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.

New rule proposal

It seems that there should be some sort of rule regarding commercial subjects. I have nominated books on their release dates, tv shows for their premier dates, movies for their premier dates and albums on their release dates at DYK. Each time there has been all kinds of confusion on what is appropriate. In most cases after timeconsuming debate, I have been able to convince people that if the hook is not promotional of the subject it is appropriate. Most recently, the hook did not run on the desired date due to this concern. Can I or someone else write a rule so that we can refer to it in the future?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the special occasion holding area is one of three Nominations subsections, I added a special occasion subsection to Wikipedia:Did you know.[1] The top of that page notes: "The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review. This publicity rewards editors for their contributions." The factors I listed in the special occasion subsection generally are based on that. The one reading "bringing additional publicity to the new or expanded article is more important than the additional publicity brought to the article subject" is meant to address your concern above. Obviously, the text can be modified. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That rule does not really address the issue that has concerned reviewers and will not lessen the time wasted arguing about timely non-promotional hooks on commercial subjects. The guidance that is needed is something about how timeliness of the date request is an important element of the date request section and in cases where the subject is commercial in nature the reviewer is suppose to guide against hooks that are promotional, but not just commercial hooks that are timely. The confusion that I repeatedly have to expend energy explaining to reviewers is that reviewers think a timely commercial hook is prima facia promotional even if it does not present content that promotes the commercial content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - It may be that reviewers in the past focused on the hook itself since there were rules for promotional hooks but no rules by which to additionally deal with the special occasion date request. Now that there is something on the Wikipedia:Did you know page that addresses special occasion date requests, nominators should be able focus more on whether an admin should list an approved hook on the date requested rather than mixing that with the separate hook review performed under Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook. I added to the section to address your concerns.[2] -- Jreferee (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Both items 2 and 3 in this section are now more a point of confusion than anything else. WTF does "whether the editor's contribution merits additional reward" (item 2) have to do with evaluating a hook. What is the additional reward that is being considered. Is having a DYK on the main page considered a reward and having it on a special day an extra reward. I have never even heard this logic in a DYK review and I have been involved in over 1000 of them. Reward? That word needs to be struck from the rule. We don't promote hooks as a reward as far as I know. Item 3 is stated in a way that is likely to lead to more time consuming debate rather than give timesaving guidance. The whole addition is written as if to preserve the right to have muddling timewasting debate on the same issues over and over. What we need is a statement that we evaluate whether the hook is promotional of the subject. That is always what the debate is about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Evaluating whether the hook is promotional of the subject is covered by "The hook should be neutral" listed under Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook. Whether an admin should list the neutral/non-promotional hook on the date requested is what the special occasion section addresses. If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Wikipedia's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page. I revised old factor two to read "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" and then removed it. The present factor two is for editors like yourself so that your special date request should ordinarily be granted. That editor's 'contribution merits additional reward' information was there as of your 19:38, 15 November 2013 post above, so what's with the above WTF comment four days later?[3] -- Jreferee (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You speak as if you feel that being neutral and non-promotional are the same thing. The problem is that inexperienced reviewers feel that if a hook mentions a commercial item it is promotional. Let's take as an example a very simple statement about a commercial item. Let's suppose a fictional song is going to be released commercially and the commercial version of the song is twelve minutes long. This is an extremely long single and a hook could say something like. "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." That is an NPOV hook. It is an objective statement of fact. It does not even mention the fact that there is an impending release date for the single or a current ad campaign for its release. However, since the subject is a commercial product many reviewers would say this is promotional. Since it is not publicizing the impending release or current ad campaign it is not promotional (or at least the majority of my DYK reviewers have agreed on this type of subject that it is merely an intriguing fact about a record). Your statement above "If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Wikipedia's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page." is true but the majority of DYK reviewers in my experience have felt a hook like the one above is not making the main page "part of that external advertising campaign", which is where the rub is here. It took you four days to respond to this discussion, what is wrong with me taking four days to correct you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

