pointed out above, doesn't follow. Speaking personally, I don't much care whether we run one set of 8 hooks for 24 hours or two sets of six or seven in the same time frame, but I strongly suspect that if we go to 8 hooks every 24 hours, the next step from the aforesaid user will be to attempt to make this arrangement permanent. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

  Why is there a need to push hooks through quickly? And no, if DYK can sustain a quality set of 8 hooks every 12 hours, brilliant, but right now it seems they can't sustain even 7 hooks that rapidly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, hooks must be either promoted or rejected at about the same speed as they are nominated. It's not a matter of "pushing hooks through quickly", but of matching the pace of nominations. There are a lot of potential methods of improving quality control at DYK, but merely reducing the number of promotions isn't one of them. Gatoclass (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not when you have a backlog of 170 already. Slow it down, as you have already noted it wasn't long ago that you had twice as many in the backlog. It makes little difference. Just stick with eight, and stop cocking the main page around. If you get to a backlog of 40 or 50, then worry. All that needs to happen (which has done lately) to address this in any case is that a set is delayed in promotion to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make now. Yes, we are all agreed that the current rate of promotion needs to be slowed a bit because it has been exceeding the rate of nomination. The question is how best to achieve that slowdown. As I already said, I don't really care what solution is adopted so long as there's a clear understanding that the solution is a temporary measure employed to increase the available pool of hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

My point is the same I asserted from the outset. Stick to eight hooks per set so the main page isn't cocked around every time DYK fails its "mission", and promote every day instead of every 12 hours until such a time that the DYK regulars feel confident that they can meet a more demanding schedule of an eight-hook set every 12 hours. It's really simple and much better and effective for the whole of Wikipedia than tinkering with the number of hooks, especially given the fact that if an update is missed, the whole equation goes out of the window anyway. If you don't really care, just say "Yeah, 8 hooks and slowed down to one set per day for a bit". That would be great and actually productive, unlike the majority of this discourse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that your real agenda here is to permanently reduce the number of promoted hooks. Sorry, but if that's your goal, you should start a debate about that, rather than attempting to use another issue as a trojan horse for your cause. Gatoclass (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you lying? I've already refuted your accusation and your bad faith. I have no such goal. What part of "slowed down to one set per day for a bit" don't you understand? Do you need me to help you understand that more, or do you wish to continue lying about me and my "agenda"? I just want DYK to stop cocking the main page up. Simple as that. You, on the other hand, are defending the indefensible and lying about me at the same time. Please retract your lies and we can continue the discussion on how best to deal with this obvious problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Rambling Man, please keep your cool. I am not "lying" about anything, I am merely responding to your own comments. You are the one who has continually conflated the issue of nomination deficit with that of quality control. This discussion has nothing to do with quality control, it's about ensuring we have an adequate pool of hooks. You started out by arguing that less than eight hooks in a set unbalances the main page, and is thus not a good way to rectify the hook deficit - which is a legitimate argument, even if I don't happen to agree with it - but now you are back on your hobby horse of quality control again. What I have tried to say above is that I think it's perfectly fine to be concerned about quality control and to raise it as an issue - but not in the middle of a discussion about something else. Gatoclass (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You are lying about my intentions. I am sick and tired of having to remove blurbs from ITN and OTD just to cater for the inadequacies of DYK. You have lied about my comments here and frankly I am sick and tired of you attempting to conflate my comments with other issues. Yes, quality is an issue and it's an issue that affects this too, we went to six hooks yesterday and that meant I had to reduce ITN and OTD to four hooks each. That's completely unreasonable. Stop lying and covering up the issues. And stop assuming bad faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No, The Rambling Man, I am not "lying" about your intentions, I have simply called it as I see it. With regard to the particular post that triggered this disagreement however, I concede that I may have misinterpreted your intended meaning and thus responded inappropriately, as a result of which I have struck said post. In return, I request that you retract the accusation of "lying". Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment We currently have about fourteen new DYK nominations on an average day. If we have two sets of seven hooks, the total number of nominations will remain about the same. If we had one set of eight hooks, the nominations would accumulate, so I think we should stay as we are at two sets of seven per day. What we do need however, is to make a bit of an effort to reduce the number of unreviewed nominations. If everyone that read this did one extra review, that would be a start (I aim to do two reviews for every article I nominate). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We want the overall number to accumulate a bit because the current 170 or so is a bit on the low side. A year ago the backlog was routinely around 340 hooks, which was high, somewhere in between is probably ideal. We just need to set the update size and time to a point where hooks are accumulating, the debate here is basically about the best means of achieving that. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, can you clarify the initial assertion, fourteen noms per day doesn't equate to fourteen promoted per day, how many promotions take place each day? If you increased to 8 per set, and base it on you initial assertion, you will use up the backlog in, what, 85 days?!! I think the system can adequatley handle that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we're finally back to historical norms in the 130 to 170 range; this isn't the low side at all. The climb up into the 300s was the aberration, and the resultant backlog was enormous. The 200s were also a problem; we're finally at a point where most hooks are promoted when they're still relatively recent. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that 300+ was obviously excessive, although I think we handled it surprisingly well. I don't know though that "130 to 170" is the ideal range, I regard 120 as an absolute minimum below which we should never go and 150 is uncomfortably close to that IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Having refreshed my memory—all those years of assembling "oldest nominations needing reviewers" posts—I think you're right about the low end: while we did have total nominations in the 130s on a number of occasions, we didn't have a decent number of them reviewed, which caused strain when assembling sets. I don't think 170 is a level that we need to worry about, especially with over 50 of them approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If the problem is a lack of noms getting reviewed, we could always reduce the QPQ exception for beginners from 5 DYKs to 3. I think most people should have a fairly decent grasp of the DYK process by the time they've nominated three articles. I know I did. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think part of the problem, ironically, is that as we've become more stringent about checking DYKs, we've increased the labor needed to check each nomination, which means people are less likely to do reviews outside of needing a QPQ, and thus the reviews get done hurriedly whenever the queues run dry, which seems to happen pretty often now. Perhaps we should consider how to make each individual review less burdensome while still maintaining quality. Many of the criteria are currently checked through semi-automatic tools such as DYKcheck and Earwig; a couple more could be added to this, such as checking hook format and length, or flagging articles that don't have a cite for each paragraph, or whether QPQ is needed and has been done. Perhaps we could fully automate these through a bot posting to each new nomination. The only things that really need to be checked by a human are whether the sources are reliable and whether the article (especially the hook fact) accurately reflects those sources. Everything that could possibly be automated, should be. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Antony-22. You said:

, or flagging articles that don't have a cite for each paragraph,

I want to point out that per supplementary guideline D2, one cite for each paragraph is a "rule of thumb" not a rule. If an article is 5 paragraphs long and has 55 citations, I don't think it should necessarily be held back if one tiny paragraph is not cited. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, anything a bot does is subject to sanity check by humans. The precise details weren't the main point of my suggestion, though; I'm saying that we should find ways to reduce the burden on reviewers in general. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Quantity is not a factor in accuracy

Taking my own advice above, I have some skin in the review game in just about every review process on Wikipedia. Some more than others. And you know what? There's not a ONE of them that is error free. And why is that? Oh, dag-nab-it, we imperfect human beings have a way of being flawed. Besides which, I don't know if anybody on Wikipedia is an expert on every subject matter under the sun, but they go through their check lists and do the best they can. As far as I know, the other review processes don't get flogged on a semi-regular basis by people who could actually help out by, at the very least, for instance, eyeballing the hooks in prep well in advance of their being promoted to queue.

And, dang, if I'm not frustrated by some review processes where somebody missed the obvious...sometimes it's not discovered for months or years down the line. And while I'm not admitting to missing anything, ever, on a review, I do admit to being human. And you can add to that, I have it on good authority (I'm not naming names) some review participants don't seem to know which end is up, and yet the poor frustrated nominator has to accommodate their "corrections". There are times I go through an article and wonder why somebody didn't catch the obvious-as-the-nose-on-your-face flub-up, but I just don't have it in me to flog those processes. I'm also not admitting to having had more than one TFA article where while it's awaiting its day in the sun, either I or somebody else, caught an error missed by a whole slew of reviewers all the way back to Peer reviews.

For everyone who is really out of sorts about errors, I get it. Right off hand, I can think of one particular failed nomination (not DYK) where the reviewers listed specific reasons for failing it, and the nominator resubmitted it through the same process with very few corrections, and it went flying towards passing.