T - I'm sorry it took me four days to respond to the discussion. (Feel free to ping me in the future.) Listing on the special occasion date is a way to get additional click throughs from the Main Page to the article so that more people read the article (and people reading what Wikipedia publishes is the point of writing an encyclopedia). Editors such as yourself should not be having the problems you mentioned getting your special occasion hook on the Main Page since your goal is to get more people to read the nominated article. I thought reviewing "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" would be able to help you out, but realized it does not address the promotional issue directly. Writing rule language to cover all situation is not easy and will improve over time as DYK reviewers address future special occasion request. I feel that a hook being neutral and non-promotional essentially are the same thing. Since new-reviewers are not treating it as the same, I added language in the special occasion section to address it.[4] If the special occasion section needs additional/different language, please let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, the phrase "mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional of that item or business" is moving in the right direction. I would add the phrase "in and of itself", "prima facia", or "per se". Furthermore, I would encourage you to remove discussion about rewarding WP with date requests. Timely hooks are a service to WP and not the editors. They make WP look good not the editors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - Revised and trimmed some more. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, I would change "in and of itself is not promotional of that item or business" to "is not promotional in and of itself", but that is really still going to be confusing. First this should be in a section called date requests rather than special occasion because not all date requests are for special occasions. Also, reviewers like to say, I am failing this for WP:DYK 3b or WP:DYKSG D4. Having this extra prose off in the corner somewhere is not really going to be helpful. What would be most help for us to have a set of itemized items of consideration for date requests formatted in a sort of bullet listed format like most of the other rules that are easy for reviewers to cite.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - I made some changes. That phrase may read better as "is not, by itself, promotional of that item or business." The items can be cited as WP:DYK DR1, WP:DYK DR2, etc. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee I don't understand 2. 3 & 4 seem redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - I revised 2. 4. only covers commercial items or business subjects + promotional. 3. is a more general statement for all subjects + non-neutral. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee Since I don't understand rule 2 please provide a sample fictional hook that would violate 2. Also, provide an example that would violate 3 that is not already covered by the standard NPOV rule WP:DYK EC4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - Rule 3 and 4 are not so much for reviewers to cite, but a way to lessen confusion on what is and is not appropriate to help focus the discussion on whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Rule 3 is more of a catch all. Rule 2 is a measure by which reviewers can indicted whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Without rule 2, that would leave a situation where an admin should list a hook on the date requested if the hook is not promotional of the subject. That would not allow reviewers to take into account the effect of listing a hook on the Main Page on the date requested. If you have an alternate wording to Rule 2, please post. I think the Date requests section is a reasonable framework that reviewers can apply. In applying it, it will be improved like all the other sections. There has been no input to this change to Wikipedia:Did you know other than you and myself. It may be worth it to open a new thread at the bottom of this page to receive additional input. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, I now see what 2 is saying. It is saying we hope to expose Subject X rather than promote Subject X. The tone of the listed items differs greatly from the rest of the page. Let's try this. 1. Change "The editor's contribution" to "article". Reconsider my fictional hook above "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." Then reexamine rule 2. I don't see how rule 2 will help to avert lots of timewasting back and forth on hooks like this. The may even preserve the right to argue about hooks like this. You still have not explained item 3 in any way that helps me understand an example of how it would apply. Please show me an example of how it would apply. Rule 4 "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business where the nominator requests that the hook be listed to coincide with a requested date, mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional in and of itself of that item or business." is way to long. Try "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business where the nominator requests that the hook be listed to coincide with a requested date, mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional in and of itself of that item or business."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger I made more revisions. For Rule 2, is the hook reviewer aware of something outside of Wikipedia to promote the subject on the requested date? In addition to that, there may be a variety of other circumstances that the reviewer needs to consider when indicating whether an admin should list the hook on the date requested. Some people maintain the position that paid editing is OK. Most do not. What standard is the hook reviewer to apply in that situation? There likely is a variety of other situation. Even if the hook is neutral and non-promotional, does listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article. Even if listing the hook on the date requested brings attention to the article subject, that is fine as long as listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article and secondarily brings attention to the article subject. If listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article subject and secondarily brings attention to the article itself, then it should not be listed on the requested date, but can be listed outside of that date if the hook meets the general hook requirements. WP:COI provides a similar balance consideration is "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia." As for examples, please provide a link to the discussion where the hook did not run on the desired date due and other hook requested dates you know of and we can run through each of the rules to see how they apply to those past situations and revise accordingly. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee Why is this written as if only admins move hooks to the prep areas? You should probably remove admin references. example 1 is the last controversial date request. This one was passively denied. Do you need me to provide a bunch of other examples?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger I made the revision. Yes, the example helps a lot, please provide a bunch of other examples, particularly the ones with detailed discussion on a date request (whether approved or not approved). The concern in example 1 above was the giving the appearance that someone is using Wikipedia's MainPage for "frontpage advertising" to promote commercial products, esp. on the first day the product is available for purchase. There probably is no way to overcome that since the person reading the main page likely won't be aware of how DYK operates. However, if an editor not connected with DYK would read the front page and then come to DYK and make such a complaint, the reply to such a complaint is to link to the nomination discussion and let them see for themselves that the issue was already considered now that the rules list a date request consideration separate from the hook consideration. Also, the new requested date section should help with deciding to move such hooks to the main page on the date requested. It's obvious that the main purpose of saving the hook for the November 5 (album release date) was to bring attention to the new or expanded article rather than the article subject. Muboshgu agreed with you. There was a discussion (so no need for a discussion on WT:DYK as requested on the bottom of Template:Did you know nominations/The Marshall Mathers LP 2). The date requested discussion did not stand out on the nomination page because it was not separately considered. I revised Rule 2 some what. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how easy it is going to be to dig these up. Here is one about a movie on its release date: Template:Did you know nominations/In a World.... More to come.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is one about a book on its release date: Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, I tried to make a late date request for the debut of this documentary on the talk page and it got ignored. Template:Did you know nominations/Benji (2012 film).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, I have dug from my 500th DYK about 2 years ago to present. Will it really benefit us if I keep digging?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think in some cases the date request element of the discussion occurred on the article talk or at DYK talk (like the first example above). I don't think I will find them all looking through the DYK discussion pages. I think there was one regarding my Tony nominees last summer on the DYK talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks to be enough examples. From Template:Did you know nominations/In a World...: "timing articles to coincide with commercial releases of movies, recordings, books, etc.: it feels too much like advertising, I'd let this one run whenever it gets picked", see F10 (linking to WP:NOTADVERTISING, "run several days after the premiere or before then, otherwise it would be too easy to level claims of advertising at DYK," "consensus seems to be that having something on the main page when it is in the news (even when it is about a popular culture topic) is not advertising in and of itself." From Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators: "will look like an advertisement if it gets featured on the front page" (Original hook read "that The Litigators is the upcoming John Grisham novel ...), "As long as there isn't much emphasis on the newness, it seems okay to me" (hook then was changed), "Getting there, but too much emphasis on the date" (All timing references were removed from hook and Alt5 approved). -- Jreferee (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - I made more revisions.[5] From the above, it looks like the main concern is the appearance or giving perception of using the Main Page for advertising, especially on the first day the item is available for purchase, which we discussed above. There are 12,000,000[6] daily Main Page views, and you can't make everyone happy. However, consensus is that having something on the main page when it is in the news (even when it is about a popular culture topic) is not promotion of the item in and of itself. The hook probably should not include language that increases a likelihood of a Main Page reader's perception of the hook being promotional. For example, if the article is about a something new that is going to be introduced to people on a particular date, then having a timing reference in the hook (such as "upcoming", "released on October 25") relative to that introduction date may raise reviewer concern that Main Page readers might perceive the hook is on the Main Page to bring attention to the article subject and level claims of advertising at DYK. I changed rule DR2 to read "The hook should not put emphasis on a commercial release date of the article subject." -- Jreferee (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going to have to dig for the stuff about the Tony Awards from last summer. I wanted hooks about best play/musical and best actor/actress nominees to run at the time the Tony Awards was being broadcast nationally. I will dig through the DYK talk pages and find those threads. There were two or three, IIRC. I'll get back to you later.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Having reviewed Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_93, I see that I misremembered the issues on that date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, going from memory, there was a discussion about whether the now-deleted former main image of Lucky Guy (play) (of Tom Hanks) should be used on the main page at the time the 67th Tony Awards were being broadcast. I can't find that discussion right now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Jreferee although I can't find the discussion, can you comment on whether using an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image would count as promoting a television show.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
      • TonyTheTiger - I was away out of town. I found Lucky Guy DYK nom, DYK 67th Tony Awards date request 5 May 2013 , DYK 67th Tony Awards date request 6 May 2013, DYK Notice and File:Tom Hanks 2012.jpg. I did not see anything in those discussions about concern over using the image on the Main page. From the other date requested discussions, the main DYK concern with a requested date seems to be a likelihood that an editor may level claims of advertising at DYK. Pieces of a hook by themselves may not increase that likelihood but the collective of the hook might. Whether an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image would count as promoting a television show over promoting the Wikipedia article would depend on context. However, the main issue seems to be the likelihood that an editor may level claims of advertising/promoting the television show at DYK for using an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image. That also depends on context. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Since you are an admin, can you temporarily undelete the Hanks file at issue and look for discussions referencing it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
          • File:Tom Hanks 2012.jpg was a commons file that was deleted at commons per "Removal of files added by User:Tom Sorensen: Impersonator account operated by Category:Sockpuppets of Chace Watson."[7] and then F2 Wikipedia deleted three days later.[8] The Wikipedia What links here shows discussions referencing it. The deleted page only contained {{db-noimage}} {{DYKfile|10 June|2013|type=image}}. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Jreferee, At some point we need to call for other eyes on the changes that we have made.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger, see the below thread here. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't undestand the purpose of that discussion. Why did you present an example that actually is promotional?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Calling Jreferee.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger - In listing the below discussion to call for other eyes on the changes that we have made, I wanted to focus on the rule changes so I posted an example towards that. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• So far the only respondent is confused. Not a good sign.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

12 hour cycle

IMO time to go to a 12-hour cycle for a while - the queue/prep area is totally empty and there are only 23 approved hooks listed at T:TDYK. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reset to a 12-hour cycle as there are very few approved hooks left at T:TDYK. It can be left at 12 hours for a few updates until the number of approved hooks increases. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Why was the settings reverted to 8-hour cycle? --George Ho (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Page views would be interesting for 12-hour cycles. Tony (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:DYKSG#D9

I just realized I forgot to nominate Olivia Pope, which was expanded on November 9 because another editor got involved in expanding this article before I was really ready to do so. Thus today (December 8), I created Template:Did you know nominations/Olivia Pope‎ and applied for WP:DYKSG#D9-eligibility.

BlueMoonset has decided to my request for three reasons totally unrelated to the common method used to determine DYKSG#D9 eligibility:

1. Tony, this is over four weeks old, well beyond the point that it might be eligible for an exception.
2. We have 178 nominated hooks, so there is no shortage of available material; the problem is the lack of approved hooks.
3. Worse, this is an article with a citations tag, with nothing to support the fictional biography—it's only plot sections that get a pass in articles like this—and the article still has major holes in it, including a completely blank second season section.

• With regard to reason 1: Note that DYKSG#D9 says: "Five days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations." The date eligibility for this rule is created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations (Currently September 29). Rather than use the date eligibility stated in the rule, BlueMoonset has reinterpreted the rule saying that "four weeks is excessive" when DYKSG#D9 clearly states otherwise. DYKSG clearly states that my article is date eligible with 41 days to spare.

• With regard to reason 2: In my experience, I have forgotten to nominate an article within 5 days probably about a dozen times. In all cases WP:DYKSG#D9 has been applied based on approved hooks although a strict reading of this rule does not say whether it is suppose to be based on approved hooks or nominated hooks. My request to employ DYKSG#D9 has never been denied when there was a shortage of approved hooks. Currently, there is a shortage of approved hooks leading us to employ 12-hour runs rather than the more standard 8-hour runs. I don't understand why BlueMoonset would employ the extremely unusual method of counting nominated hooks when what matters to keeping things going is approved hooks. DYKSG#D9 would never be possible if we ever counted nominated hooks because there are always a lot (over 100 or so) of nominated hooks.

• With regard to reason 3: The article is not in the best shape. DYKs nomination page is for guiding people to improve articles. If we only approved articles that were perfect prior to nomination, we would have no hooks to use. I requested that he give me 48 hours to clean up the article and he summarily closed the nomination as if there is some rush to close the nomination before it is two hours old. If you want to motive me to clean up this article make it DYK eligible now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be very interested indeed if someone could point out a previous article that was accepted over four weeks after expansion, and from an experienced DYK nominator at that. We typically allow minor exceptions: a few days late, rarely as much as a week: this nomination was 24 days late. That's frankly beyond excessive. Since Tony is doing extensive quoting of D9, let me highlight a part that he hasn't: "Otherwise nominated article may still be approved"—that's "may", not "must" or even "should be". It's left at the reviewer's discretion. We have 178 nominations, which is a high level looking back over the past couple of years, when we regularly aimed for under 150. Finally, Tony claims that "In all cases WP:DYKSG#D9 has been applied based on approved hooks" which is simply untrue: in fact, I've never applied it that way nor can I recall any reviewer applying it that way, it's the total hooks that's mattered. D9 says "large backlog of hooks" without any qualifier like "approved": submitted hooks can always be reviewed, but if there aren't submissions, there's nothing available to approve, which is why you might want to get more hooks even if they were a bit long in the tooth. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• 24 days late, but 41 days early according to DYKSG#D9. That rule says nothing about days late. Blue, I estimate my DYKSG#D9 approval history is approximately 11 approved and 1 denied prior to today based on DYKSG#D9. IIRC, all approvals were based on approved hook counts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Tony, I fail to see how a D9 exception would apply here. This was not expanded within five days of the nomination being transcluded, and thus there is no DYK credit in it unless you can expand further. Being a month late is well past the "9 days" when D9 was jokingly referred to as the Swahili rule. That article shall not pass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about where does 9 days come into play?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    • What date are you referring to of the nomination being transcluded?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Why doesn't D9 apply. It is the exception rule for 5days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's 5 days, Tony. If it's more than 5 days, you're asking for a favour and hope someone bends the rules for you. 24 days? I don't see any reason to bend the rules so far. There is the GA option now. BTW, the article, with an {Unreferenced section} tag and an empty subsection, cannot be used on MainPage till these deficiencies are addressed, anyway. Please re-nominate within 5 days after the successful GA review. Good luck. --PFHLai (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This is my first DYKSG#D9 application in the GA-DYK era. It now seems like a big deal to ask for this exception because of the GA option. I have never gotten this much static for a DYKSG#D9 nomination before. I understand that the GA option is available now, so things are different. I'll let this one go.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• I still don't understand WTF Crisco 1492 was talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#D9 and swahili meaning Harrias ^talk 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It seems like at the time Art LaPella was saying that unless there is a strong reason not to we should grant this type of exception and that it is incorrect to judge whether an article barely missed the cutoff or missed it by a lot. However these rules were written when it was rare to have a 10 week backlog and in the absence of the GA option.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 10 December 2013 (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) 09:44, 10 December 2013 (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) 21:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Still need an admin to promote Prep 4 to Queue 1; we're overdue for a front page change now. Thanks if you can help! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. It's been quite a while since I've promoted a set, but looks like it did the trick. Shubinator (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

One overdue queue

We need a new set now. One of queues is filled; why is Main Page not changed? --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

New date request DYK rules

The DYK Nominations page basically has two sections (1) Nominations and (2) Special occasion holding area for nomination date requests in and outside of the special occasion holding area. While the DYK rules page addressed Nominations, it did not address date requests. Through the above 11 November 2013 to 5 December 2013 discussion here,[9] a date request section was added to the DYK rules. For editors nominating a hook and who also have a request to have the hook posted, there are two separate approvals. First the hook is approved then the date request is approved. The prior main DYK concerns with a requested date seemed to be a likelihood that an editor not connected with DYK may level claims of advertising/promotion at DYK either on this talk page or some other place. The language of the hook could be OK, it just that the additional posting of the hook on the requested date might raised concern by others not connected with DYK reading the Main Page and thinking something was wrong with DYK. That possibility can never be eliminated, but having date request rules allows DYK to point to the date rules and indicate that they were followed should the need arise. A second, less common, concern was the language of the hook itself when coupled with the date the hook would appear on the Main Page. That seemed to come up if the hook had a date element in it that coincided with the requested date (e.g. Hook: "... did you know that Josh Ranger's CD '''Here and Now''' that comes out on June 8th includes a voice cameo by Burt Reynolds?" (and the hook also is to be listed on the Main Page on June 8th). -- Jreferee (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Such a hook would appear very promotional and POV-y. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, the example you presented should have "that comes out on June 8th" removed if it wants to be on the main page on June 8th. That is promotion if you put it on the main page saying it is being released today. Without that phrase, it should not be a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, which criteria are used to determine whether a hook is promotional? A few weeks back, I complained about Dayana Kirillova being featured at DYK (including an image of her) at the exact time slot of her performing at the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013. All replies I received did not regard this as main page advertising.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That is the point of this. Promotion is a hook that advertises or promotes a commercial element of the subject. Based on your response, it seems that we have not made progress in cleaning up the rules in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed article from prep area

I have removed Turtling (sailing) from prep area 3. The article, promoted at Template:Did you know nominations/Turtling (sailing), is not fit to be on the main page IMO and should get a complete rewrite to be acceptable. At the moment, it is a mixture of a how-to and a soap-box, both unacceptable under WP:NOT.

We are supposed to present topics neutrally, not in this manner. An article where the body of text starts with "Prevention is the first priority." is a good sign of this, and the problems continue:

• "Practice capsize drills are (and should be) part of the training of every dinghy sailor." Should be? Not our business to state.
• "[...], boats need to be appropriate for foreseeable conditions."
• "Prevention and delay of turtling in dinghies is the highest priority"

"This should be adopted by US Sailing and other organizations "as doctrine."

The article is filled with how-to statements, e.g. describing how to right the boat or ship, e.g. "See Hobie 16 which suggests sitting on the rear of one sponson, which will upturn a turtled Hobie." and the whole "Practice and cure" section. Fram (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A courtesy notice has been posted on the nominating editor's talk page. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Though I don't share the same concerns as Fram, I have had concerns about this article (which is why I chose not to build an update around it), namely, that I was concerned about possible content crossover with capsizing, an article about a similar phenomenon; also that the hook "joke" didn't work for me. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Gatoclass, I must admit that while I ran the Duplication Detector as a spot check on the sources, it never occurred to me to run it comparing linked articles. Going forward, I probably will. You have a good eye to catch this. And I guess that's why we are all a part of the checks and balances in this process. — Maile (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The only duplication of the capsizing article is material I put into it after it was put in the turtling article. The "How to" is incidental and integral to the rest of the content. Definition (it's more than just a capsize, it is a capsize on steroids and one that has gone badly), prevention and cure are integral in the sources. This article went from 1,000 bytes to 30,000, so general similarity of subject matter has nothing to do with DYK. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

7&6, this documents your edits to Capsizing edits: 5X Turtling expansion began Nov 15. Permalink to Capsizing edits Nov 18 - Dec 8. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but quite frankly I find the discussion of both "turtling" and "capsizing" in these two articles to be confusing, and I find myself asking why we need two articles on essentially the same phenomenon anyway. Incidentally, I'm also a little bothered by the definition of "capsizing" to include a ship rolling onto her side, AFAIK "capsize" means a 180 roll while a 90 degree roll of a ship is known as "going on her beam ends". Regardless, it might be useful to get some members of Wikiships to look over these articles before promotion. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I am sorry that you are confused by the crossover in the definitions of capsize and turtling. These differentiations exist in the literature, and are well laid out in the sources in the turtling article. Part of the trouble is that different speakers have different levels of experience and needs. A Naval architect will say it and mean it differently than a journalist or a sailor or an historian or someone off the street. Language and its meaning varies in context, time and place (this is what I do for a living). As someone crafting the turtling article, I only sought to let readers know the distinctions, and point them to sources (including the other relevant articles). As someone who merely wrote a wikipedia article from multiple reliable sources -- John Rousmaniere is truly an expert to whom I would defer -- I am no guarantor of their harmony. I worked with the material I found.

In interpolating the articles I found, I was able to bring to bear my own experiences as a dinghy sailor, sailing instructor and offshore racer. I know my personal experience can't be cited in an article — I didn't do that, but relied on the sources — but my experience tells me the dichotomy and ambiguity are well understood by those who are involved in the activities involved. You can take that for what it is worth.

As I already said, this was a 30X expansion (of everything including references, not a new article).