If you want to discuss changing, or not changing, the number of hooks in a set, and the frequency, go for it. But the number of hooks has nothing to do with accuracy. It's those darned pesky human flaws that get us every time. There are a number of regular editors/admins who have been working hard on this project for a long time. Beats me why, since the very process of helping out qualifies a person for the Rodney Dangerfield Award. — Maile (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

All of which is, well, fascinating, but doesn't address the initial post. Please stick to eight hooks per set and if you're running out of hooks, either prepare some more or slow the rate down. The continual tinkering with the section on the main page is unfair on the other aspects. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Preparing some more seems like a good idea. I don't understand the initial premise for this proposal (subjective page-balancing?), but if DYK is running low on reviewed/promoted nominations maybe we should encourage editors to temporarily review extra, like two for each nom? Or G S Palmer's suggestion, though I'm not sure how prevalent new DYK editors are. Fuebaey (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed

Several of us are not understanding this page balancing issue. Where's the evidence that there's a significant problem, please? As I look at the main page currently, there's a bit of white space under the DYK section but that's no big deal. If that's the issue then one could just as well say that the OTD section is too big. That's mainly due to OTD's blurbs being too wordy, using three lines per item instead of DYK's two. There's also a line at the bottom on that side which doesn't seem to belong there. It currently reads "Current date: May 31, 2016 (UTC) Reload this page". Shouldn't that be at the foot of the page instead? Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As you and your edits have been called out as a "time sink", and have had no fewer than five admins ask you to stop wasting our time, I feel under no obligation to respond to your requests any further. If you have an issue with the design of the main page, take it somewhere relevant. In the meantime, best stick to doing what you do best, whatever that is. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The front page seems nicely balanced to me on my screen. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, because some helpful admins have to spend time each time DYK changes its output balancing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Today ITN has six items and that seems ok. I reckon the main weirdness is the set of links underneath ITN. These currently read:

More anniversaries: May 31 June 1 June 2

Archive By email List of historical anniversaries

Current date: June 1, 2016 (UTC) Reload this page

There are some entries there which don't seem to belong to ITN -- the "By email", "Current date" and "Reload this page" links. These are page level links for the entire main page and so look wrong being buried in a section. Today, they would fit better in a corner of the FP which has huge amounts of white space. If those entries were removed from ITN, then the ITN archive links could be consolidated into a neater single line which might help provide more space for entries. Andrew D. (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss reorganising the main page, this is not the venue to do it, as you well know and have already been told. Stop wasting your own time and wasting our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

TRM, you seem to be the only person arguing (at length) for this proposal. Several editors have asked you to clarify and/or explain in detail how this would benefit DYK. You have either: not done so fully, or ignored/dismissed those who disagree with you. If you're unwilling to clearly demonstrate that there is a problem that this proposal solves, without resorting to bludgeoning the discussion, I would recommend walking away from this. Fuebaey (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. And if I need to remove the odd DYK to make sure it's not making the main page lopsided, I will. End of discussion. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Experiment concluded?

There has been a very argument that all DYK needs to do is "slow down" and the quality will improve. As @Gatoclass: notes above this is clearly not true. As you slow down. and those who are still involved spend their time here debating minor issues, the main benefit of DYK is lost. Projects that used to submit hundreds of articles now submit a few. The new wikiarticles that are being produced are not being submitted to DYK. They are suffering in terms of lower quality as they are not getting the DYK overcheck. Editors like the DYK overcheck but it too frequently comes with insults and disparaging bullying. This project is almost at the point of reducing quantity to zero in the belief that quality will be increased. Isn't it about time that you abandon that objective? You have tried it and if has worked then no one has noticed. The only people who have noticed are the editors who are choosing to stay away. Actually the new articles that are being produced are not being submitted here. I know that there are other editors who would submit here if we/you were capable of controlling the bullying voices who are indulged here. Victuallers (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to place this in the right place? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1 credit errors; admin, please fix before 12:00 UTC

There are three credit errors that need an admin's fix before the queue hits the main page in just under five hours:

• the second credit is a DYKmake "Example" one that should have been removed; please remove it
• the fourth credit is a DYKnom that duplicates the DYKmake before it (same username, Chevvin): please remove this DYKnom
• the sixth credit is also a DYKnom that duplicates the DYKmake before it (same username, Homiho): please remove this DYKnom

Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've fixed this but could you check that I did it right as it's actually the first time I've edited a DYK queue? I just happened to see this and decided I could help out. anemoneprojectors 09:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks great, AnemoneProjectors. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Most popular" lead hook removed from Queue 5

• ... that Jacky Lafon (pictured) accidentally received a serious electric shock from a defibrillation machine while filming Familie, the most popular soap opera in Belgium?