If these articles should be combined, there is a forum, time and place to propose that. And with respect, it isn't in the DYK discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"On her beams ends" is a synonym for a knockdown where the deck is perpendicular to the water. Sometimes used synonymously with "capsize". And your point is? In any event, it has never been a synonym for "turtling".7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My wife tells me that in the Girl Scouts "turtling" means this. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I was aware of all those definitions and that page, and made a deliberate choice not to put it in the article. {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you've taken the quotes and opinions of the cited articles, and accused them of not being "neutral." The article is both balanced and neutral. it is full of pro and con, all based on the sources. You want a "neuter"ed article, not a neutral one. Does anybody else have the balls to question this attempt to deliberately dumb down an article? Or are we all eunuchs here? This is not just a question of courage or bravado here. It is about editolrial integrity. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I only wanted some more eyes on this before it hit the main page. If, as it seems, my concerns are not shared by a lot of people, then I have no objection against putting it back in a prep area. I don't like it, but, while that may be enough to delay it, it's hardly sufficient to bomb it. Fram (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fram that this article is certainly not written in an encyclopaedic fashion, and contravenes multiple Wikipedia MOS guidelines. I also tend to agree with Gatoclass, that really, this seems like a content fork of capsize, though as 7&6=thirteen suggests, this is not the correct forum to decide that. Harrias ^talk 08:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

QPQ timing

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but it seemed the place most likely for the question to be seen. Is there a requirement for a QPQ to be recent? I have reviewed a nomination today where the QPQ review was done in June - is there any sort of time limit around this? --Bcp67 (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that, a QPQ is a QPQ as far as I'm concerned. Harrias ^talk 14:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see anything wrong, just look if the QPQ was used only this one time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Gerda Arendt here. Please look back at 2012 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive_82#QPQ where a number of DYK regulars spoke in the same vein about it. Poeticbent talk 19:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies, I'll bear that in mind. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The QPQ has to be done after the nomination is made, or at least on the same day, "retrospective" QPQs are not acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh god, I wasn't aware of that. All my reviews have been retrospective and I have a little storage of older done reviews. So, now I have reviewed all those in vain? Iselilja (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you won't need to do retrospective QPQ's for those already accepted. In checking the current rules, it seems that older QPQs are not disallowed, but I'm sure there were discussions about this when QPQ was first implemented and the consensus was that reviews older than the nomination wouldn't count. The reason for that is that there are people who have done hundreds, even thousands, of reviews in the past and if they could rely on their old reviews, they would never have to do a new QPQ, which would defeat the whole purpose of the scheme. It also becomes very difficult to tell whether or not someone is using the same reviews they have used as QPQs previously if older reviews are allowed, so either way I think the rules need to be clarified to disallow the use of older reviews for QPQs. Gatoclass (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Gatoclass – Where does it say that in the DYK main or supplementary rules? Nothing in the supplementary rules state that QPQs must be retrospective. As long as the QPQ is utilized only once, it's fine. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I already acknowledged that there appears to be nothing in the rules prohibiting it, indeed on the main DYK page it seems to allow it; however, all policy pages are subject to a degree of content drift not necessarily in conformity with consensus, and I distinctly recall an earlier discussion about this matter when IIRC it was agreed that older reviews could not be used for QPQs. Even if my recollection is wrong (and I'm probably not going to have time to check it today) I still believe older reviews should be disallowed for the reasons given above. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Referring to me having reviewed "in vain", I was thinking about 10 reviews that I have done, but not yet used as QPQ. These are 2 from October and 8 from November. If there are no clear rule that prohibits older QPQs, I would like to be allowed to use these 10 old QPQs for future nominations, as I have chosen these method of "QPQ storage" in good faith and I have not done these reviews for fun (I actually hate reviewing). After these 10 QPQs are finished, I will avoid "storage reviewing" and do "timely" QPQs. I can put up a list of these 10 reviews at a user-subpage and mark them as "used" when they have been used as QPQ. I will add that I have done QPQs for all of my own articles that I have nominated for DYK, also the 5 first where it was not required. Iselilja (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I think you are mis-understanding the concept. I don't think any of us are talking about using a QPQ for multiple nominations. We are talking about doing a QPQ in anticipation of using it for a nomination of our own (but only one of our own).--Kevmin § 17:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, in June 2012 I asked this same question and got the opposite answer. Personally, I have an un-used stockpile of 170 reviews, and until this week had not nominated a DYK since Sept 2012. Do you mean to tell me all my past contributions don't count? Seems a bit ungrateful to me. — Maile (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I remeber that discussion as well, and will often do a review before I am fully ready to nominate an article, as a way to make sure I have one for the nomination. I will also do reviews on multiple nomination hooks to be used for several of my single nomination hooks. There never seems to have been a problem with it before now, and Im not sure why it would be a problem at all.--Kevmin § 17:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Maile66: Okay, but going back to when QPQ was being organized, this issue was canvassed and I stated my view and while few commented, nobody objected to the approach then.[10] I have always worked from the assumption that this was the agreed-upon approach, if it's not then I think it should be because otherwise QPQ is wide open to abuse. Regarding your "unused stockpile" of 170 reviews Maile, with respect if we took that approach I would have an "unused stockpile" of literally thousands of reviews, meaning I would never have to do a QPQ at all and I wouldn't be the only one. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the rule to me. Gatoclass (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kevmin - As I said earlier, one of the problems with allowing older reviews is that there is no effective way of checking whether those reviews have been previously used for QPQs or not - it's a system open to abuse. If QPQs are only allowed for reviews after the nomination, their legitimacy is much easier to verify. Gatoclass (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted by Harrias, one just need to check if there are more then one Noms linking to the QPQ in question, We are suppose to AGF, and I dont think that the possibility of abuse is that probable. Can you show that there has been abuse of this process?--Kevmin § 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Then put it in the rules. Either direction - make it a rule. Otherwise...it's just one person's opinion vs. another and leaves the issue open to unnecessary squabbles over a review. There's another way to look at it, also - incentive. Over this last Thanksgiving weekend, I helped clear about 10 reviews just because the need was there. I had not reviewed in months. And now we're told that a QPQ is not acceptable unless it's done the day of the nomination or after. Well, heck, why would anybody bother to help out with the backlog at all. Just do one on the day you need one, and let all that backlog pile up. Never mind the teamwork. Just follow self need. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to not allow QPQ reviews from before QPQ was introduced, but I think anything since then is fair game. If you review a lot, then you have more than done your duty to nominate an article. I similarly will generally complete a review before a nomination. And Gatoclass, it's really not that hard to check: you just go the relevant QPQ, and click on "what links here": if more than one DYK nom links there, you can check if it has been used more than once. If only the DYK nom you came from appears, then it is legit. Harrias ^talk 18:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when was QPQ added as a requirement?— Maile (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It was added to the rules in February 2011. Harrias ^talk 19:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been actively participating here at DYK for over a year and a half, and this is the first I've heard of same-day or subsequent QPQs being the only acceptable kind. This may have been Gatoclass's original understanding, but it hasn't been that way in practice, and I don't think it should start now. Before anything gets added to the rules on QPQ timing, we need to establish a consensus here as to what the rule should be. Just looking at the DYK nomination form, the conclusion that one draws is that there is a reasonable expectation that a QPQ has already been completed prior to the template being filled out. Indeed, it impedes the review process if it has not been done, since nominations cannot be approved until that QPQ is submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Like Gatoclass, I actively participated in the discussion that led to establishment of the QPQ rule. The stated rule is vague on timing, but the expectation when the rule was created was that QPQ reviews would be done at roughly the same time that the new DYK nom was created. I realize that some users think they can stockpile reviews for months and even years, but I see that as inconsistent with the spirit of the rule, if not its letter. I don't think that the QPQ has to be done after the nom is submitted -- I think any review done within the previous week or so is fully consistent with the spirit of the rule. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

New rule going forward?

• There seems to have been an understanding among some core contributors to DYK that reviews need to be recent to be valid as QPQ. However, this has not been codified and several contributors have not been aware of this principle; some like me have “stockpiled” reviews for later use.
• I think it would be an advantage to make explicit in the DYK rules how old reviews might be before they are moot. This rule would then apply to reviews made after the rule is codified.
• We might for instance say that all reviews made after 20 December 2013 needs to be used as QPQ within a week (or two weeks, one month or whatever timeframe) to be valid. If the consensus is that all reviews should be valid regardless of how old they are, this should be stated.
• Iselilja (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose this. As has been noted, its easy to verify if a QPQ has been used in a nomination already. The "possibility" of abuse is not a reason to change what has been accepted as a valid practice.--Kevmin § 19:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. But even with your position (no time-limit), I think we should codify the rule; so all nominators, reviewers and promoters know what the rule is (whether they agree with it or now). Right now, there seems to be a confusion. (I recently got an QPQ review invalidated as too old and had to put up a new). Iselilja (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well said, in the fact that if a QPQ has to be within a certain date - or no date at all - it should be in the rules, not some vague concept dependent on a given reviewer's judgement. RFC required on this, perhaps. For what it's worth, the original discussion to implement QPQ seems to be Nov 2010, and continued Dec 2010, and a discussion on the effectiveness of QPQ was discussed in an RFC July 2011 — Maile (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. What is the problem exactly? Why is it relevant when reviews were completed, as long as they were done properly? Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gamaliel. There's nothing wrong with stockpiling QPQs: the purpose is to make sure other articles get reviewed instead of languishing forever. As long as reviews are being carried out, the date of a QPQ is irrelevant. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is already here. The purpose would be to avoid what happened today to Iselilja on Shirley Erena Murray. She had already done a QPQ, but was required to do a second one on the basis her QPQ was too old. This should not be happening.— Maile (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody agrees with what Gatoclass is saying, and it doesn't appear to be official policy anyway. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah; and to be clear: I don't have a problem with putting that one behind me (and it was old, six months). But the fact that Gatoglass, who is an experienced and prolific contributor, interpretes the rule and consensus to be that older reviews are not accepted called for a clarification. So far in this section, the consensus rather seems to be that there shouldn't be a time limit. And I am fine with that of course (though I could also see a point of having some kind of limit going forward; though more in months than days or weeks). Iselilja (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with Gatoclass' proposal. By instituting such a rule requiring a QPQ to be new, you're basically de-incentivizing people who visit the DYK noms page to clear away the backlog (which, until recently, has been quite large at ~250 noms). Why would we even consider reviewing backlogged noms if they won't be allowed use that as QPQ in the future? Out of goodwill? Yeah, go figure. Instituting such a rule will only help increase the backlog of DYKs. Terrible idea! —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal because I don't see the point of this. As long as they get reviews being done, I don't think the timing is really that much of an issue. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I had always understood that they had to be done after the nom, though I'm not sure how strongly I feel this should be part of the rules. I also review at least as many noms that aren't used for QPQ as ones that are, & am unimpressed by comments like "Why would we even consider reviewing backlogged noms if they won't be allowed use that as QPQ in the future?" Given we are often still backlogged, why would DYK even consider a rule change (maybe) that would reduce the supply of reviews still further? Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm calling a spade a spade. I don't give a damn whether you're "unimpressed by [my] comments." You can choose to do whatever you want with your DYK reviews (none of my business), but I think I'm speaking for most here when I say that they have added incentive to clear the backlog if they could use their review as a future QPQ. And I don't see how allowing users to store QPQs from before will "reduce the supply of reviews still further?" One way or another, you're still assisting in clearing the backlog, either a previous one or a present one. Time should not make a difference when it comes to QPQs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I don't believe Gatoclass made a proposal. It was Iselilja who made this proposal. I see another glitch if the QPQ requirement has to be the day of the nom or later. Most of us pick a nomination subject matter we feel comfortable reviewing. What if nothing we understand is available the day of a nom? — Maile (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Can we please have a new rule that people who use the words "going forward" are banned from the Wiki for at least a month? Ericoides (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• I don't like the idea of specifying a precise time period for a QPQ review, but it would be beneficial for the DYK process if the rules asked nominators to participate in the review process around the same time that they submit new self-noms. The wording could say "recent" -- that would encourage reviewers and nominators to discuss the suitability of an old review that is listed. IMO, people who insist that a 6-month-old review qualifies as a QPQ should be guilt-tripped into doing a new review. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Some suggestions for revamping QPQ

Someone has pointed out that it's possible to check whether a review has already been used for a QPQ by checking the "what links here" link. That's a good point, but I don't think it entirely avoids the possibility of gaming since a user could delink a previous nomination so it didn't show up at "what links here". I'm thinking maybe it's time we added mutual linking between the nom and the QPQ? - ie, not only would the nom include a link to the QPQ, but the QPQ would contain a link back to the nom. Then you would only have to check the history of the QPQ to ensure it hadn't been used for more than one nom. That way, "stockpiling" of QPQs could be retained, with an appropriate level of accountability.

I have also thought for a while that for the sake of increased accountability, QPQ reviews should be identified as such. As it happens, there has also been a debate for a long time about what exactly should qualify as a "review" for QPQ purposes. I think it's probably time we stipulated that more clearly, because we are all aware of the inadequate single-comment "reviews" that some users employ. I think I would be in favour of a requirement that QPQ reviewers complete a review to the approval or rejection stage, unless the review is completed by another reviewer or reviewers first. For greater accountability, which is sorely needed for QPQs anyway and which would become more important still under such a system, I think I could additionally support invalidation of a QPQ for an approval (or rejection) of an article or hook that is later found to have failed one of the basic DYK requirements, such as length, copyvio/paraphrase, hook sourcing and so on. In other words, a QPQ approval that turns out to have failed one of the basic DYK requirements would not be considered a legitimate QPQ so the user in question would have to do another. Thoughts? Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There's something which I think is more common than the delinking scenario described above. Some users have linked to the article reviewed rather than the nomination page containing the review. (Current examples, which I fixed earlier today: Basil Valentine and Musikhjälpen.) Some users have also simply listed either the article or the nom page as text without a link. I don't think any of these were done with any nefarious intentions. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The only problem that might arise is the fact that, if we do "stockpile" QPQs, they will probably have been promoted by the time we use them. That means the discussion would be closed and have the "Please do not modify this page" and "No further edits should be made to this page" notification sign at the top. Any suggestions as to how to solve this? —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow that, why would edits need to be made to a closed discussion? Gatoclass (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The DYK nom we review and "stockpile" would probably be promoted before we use it as a QPQ. Promotion would close the discussion, and (if I'm not mistaken) your proposal would mutually link our nom with the QPQ we reviewed. Doing so would probably require a "re-opening" of the discussion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely support to make the rules about QPQs clearer. I also think it’s a good idea that only reviews that ends with a approval or rejection hook should be accepted for QPQ. The idea that reviews that are later overturned by those who promote may also be good, but I will point out that it probably will lead to older QPQs since a reviewer must then basically wait till the reviewed article has been on the main page to use it as QPQ and this might take several days and sometimes more than a week, which means it can take longer than the 5 days we have to nominate an article after it is started/expansion has started. This might actually encourage stockpiling since a stock of QPQs will be the only way to know you have one ready for the day you wish to nominate an article. Iselilja (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If I've done a perfectly valid, in-depth review, I don't think I should have to wait a week or two for the nominator to fix the issues I've raised; I should be able to use that QPQ right away, not have to wait (and to have my own nomination delayed). The notion of having to stockpile reviews in order to avoid having my own nomination put on hold is frankly ludicrous. Quid pro quo here means review for review: I have done my review. We have never required that people stick around for weeks cleaning up after a problematic nomination in order to get QPQ credit, just that they fully review the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I support that a review started can be used as QPQ. I typically start a review when I want to nominate, and almost always have questions. In most cases, the reviewed article appears before the review of my nomination even started. - We can apply some AGF, and we check how a QPQ was done. Repeating: if it's a decent review I see no need to wait for responses from the other author and completion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, starting a review can count as a QPQ. The point is that QPQs which are not adequately completed will be invalidated, so that users who fail to complete a review appropriately will be required to do another. It wouldn't necessarily hold up the original nomination, but it would hold up the user's next nomination if he still hasn't done the extra review. For example, if a QPQed article gets pulled from the queue for copyvio, the QPQ reviewer would be required to do another review for failing to check the original article properly. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Gatoclass's notion -- that the reviewer must carry the review to completion in order to claim QPQ credit -- is a sure-fire recipe for (1) ensuring that QPQ reviewers won't tackle reviews that look like they might be difficult and (2) encouraging substandard reviews (because the easiest way to get QPQ credit is to approve the nom without asking hard questions). Sorry, but that's the wrong way to go. --Orlady (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

My issue on the stockpiling is not that people are deliberately doing it to have a QPQ ready, but rather that people who help out with reviews should be able to use any of those for QPQ. They should not have them disqualified as a QPQ based on a date that is not defined in the QPQ rules, which is what happened to Iselilja yesterday.— Maile (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Seems to me in all the discussion that happened in Nov 2010, Dec 2010, and July 2011, I have seen the debate on what to do about a failed DYK review. Many times an editor does not take a review through the entire process, yet those who only contribute to part of the review currently get to claim it as a QPQ. If it fails, does that mean someone who spent time to contribute to part of that review has their efforts negated also? That also has come up in past threads on this talk page. What if a failed review happens AFTER someone has claimed it as a QPQ and had their own nomination on the front page? There's no chronological priority for nominations to be promoted. I think revamping QPQ necessitates a consensus via RFC, to clearly define it so that going forward it is not dependent upon individual interpretation. Possibly because this is the holiday season, some notable contributors to the original discussion are not weighing in on this. Let's not finalize this until post holidays in 2014. — Maile (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• This is all ridiculous. There is no valid reason people shouldn't be able to stockpile QPQs. To add a point that I don't think has been mentioned yet, this would seriously delay the already slow approval process of multi-article hooks. The only restriction on QPQs seems like they should involve a full review and not just some drive-by comments that only highlight one selected problem. A QPQ-valid review should touch on all the basic eligibility criteria. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we're missing the main point of the QPQ review. It was instituted because of a continual backlog of old nominations that needed to be cleared. Requiring new nominators to review an old nomination seemed to be the solution. IMO, it is not. Most newbies write a one-line "looks good to me" and happily submit their own nomination for review. This is not reducing the backlog at all, as in 99% of cases a more experienced editor must come along anyway and re-review the hook. Meanwhile, numerous editors have taken it upon themselves to review articles in batches to help reduce the backlog. If they are planning to submit their own nominations in the near future, they'll use some of these reviews as QPQs to satisfy the new rules. I think it's insulting to tell these editors that "we don't trust you" to use each QPQ only once. And Gatoclass's suggestion to limit QPQs to the day of the nomination or shortly thereafter penalizes these editors rather than rewards them for their good work of reducing the backlog. I agree that a QPQ submitted 6 months after the fact is a bit much. I also keep records of the reviews I do in batches, and I just erased the diffs for a dozen reviews from October. But I'm keeping the diffs for the reviews I did in the last 2 weeks in case I submit a nomination this week. If we keep the QPQ system in its present form, we should decide to give a time limit to the QPQ of 2 weeks, 3 weeks, or up to a month, but no more.