Template:Did you know nominations/Jacky Lafon @Checkingfax, Intelligentsium, Yoninah, Maile66, and Casliber:

Familie is not "the most popular soap opera in Belgium"; the claim is not made in the article, and wouldn't be true anyway, as Thuis generally has about 30% more viewers, with days that it reaches double the audience of Familie (e.g. [1]. This has been consistently the case since about 2004[2] so not a new development. These are the numbers for a recent week. At the same site we can see that for the whole of 2015, Thuis was #9 of the most viewed programs in Flanders, while Familie was #80. You get the same kind of results for all previous years (going back to 2009). (I only discuss the viewing figures in Flanders, but viewing figures for Flemish series are minimal in Wallonia anyway) Fram (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why not just reword it as "... while filming the soap opera Familie"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Because, if the review missed something as basic as this (a fact that isn't even mentioned in the article!), I would very much prefer a new review, not a fix for the most obvious problem which may miss other problems. The review clearly wasn't done correctly, so needs to be redone. Fram (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Fram. Can you please trim it and then restore it as such:

• ... that Jacky Lafon (pictured) accidentally received a serious electric shock from a defibrillation machine while filming the Belgian soap opera Familie?

Thank you for your consideration. Cheers! (Ritchie333 and BlueMoonset) {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax, can you please restart the nomination so that a correct review can happen? Thank you! Fram (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: (or any other admin for that matter), please remove the unreviewed hook from the queue. The nomination was already reopened when you readded the changed hook to the queue, meaning that you essentially added an unreviewed hook from an open nomination to the queue. That's not the way to go for DYK... Fram (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed that hook, but it does need to be replaced by something with a pic in less than 10 hours. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, why not replace it with the lead hook from either Prep 6 or Prep 1, to avoid this very fate? Admins are not always thick on the ground when you need them. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

OK I will give it a go. I have never built any prep before. If I move the hook I will ask you to check the result is correct!

Done, @BlueMoonset: can you check prep1 and q5 are correctly altered? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Superlatives

DYK seems to regularly have some issues around "most', greatest", all the "-est's" should we have a rule or guide, here. Eg.,

  "In general, try to avoid unqualified or un-contextualized superlatives ([examples]) . . . When in doubt, leave it out."

Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Examples please. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was the one right above that triggered this. I recall awhile ago, one I was reviewing a nom where the claim was 'greatest woman athlete', and I just suggested an alt (which became the one approved) because although some laudatory source had written 'greatest woman athlete', it just seemed too puff/nonsubstantial/gimicky. (Maybe just require multiple substantial sources in DYK articles for such most/oldest/best/earliest/latest/ claims.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It ought to be down to the reviewer to realise that unreferenced hyperbole is not encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

But there is no good reason not to tell the reviewer and the proposer what to look for, when it is an issue that naturally arises - superlatives are just in their nature 'click-baity' of the type that would warrant a word of general skepticism and restraint. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I queried just such a claim here, but my intervention has been very unwelcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There's plenty of stuff a reviewer and proposer need to be sure of when writing encyclopedic articles. DYK is not the only place these things need to be carefully monitored. We would be better served (if absolutely required) to point our reviewers and proposers to the relevant portions of the MOS or various policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

We already do that in the DYK instructions, so that's not helping. Moreover, we are also more specific with the hook instruction at Wikipedia:Did you know#Content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well we should monitor our reviewers and proposers more closely. We can't give them instructions on all the minutiae they need to consider, either they're good enough to recognise encyclopedic writing or they're not. More importantly right now, we should be having a rule or a guide: "don't promote unreferenced hooks to the main page". That, by far, supersedes any need to worry about the tinier aspects of hook writing. In fact, as you pointed out yourself, you based this comment on the preceding thread. A thread which demonstrated that, yet again, the review process failed because a reference wasn't checked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That's already stated on the DYK page, so that broad statement is not helping - specifically people are not being skeptical and reticent in dealing in hook superlatives (which is an easy thing to advise them to be with the hook) and sure may have the added benefit of reinforcing the broad language.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern on this. We don't have the man (woman) power to enforce this. Rules and guidelines are on at least three different pages, and doing a single review already takes considerable time. Even the best volunteers miss the obvious now and then. Not all nominators and reviewers have English as their primary language, but Wikipedia doesn't discriminate. Everybody tries to notice things like close paraphrasing, copyvio, licensing. But if you look at enough hooks and articles, you miss things. It happens. We're all human. But as important as this is to you, we don't need to add one more rule. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there's nothing special here at all. All articles, hooks, blurbs etc should be written encyclopedically. If reviewers and promoters aren't doing it then they should be asked to stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• I just picked out one of these: "... that the country of Jordan was the first Arab state to recruit women to its police force?". In that case, Oman seems to have done this first but it's easy for sources to miss such counter-examples. I agree with Alanscottwalker that any superlative should be especially checked because they are so often incorrect. It's not enough to check that there's a source for the claim. You also have to check for counter-claims of a similar sort. Andrew D. (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  This is not a DYK-exclusive issue, it's about the encyclopedia, but DYKs are queued up at WP:DYKQ. Feel free to check them before they get to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why the admins are arguing that this is just "one more rule". We have been inundated with women "firsts" and men "firsts", and so many of them are shot down on this very talk page. We definitely need to add a rule like Alanscottwalker has suggested. "You have to be very sure that it really is the first before suggesting it here. Often, you can find another fact that is just as, if not more, hooky." Yoninah (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If reviewers and promoters are incompetent enough to not thoroughly check a hook, they should be advised not to perform the task going forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

True, but writing out an extra rule that for such hooks (and many others, by the way), not only we require the basic check that the hook is supported by the source should be done, but also the additional check that the hook fact isn't contradicted by other reliable sources, will help reduce the number of such incorrect or at least disputed hooks. Fram (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it. The current massive swath of rules doesn't seem to help with even fundamental issues of referencing hooks, so I can see no tangible gain from adding yet another one. In fact, it's more likely to be hinderance as it will turn even more people off trying to understand the various esoteric aspects of this arcane process. We could use just one rule: "Write interesting hooks and make sure they're not erroneous." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that works for me. Many hook writers don't understand the word "hook". Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

QPQ credit

I just did a review here: Template:Did you know nominations/James Bond (naval officer). I have no idea how I missed that there was already a review. However, I think my review was thorough and detected important issues. Is this suitable for me to claim a QPQ? EdChem (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There can be more than on reviewer on a nomination. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Earwig is down

Earwig's copyvio detector is currently not available on the nomination template. It was off the template for a month, and just recently restored. However, no matter what article I try to search, even if it's not DYK, I get an error message: An error occurred while using the search engine (Yandex XML parse error: Opening and ending tag mismatch: meta line 39 and head, line 70, column 8). Try reloading the page. If the error persists, repeat the check without using the search engine. And no matter which article I search, the error message always has meta line 39 and head, line 70, column 8.— Maile (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It worked for me tonight just fine, though rather slow.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Handling close paraphrasing / plagiarism issues

I recent did a review in which I identified close paraphrasing issues. I wonder, given that these can be copyright issues as well, whether raising it for the nominators is sufficient. I would appreciate advice, both for this specific case and the general case. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is another. EdChem (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If you have copyright concerns, I'd suggest tagging the article and spotchecking the editor's other contributions for potential issues. That being said, I think some of the examples you're citing are unproblematic - there's only so many ways to say "He became Managing Director of the merged Hazlitt, Gooden & Fox in '1973 and succeeded as Chairman in 1992", and IMO "He was managing director of Hazlitt, Gooden & Fox from 1973, until 1992, when he became chairman" is a reasonable paraphrase. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so here's a new list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all the non-current hooks (through May 28). As of the most recent update, 60 nominations have been approved, leaving 117 of 177 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