However, I think we should reevaluate the efficacy of the QPQ system based on the observation that newbies really aren't helping the system all that much. Instead, incentives should be put in place to encourage experienced editors to review. Perhaps an editor who reviews in batches could be "rewarded" for their clean-up work with a free hook for every 5 QPQ reviews? Perhaps a special userbox could be offered that would keep count of this editor's contributions as they review hooks and clear the DYK backlog? An editor who is only submitting one hook should still be required to do another review (with a time limit), but cleanup reviewers should be rewarded, not penalized. Yoninah (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I opened this section to propose greater accountability for QPQ reviewers, an idea which most users seem to support, however, it's quickly becoming apparent that greater accountability will not be achievable unless and until a working definition of what constitutes a QPQ review is arrived at, and that may not be as easy as it appears. So this whole notion may need a rethink, and I'm not sure I have the time to devote to it ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I just posted a DYK nom that the only thing holding it up was the QPQ review. I looked at a first DYK nom, but it was not ready to be approved. I would have had to engage in perhaps a several day discussion to bring the first DYK nom to a state of being ready. I wasn't sure whether beginning a QPQ review constituted the required QPQ for my DYK nom. WP:AGF would seem to say it does since there was no reason to believe that I would not complete my QPQ obligation. I spent a lot of time writing the article and did not want it's appearance on the Main Page held up due to having to way for a QPQ review to go to completion, so I found a second DYK nom that I could immediately approve. DYK did not always have a QPQ requirement. The QPQ process is a WikiProject compelling non-members into helping it out in exchange for the WikiProject helping the nom-member out. I'm not sure if other WikiProjects have a parallel system. Non-DYK members seem fine with the QPQ requirement and DYK does need help with the backlog. I agree that the first step is a working definition of what constitutes a QPQ review. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The notion that only a fully approved or fully rejected nomination can count as a QPQ review is a Wikipedia urban legend that has no basis in the rules or in the discussions that led to creation of the QPQ requirement. The purpose of QPQ is to get contributors to participate productively in the review process. Doing easy approvals is a contribution, but it's not nearly as important as contributing to difficult reviews. Your looking at a nomination, determining that it was not ready for approval, but not adding any review comments to the nom was not productive. If you had added some notes on your work, you would have saved someone else the trouble of re-doing your review and you possibly could have moved that other nom a little bit closer to approval. Not every drive-by comment on a nomination (e.g., "not long enough!") qualifies as a QPQ review, but any thorough evaluation of a nomination should qualify -- and will gain you more good will from other DYK regulars. --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Deliberately misleading hook?

Currently in Queue 5: DYK "that Jan Metzler got Worms for his party for the first time in 64 years?" Obviously, this is an attempt for a pun on the common English word "worms". Is this really what DYK is about, making hooks funny or quirky just for the sake of it? Of course, there has been the great DYK "that Batman is half female", but that was posted on April Fools' Day, after all. Metzler's achievement, being the first conservative politician to have clinched Worms (electoral district), is definitely noteworthy, but it should simply be said so instead of artificially hiding that piece of information. What's next, taking a sightseeing guide about Worms, Germany that is simply named "Worms" and writing hooks a là "did you know that XXX is covered in Worms?"--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that as long as it doesn't give negative associations from misleading, also, a play on words in the hook often gets more views. Thanks, Matty.007 16:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The hook is technically accurate and it gave me a smile, so I don't see anything wrong with it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As the approver, I'm with Gatoclass and Matty Victuallers (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought it mildly funny, but then I'm not German. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I am German and smiled. It's now on Portal:Germany, with your great and large pic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 December 2013

Add a shortcut box to Template:Did you know/Queue listing T:DYK/Q. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary, as the shortcut is already listed in the {{DYKbox}}. Harrias ^talk 19:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, didn't see it there. Withdrawn. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition to rules on hook?

A question came up recently (see [11] as to whether a nominator's own translation from a non-English source could be quoted in a hook (no published translation being available for the non-English source in question). An experienced reviewer, Crisco, commented that this has been allowed in the past, provided that the original non-English text was also included in the article. To make it easier for reviewers to deal with this point in future, should a statement covering it be included under 'hooks' in the DYK rules? Maybe something along the lines of: When a passage from a reliable non-English source has been quoted in an article and translated by the nominator because no published translation is available, a few words from the nominator's own translation can be quoted in a hook. I have a few qualms about this because there's really no way for a reviewer to know how reliable a nominator's translation is, but if it's being permitted on a judgment-call basis anyway, it might be better to have it covered in the rules. NinaGreen (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You can look at a machine translation and see if the editor's translation is sufficiently similar or appears inaccurate. If there's a problem, you can ping another enwp editor who speaks the language for a second opinion. EdChem (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not really much help if the editor has also used machine translation.

It's also not really helpful to think that a machine translation is reliable. Looking at what I get as translations from the German Wikipedia, they should not be trusted too much. Latest example: "hochdramatischer Sopran" -> "highly dramatic soprano", - close but wrong ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it a rule that hooks should not generally include quotations? Why would translated quotations be an exception? Formerip (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is such a rule, it's news to me, lots of hooks contain quotations, as long as they are in quotation marks they should be acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no such rule - or it is not enforced: I use citations a lot for authenticity, example --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've temporarily added this to the DYK rules for hooks, subject to further discussion here: If a passage from a reliable non-English source has been quoted in an article and translated by the nominator because no published translation is available, a few words from the nominator's own translation can be quoted in a hook, subject to the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators. NinaGreen (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2013 (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) 02:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 2 - 1981 Iraqi embassy bombing

I reviewed and approved the Template:Did you know nominations/1981 Iraqi embassy bombing article by Plot Spoiler yesterday and now it has been promoted to Prep 2. I came to think though, that the approved hook that the 1981 Iraqi embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon is considered the first modern suicide bombing? might violate the Words to Watch and that the hook should rather state "that the 1981 Iraqi embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon was the first modern suicide bombing?"; or that is needs to be pointed out who consider it the first modern suicide attack. The article itself of course would have to be changed accordingly. Iselilja (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Words to watch" was written with articles, not DYK hooks, in mind, and hooks need to be brief; it isn't usually necessary to attribute a statement in the hook as long as it is attributed in the article. In this case, I don't even see much need to attribute in the article since the statement is cited to three different sources all of which are available online. Regardless, it would be unwise IMO to delete the "is considered" phrase in the hook because that would turn it into an absolute statement when we can't be sure the statement is correct. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

After some further research it appears there are other candidates for the title of "first modern suicide bombing"[12][13] so this hook may need to be pulled. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have pulled the hook until the issue is resolved, thanks for bringing it to attention. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. These kinds of "was the first" hooks seem to need special attention unless it is a first in a clear line of something (first female defense minister), as it may not be enough to have one or more inline-cited reliable sources to back up the claim; one also has to consider whether there might be other reliable sources that have other perspectives. Iselilja (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

List of participants

With this edit, I have removed all the users who have not edited for over a month.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the remaining in the non-admin participant lists, User:The Interior, is now an administrator, I believe. Iselilja (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The last list has disappeared from this page, so I've compiled a new set of 41 nominations that need reviewing. At the moment, we have 197 total nominations, of which only 19 are approved. Thanks as always for your reviews.