• April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Mahavira
• April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/2015 NBL Canada Finals brawl
• April 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Jacky Lafon
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Manthos Papagiannis
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Trinity Green (building)
• May 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Alison Sheridan
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Akashi District, Hyōgo
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/High heel policy
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Shriya Pilgaonkar
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Alice Powell Lindsay
• May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Leuroglossus stilbius
• May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Falih Rıfkı Atay Nature Park
• May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/George Coulthard
• May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/RLV-TD
• May 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Sekrenyi festival
• May 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Handan Biroğlu
• May 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Samurai Jack (season 5)
• May 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Bar Yochai (song)
• May 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Autonomy Cube
• May 25: Template:Did you know nominations/May Booth Talmage
• May 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Ricky Williams trade
• May 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Faauuga Muagututia
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Ein as-Sahala
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Play It Again, Dick
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Grey-crowned flatbill (two articles)
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Ayşegül Pehlivanlar, Aysel Özgan, Çağla Baş (three articles)
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/S Doradus
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Phillipsburg Union Station
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Shumen Plateau Nature Park
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Ariel Award for Best Director
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Guillaume Allard-Caméus
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Unity (military operation)
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Give Me Your Everything
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Korean student movement
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/FFFFOUND!
• May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/2001 Molson Indy Toronto
• May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Gaëlle Ghesquière
• May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Transformers: The Last Knight

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) 02:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

I had just finished accumulating hooks in Prep 2 and was going to edit one of the hooks (Pleas Jones) when the prep set was moved to the queue. Please could someone change the word "person" to "justice" in the fifth hook of Queue 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Image for Autonomy Cube

I recently added an image to the article, it might fit better than the current image in Queue4. Distrait cognizance (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The image in any set of hooks comes from the lead (top) hook. In Queue 4, Hove Town Hall is the lead hook. — Maile (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the hook should be moved to a set without an image. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep/Queue template formatting

I don't know how many people have utilized this, but if you click on any filled prep or queue (not on the edit link) so it opens in its own page, there is this message down on the bottom of the page:

See how this template appears on both today's Main Page

(Queue 1) (Queue 2) (Queue 3) (Queue 4) (Queue 5) (Queue 6)

(Prep Area 1) (Prep Area 2) (Prep Area 3) (Prep Area 4) (Prep Area 5) (Prep Area 6)

...and tomorrow's Main Page

(Prep Area 1) (Prep Area 2).

Viewing the template on the current day's Main Page works fine. But if you try to see it on the next day's Main Page, it's not as advertised. I can't help but think this used to work better and somewhere got messed up. Can this be corrected in some master template? — Maile (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 misleading link

that Henry L. Haskell invented the game of carroms (1900 vintage board shown) to keep young boys out of pool halls where they might develop bad habits?

The "game of carroms" is misleading linked to the Carrom Company and not the "game of carroms" (which has its own article Carrom, variously capitalised and uncapitalised, and is described in the singular). Suggest the game itself is linked (and the text is unbolded), or the hook is modified to actually discuss the company itself so the link is not misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Providing an alternate revised hook.

... that Henry L. Haskell patented through the Carrom Company a game board (1900 vintage board shown) to keep young boys out of pool halls where they might develop bad habits?

• @The Rambling Man: Will that work.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  Much better, perhaps:

  ... that Henry L. Haskell patented a game board (1900 vintage board shown) through the Carrom Company to keep young boys out of pool halls where they might develop bad habits? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Your improved version works for me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK is WAY overdue

I guess the bot went awry and didn't notify us, but the last update to the main page was over 20 hours ago. No prep areas are full to promote to queue. I can only answer for my own method, but checking each hook against the article and source is time consuming, and probably should be. I have pulled hooks and asked nominators for various corrections. So, maybe we will miss the next deadline. The world won't end. But please make sure the hook is stated in the article in a way that is easy to spot, and sourced. Especially if the hook is about a subject matter that has its own unique terminology - science, sports, religion. And the more eyes on those hooks the better, because I come across subject matters that I have no background on and end up crossing my fingers that I checked it all correctly. We all need each other checking. — Maile (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you spot the section immediately above this? Bencherlite^Talk 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Are you kidding? The bot left a message for you 10 hours ago. See the preceding section. As I said, slowing things down right now wouldn't be a bad thing, as it's happening organically in any case. Might as well formalise it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Bencherlite I saw the mention above, and I was not online for hours before and afterwards. But there's usually more than one bot message. The one above was the 2-hour advance "almost overdue" warning, which is often left up even after it's been taken care of. There's usually more warnings, and sooner or later somebody starts filling preps before the deadline. If not, there's a bot that tells us we definitely missed the deadline. That's what I'm saying...all those other bot messages just didn't happen. — Maile (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There have been three such warnings in the past two weeks. I guess the process is trying to work too quickly for its own good. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, I rather suspect that you're wrong in thinking that there's usually more than one message: see the last 499 edits the bot has made to this talk page going back to December 2012 show no such warnings. Bencherlite^Talk 21:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Really? Maybe that was selective memory, since I've only really had to pay attention to filled and promoted preps for about a month. Amazing what we believe happens, when other people are the ones keeping an eye on things. This is O/T, but I just noticed this talk page has 690 watchers. So many looky-loos, and so little participation. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There are two full preps now. Even though it doesn't have that functionality, it might be an idea to ask the bot owner to implement the overdue notice. An alternative would be to have a ping list of users to massmessage in case of a backlog like this; I'd be willing to be on it. Intelligentsium 21:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I pulled one of the hooks from Prep 2. — Maile (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Beat me to it! I was about to pull that one as well. Intelligentsium 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