• October 10: Template:Did you know nominations/San Quintín Volcanic Field
• October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Homologous Chromosome
• November 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Koller's sickle
• November 5: Template:Did you know nominations/No More Hell to Pay
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Water-gas shift reaction
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Captodative effect
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Physical organic chemistry
• November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Going Left Right
• November 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Church Clothes 2 (two articles)
• November 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Macey (three articles)
• November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Sin código
• November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Angel Guts: Red Classroom (album)
• November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Antonio Jesús Martín Gaitán
• November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Approaches to Prejudice Reduction
• November 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Marriage and health
• November 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Serafín Zambada Ortiz
• November 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Turn Me Out
• November 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Picture Rock Pass Petroglyphs Site
• November 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Bunkyo Civic Center
• November 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Barna Hedenhös
• November 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Pedro Cordero Martin
• November 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Rebeca Cofré
• November 27: Template:Did you know nominations/U.S.–UAE 123 Agreement for Peaceful Civilian Nuclear Energy Cooperation
• November 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Raheel Sharif
• November 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Providence Milwaukie Hospital
• November 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Beautiful Eulogy
• November 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Bronze Head from Ife
• November 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Freies Volk (fluent German language requested)
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Dodd
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Randall Carver
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Jake Diekman
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Guillermo Rodriguez Gonzalez
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Tan Seet Eng
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Bilgin Defterli
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Beaverton Health & Science School
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Bowen state by-election, 1936
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Murdoch Smith
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Jose Marin Rodriguez
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Will Hagerup
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/history of dentistry in the Philippines

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) 02:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Water-gas shift reaction

Please advise. I have posted a review for the Water-gas shift reaction DYK here. The expansion is insufficient. I could probably address most of the problems and add the needed length, but what would that do from a DYK project perspective? Obviously, if I do the work, I cease to be a reviewer (and possibly become a DYK-credit-eligible editor) but then the expansion happened over a period stretching the Swahili. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The expansion is pretty impressive given the size, and the content is of the sort that is less common at DYK. If you complete a 5x expansion, tidy the article up, and wikify it a little further, then ping me, and I will complete the review. Harrias ^talk 10:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is most kind. EdChem (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Bailey

Hi, is there any chance that this can be reviewed so that it can go up on December 18, when the single is released? I appreciate that this is short notice, so thanks for any help. Matty.007 13:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I (in general) don't like these rather promotional DYKs at all. "that X Factor winner Sam Bailey's debut single Skyscraper is released today?" is what I expect to see (with some additional adjectives) on billboards, not on DYK. The single, for what it's worth, is also only released today in the UK, AFAIK, not glabally. In general, I would urge DYK to strictly avoid anything commercial on a significant date, to avoid the impression that people can use Wikipedia to give their commercial interest (be it a musician, an author, a movie, ...) more impact and visibility when they want it. Fram (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that it'll probably be number one at Christmas, would a Christmas Day appearence (and subsequent reworking of the hook) be suitable? We'll know on Sunday one way or the other, but I doubt anything else will come close this year. Miyagawa (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(Would be nice to have a change from X factor #1s) that is probably a better idea. Thanks, Matty.007 14:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fram: that is largely what she is notable for, winning the X factor and releasing the winner's single. The hook reflected her notability, but I can see why the release date may not be needed. Thanks, Matty.007 14:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with e.g. "that X's debut single is the 2013 Xmas #1 in the UK" if that would happen to be the case. It just gives a less spammy appearance than the "OUT NOW!" aspect of the proposed one (with the release date match). (Note: I'm talking "impression" here, not "intention", I'm not trying to make the process of any editor involved). Fram (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can see what you mean. Thanks, Matty.007 17:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hook count bot is not running

DYK hook count bot has not updated for about a day and a half now. — Maile (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just notified Shubinator, the bot's owner. It will be restarted when he sees that note (or this one). Thanks for pointing it out! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

QPQs

I appreciate QPQs don't need to be done unless it's a self nomination from an editor who has five or more DYK credits but recently there seems to have been a significant increase in the number of these submitted. Quite a lot of the articles have actually been created/expanded by fairly regular DYK participants who would be required to do a QPQ and I hasten to add in fact do normally undertake a review (so helping to keep a reasonable number of approved hooks). I know there is no rule against it but is it really in 'the spirit of QPQ' for such a high percentage of 'not a self nom, no QPQ required' nominations to be submitted? I think the creators/expanders may not even be aware of the nominations. Am I just creating a mountain out of a molehill or does this need to be addressed somehow? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about the phenomenon that a goodly number of nominations by regular DYK contributors have been nominated by someone else? I've noticed that, also. What we don't know for sure, is if those regular DYK contributors know their article was nominated. — Maile (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I did ask an editor who had an article nominated in a recent batch as I know he usually does nominate his own articles and does undertake QPQs. He did not know it had been nominated and had chosen not to do so himself as he thought it was "too short and pretty dull". I don't think most do know of the nominations - it wouldn't cause watch list alerts as the articles/talk pages are not being altered. I appreciate there are a number of circumstances that a new editor can be encouraged with a DYK nomination (that's how I came to know about DYK in the first place!) and it's sometimes occasionally done for other reasons. It just struck me that there is an exceptionally high percentage of them just now and a very low number of approved hooks, putting undue pressure on those who do review to try and keep abreast of the backlog - it must also make building prep areas difficult as there are so few approved hooks to choose from. edit conflicts on an iPad are horrendous SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As I just found out when I built a prep set. It's very scarce on the approved nominations page. Part of that also might be the holiday season. Looking at a possible aspect from that nominator's point of view, these are editors whose work is more likely to be problem free than taking a shot on nominating new editors. It helps fill the nominations page. But it does create this glut of un-reviewed like you are mentioning. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I must admit that the majority of my nominations are non self noms, and I don't often do QPQ. I would be willing to increase the amount I do if it would help. (I always ask the article creator before I nominate though.) Thanks, Matty.007 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Heads up on the Dec 18 Great Train Robbery

I just completed my first-ever full set in Prep 1. In Prep 2, I put The Great Train Robbery, which was in the special holding area for Dec 18/19. Someone might look at that and when it will appear London time, in case it has to be swapped over into Prep 1. I just didn't want it to be missed. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep 2

The hook for The Great Train Robbery was called "mundane" by the reviewer. The final reviewer approved ALT1, but didn't strike through the original hook. The correct hook should be:

... that the BBC filmed The Great Train Robbery in Yorkshire, as it was the "most cost-effective and realistic alternative" to filming in 1960s England? Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. I changed it. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

need someone to look at a QPQ

A QPQ was requested at Aciliu Viaduct. However, new eyes probably need to look at that recent QPQ. Would someone care to comment on one or both of those templates, so those reviews can proceed, one way or the other? — Maile (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The review was not very good, but the article is reasonably good, and approval seems OK. --Jakob (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This was a drive-by edit, just a tic to get the QPQ credit. It is not acceptable, according to the threads above about QPQs. — Maile (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was the article was worthy of being approved with a proper review, which I have done. --Jakob (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Applause! Good for you! I'm sure the nominator really appreciates your effort. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

In relation to the non-MEDRS-compliant DYK that just made it through review (please see [14] - it's still up as I write this), a friendly reminder that medical claims require sourcing to be compliant with WP:MEDRS. Briefly: "Ideal sources...include literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." Secondary sources from the popular press are generally not sufficient. These can do damage in the real world, so please be careful. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep 1

The image used with the lead hook (Angel Guts) currently in Prep 1 is not actually included in the article - could someone check please? Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to Prep 2 without the image and will look for a suitable replacement lead hook for Prep 1. Thank you for being a second set of eyes. — Maile (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2013 (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 #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) 12:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK will be overdue in one hour, and nothing is in the Queue. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There is now, but the queue will be empty again in less than an hour if someone doesn't build a new update. Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There also seems to be a scarcity of reviewed templates right now. The hook update bot has not run for a couple of days or more, so it's difficult to tell exactly what is out there on the nominations page. It sure would help if some others reviewed some, and helped build some preps. Even though it seems by the conversation above that Fram is now relenting to allow Turtling added back to a prep area, I did the review on that one and therefore can't be the one to add it back. — Maile (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone would be willing to teach me how, I wouldn't mind sometimes helping with Prep areas. Thanks, Matty.007 20:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Fairly easy. Just follow the steps at How to promote an accepted hook. Before you do a "Save" on anything, be sure and do a "Preview" to see if it looks like you think it should. You know, the promoted template from the hook turns blue if it's coded right. And don't repeat my last two mistakes - make sure any image is actually in the article, and make sure the hook has an inline citation in the article. Why don't you try finishing out Prep area 2. I'm going to be offline for a couple of hours, but if you think you made an error, it won't hurt. The prep area will be checked by an Admin before going to the next queue. If you open Prep area 2 template and scroll down on the left hand side where you see a bunch of "DYKmake" templates, that's where you put the article name and the article's author. If it was nominated by someone other than the author, you also fill out the "DYKnom" template. Give it a shot. I'll be back later and look at it, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. — Maile (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Do I need to check the nomination? Thanks, Matty.007 20:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Had a go at Template:Did you know nominations/Saying Grace (painting). Matty.007 20:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