We are so late. We might as well let the current hook-set on MainPage sit for another hour or so, and then let the next hook-set go on MainPage at midnight UTC. BTW, are we really going for 24-hour shifts? We need a decision soon. We have to handle the upcoming date requests accordingly. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have one set in queue. Do I need to do anything else, or it will just load on the main page an hour from now? — Maile (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Too late. The bot just moved it to the main page. But no other queues are filled, so it can't replace it in an hour. — Maile (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

...that the grassland sparrow is a "secretive" bird? Why are there scare quotes around secretive? Are scare quotes not frowned upon in the manual of style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.27.138 (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think those are scare quotes, that's the wording in the source. They're there to show it's not the Wikipedia author anthropomorphizing the bird but a quote from The Birds of South America. Intelligentsium 00:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we need one more hook

The DYK section looks quite empty with 7 and there is an unsightly space at the bottom. Maybe today's ITN and OTD are especially long? It's probably possible to cannibalize one from one of the preps. Intelligentsium 02:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. I have mentioned this above and was shot to pieces by many of the DYK regulars who claim no such problem exists. DYK being short of a hook and using particularly short hooks (and oftne having to have hooks pulled from the main page) causes a main page inbalance. That's why I've advocating going back to 8 hooks and slowing the update rate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've charged three more prep areas, so you can move some to the queues. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed areca nut hook from main page

I think we need to change the previous section title to "looks like we need 2 more hooks". This is the result of not having anything in the prep areas and thus not having enough time to check the hooks before they hit the main page, I suppose.

• ... that areca nut production in India accounts for 75% of world output?

Template:Did you know nominations/Areca nut production in India @Maile66, Nvvchar, Biruitorul, and PFHLai:

This may have been true at one time (the source seems to be about 1990-1991), but has steadily dropped since. This article from an IOSR (International Organization of Scientific Research) journal from 2013 cites the FAO estimate, which gives India 53% of the world production, still impressive but far removed from 75% of course. Going straight to the FAO, they give a 2013 world production estimate of 1224125 tonnes, of which India produced 609000 tonnes, or nearly 50%. Fram (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

To give an idea of the short timeframe for hook checks: this hook was promoted to the preps at 20.40, and put on the main page at 23.03. This is 2 hours and 23 minutes between promotion and main page appearance, which obviously isn't enough by a mile. 06:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Too many cooks

There's a topic up at the moment: Gaby's Deli. The hook which I wrote for this was approved by the reviewer:

• ... that Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn campaigned to save Gaby's Deli (pictured)?

this was then substantially altered in a series of edits in the preparation area.

• ... that British politicans Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn campaigned to save Gaby's Deli? [3]

• ... that former Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn campaigned to save Gaby's Deli? [4]

• ... that then-Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn campaigned to save Gaby's Deli? [5]

The result of this transformation is awful. What started as a tight hook has been bloated with redundant links and asides to the point that the main subject is pushed into the background. Such extensive editing was not subject to any formal review or discussion. Neither myself nor the original reviewer were notified or consulted. Instead, we just find out the hard way that our work has been butchered and, now that it is on the protected main-page, we are unable to revert this.

The work people do to assemble hooks and put them on the main page is appreciated but please can they resist the temptation to tinker with the hooks. This is an affront to the original editors who approved the hook and risks introducing errors. We have a formal review process for hooks and so out-of-process changes are therefore quite improper.

Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)