And Template:Did you know nominations/Jesuit College of Ingolstadt. I didn't use the picture as it doesn't work so well being that small (in my opinion). I may call it a day there. Thanks, Matty.007 20:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've filled it. Would someone mind checking (I am not around from now until tomorrow morning, so apologies in advance for errors). Thanks, Matty.007 21:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Maile66: was that OK? Thanks, Matty.007 12:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You must have done everything correctly, because the admin moved the prep area up to the queue.If you were asking about not using the image, not every image offered gets used, so that was OK. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2013 (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 #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, bot! Harrias ^talk 00:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 3

Prep area 3 needs to be filled and promoted to a queue within the next 11 hours. Three slots remain open. Hopefully, someone here will take care of the remainder of that prep area. — Maile (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done it, and made a start on prep area 4 as well, but we really need to be putting out a call for more help in DYK, both in terms of reviewers and people to prepare the queue. -Kieran (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I am beginning to get the hang of it. Thanks, Matty.007 12:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Those were my first DYK queue preps, but they seem to have gone live OK. I had a moment where I was worrying that the crediting going wrong reported just below was my fault, but it sounds like it's just a technical error. -Kieran (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot generated user talk page notification for DYK is in error

Hi all! As advised by Harrias (see his talk page), I ask for a check on the bot, which generates notification on the user talk page for a DYK update at main page. The DYK notification in my talk page is in error, also in some others as I can see. --CeeGee 10:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also in error on my talk page. The DYKUpdateBot is malfunctioning. Looking at the DYK archives, the malfunction seems to have started with the hooks for December 18, the one where James Caudy is the lead hook.— Maile (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's to do with "User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake" being deleted? There was a retired banner put on Ameliorate!'s page yesterday. Maybe the ever so wonderful and skilful/proficient/adept my thesaurus is just to hand so if further compliments are required just shout! Mandarax can work some magic to create a replacement? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I just put a note on Shubinator's talk page, since he operates the bot. — Maile (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Mandarax always knows what he's doing... Matty.007 13:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Shubinator, is there some important reason that Ameliorate!'s DYKmake was being used over Template:DYKmake? (Are they different, but named the same?) The Template:DYKnom-based notifications seem to be going out just fine, so I'm guessing that one is using the one from Template space. It looks like the "give" link on the prep and queue pages in the DYKmake section is dependent on three of Ameliorate!'s (now-deleted) subdirectories: in addition to DYKmake it also calls out "User:Ameliorate!/DYKintro" for its "editintro" parameter and "User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake-insert" for its "preload" parameter, and neither of these are in Template space. An admin—possibly you, Shubinator?—is going to need to go looking, restore that deleted material to new locations where it's safe (perhaps somewhere in the DYK hierarchy?), and update the code that generates the "give" link on the prep/queue page so it looks to these new locations. Thanks to anyone who gets us back in the notification business. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm temporarily hosting DYKmake and DYKnom within my own user space, and I have been through the recent notices and manually fixed them to transclude from there until we can get it fixed properly. Harrias ^talk 21:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominations

Hi, is it just me that is noticing a worrying drop in nominations over the festive period? 1 from today, 8 from yesterday, 9 the day before that... Matty.007 18:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's probably because people are busy running around buying presents and such. I think we're OK for now, though. We have almost three prep areas filled, and enough approved hooks to fill about two more, plus plenty of unreviewed hooks that look like easy reviews. We should have enough to go through to Christmas Eve, at which point we can draw on hooks from the holding areas. After Christmas, there'll probably be a burst of activity as people go on break. -Kieran (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

An then comes the WP:CUP. Chris857 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominations of another editor's work

Hi, I have seen a few instances of where an editor nominates another editors work for DYK, but they do it without asking. This is completely within the rules at present, but I think that a rule change which meant that you had to ask an editor before nominating their work for DYK would be better; often the first editors hear about DYK is when they get a credit after the article has been on the main page. Thanks, Matty.007 19:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Related thread — Maile (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That seemed to be more about when editors not doing a self nomination don't do QPQ (which is within the rules), and can lead to a backlog. Thanks, Matty.007 19:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Within that thread, it's noted that editors are not being identified their article has been nominated, and perhaps if asked would have said the article was not ready for DYK. The issue of nominating someone else's work is two fold: (1) The creating editor doesn't necessarily get notified; (2) No requirement for a QPQ, even if there are ten or twenty like nominations in a row. If the rules are changed regarding the nominating of someone else's work, perhaps both issues should be changed. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that the idea that you don't need to do QPQ for nominating others' work is that it encourages that practice. How about one QPQ per three noms of others' work? Thanks, Matty.007 20:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As a note I have never been a fan of the concept that a nomination of another persons article should exempt someone from doing a review.--Kevmin § 23:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I do that a fair bit, but am trying to pull my weight a bit more now. Thanks, Matty.007 08:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I will probably bring this up again after Christmas and the New Year, there are only ~10 people regularly using DYK talk at the minute. Thanks, Matty.007 11:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep 3

The hook about Emil Rebreanu caught my eye and I looked at the article. Many of the refs are bald URLs. Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've pulled it out. You can pull it yourself next time if you like -- you just have revert the edit to the nomination and edit it out of the prep area.-Kieran (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake has been deleted

So DYK update bot cannot substitute the template. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have informed Shubinator, he's our go-to guy for bot issues. In the meantime, I guess this means we will have to go back to manually updating the credits - I would keep adding the DYKmake/DYKnom credits to the nom pages though, because they should still be useful for manual tracking. Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Couldn't we just reuse the deleted code under a different title? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) I have posted to ANI, maybe the DYKmake can be resurrected and moved somewhere safe under DYK. EdChem (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• As I said in the thread above, I'm temporarily hosting the content at User:Harrias/DYKmake and User:Harrias/DYKnom, but I can't change where the bot looks for the information, so at the moment, I'm following the bot around and manually fixing it. Harrias ^talk 07:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Harrias. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea anything in my userspace was still depended on this many years later. I've restored DYKmake now. If there is anything else there that is still used anyone can feel free to restore it. ♣ Ameliorate! 09:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ameliorate, but someone mentioned that User:Ameliorate!/DYKintro and User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake-insert also get used, will they need to be restored too? Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be on the safe side, I've restored these as well. I don't think there's must harm in having them in userspace, even if the bot does use them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Todays' DYK Hook of Antonio Jesús Martín Gaitán

In today's (20 Dec. 2013) DYK section there is a "new" about a Paralympic athlete that "introduces" without any logic to the "Duchess of Lugo" ... in my opinion this is just getting absurd. Wikipedia is not Hello Magazine, and the way an article is introduced by another is being used in the most stupid way possible.

It is just an example but it can be detrimental for Wikipedia as a trusted source of info.

Thanks.

90.244.6.71 (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a valid criticism to me. Matty.007 11:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's always helpful to have the hook name, Antonio Jesús Martín Gaitán, so editors can consider whether or not it needs to be addressed. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I promoted that hook, but obviously wasn't the one to review it. However, looking at it again, it's explicitly referenced in the article, and the Duchess of Lugo seems like a pretty noteworthy person, being the eldest daughter of the King of Spain. Furthermore, this being the English Wikipedia, I suspect that many (probably most) readers weren't even aware that the Spanish aristocracy still exists, so that a link to a Spanish aristocrat could be both interesting and educational.

Sure, Wikipedia is not Hello Magazine, but neither is it a sports magazine, or a TV guide, and yet there is plenty of well referenced, high quality content on these topics that finds its way to DYK. I might accept this criticism as valid if all the DYK hooks were about current events, or sport, or television, but the range of articles both for that cycle and in general are quite varied. -Kieran (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It just seems like an unrelated fact to go in the article, a trivia fact; like saying that Michael of Kent watched Rebecca Addlington somewhere. Matty.007 17:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Fast track request

I was wondering if someone could review Template:Did you know nominations/2013 FIFA Club World Cup Final and if an admin could promote it so it could appear tomorrow, the day of the final? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. Thanks, Matty.007 16:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

With thanks to Matty.007 it has been reviewed, can an admin do the necessary for promoting it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)