Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 186: Line 186:
:::::::::That's a great question. What TRM is doing (or not doing) is making more work for other editors. [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 23:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::That's a great question. What TRM is doing (or not doing) is making more work for other editors. [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 23:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::While that's true, per [[WP:VOLUNTEER]], TRM is free to choose when he wishes to review hooks, and is free to post those where he wishes. If he chooses to review things only when they are in a queue, however, it's our prerogative (also per [[WP:VOLUNTEER]]) to ignore his demands to fill the queues early enough for him to review them. I for one am not going to promote a set to queue unless I have the time to review it, the demands above notwithstanding. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 00:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::While that's true, per [[WP:VOLUNTEER]], TRM is free to choose when he wishes to review hooks, and is free to post those where he wishes. If he chooses to review things only when they are in a queue, however, it's our prerogative (also per [[WP:VOLUNTEER]]) to ignore his demands to fill the queues early enough for him to review them. I for one am not going to promote a set to queue unless I have the time to review it, the demands above notwithstanding. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 00:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::::”demands”? Dick. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 00:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:21, 4 November 2018

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and processes can be discussed.

Prep 51: Mass murder of Czech citizens

@Catrìona: @Sagecandor:

The hook fact and the way it's stated in the article does not align with the source. The article states in the lead: The first liquidation was the largest massacre of Czechoslovak citizens in history. Under Legacy, the wording is: The liquidation of the camp on 8–9 March was the largest mass murder of Czechoslovak citizens in history. But the English-language source states: The liquidation of the family camp on 8 March and 10-12 July 1944 was the largest mass murder of Czechoslovak citizens during the Second World War. Yoninah (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the scrutiny, Yoninah. The Czech News Agency source (in Czech, but you can run it through Google Translate) just says that the first liquidation was "The largest mass murder of Czechoslovak citizens" without specifying a time interval. (The Czechoslovak state only existed 1918 - 1994, and the only major war was WWII. During peacetime the massacre of thousands of people at once is much less likely). The reviewer preferred the wording "Czechs" to Czechoslovak citizens, and from the sources in the Kremnička and Nemecká massacres article (unfortunately offline), you can see that the largest massacre of Slovaks was much smaller. If you feel that's WP:SYNTH, I have no objection to "Czechoslovak citizens". Catrìona (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just on a off topic note, Sagecandor has been blocked indefinitely recently, so they wouldn't be able to answer here. Alex Shih (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Catrìona: I like "Czech citizens" better, but the point about it being the largest mass murder in history contradicts the Terezin Initiative source. Also, you've been running a lot of these "largest atrocity" hooks lately. For an image slot, it might be nice to say a little more about the family camp itself. Yoninah (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this article was reviewed by a sockpuppet, does it need to be re-reviewed? I know this was something discussed before, but don't know what consensus was. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Yoninah: I disagree that there's a contradiction, but here's an alternate suggestion. (If the prior option is adopted, it would have to be Czechoslovak citizens rather than Czech citizens, because the Czech Republic did not exist until 1994). Catrìona (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2: ... that Heinrich Himmler probably gave permission for the Red Cross to visit the family camp (ruins pictured) at Auschwitz II-Birkenau, just a few hundred meters from the gas chambers?
@Catrìona: Certainly I like the description in ALT2 better. Would you like to pipe it to "family camp" or "Czech family camp"? Yoninah (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: I prefer either "family camp" or "Theresienstadt family camp". As stated in the article, not all victims were Czechs, and the term is less used. Catrìona (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Catrìona: OK, we'll stick with your ALT2 wording. But where in the article is the hook fact that Heinrich Himmler probably gave permission for the Red Cross to visit? Yoninah (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: When Himmler granted permission for ICRC representatives to visit Theresienstadt, he also granted permission for a visit to a "Jewish labor camp", believed by Czech historian Miroslav Kárný and Israeli historian Otto Dov Kulka to refer to the family camp at Birkenau. in Background section. Sources in text. Catrìona (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. I'm replacing the hook in Prep 5. Yoninah (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it should be "Theresienstadt family camp". The "Gypsy Family Camp" may be better know, so a descriptor would be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking it over, I believe that something more simple and direct would work better in the image slot. What do other editors think about:

This isn't advancing the discussion, but I don't think the picture is necessarily adding much to this hook and would be happy to run without. There are other hooks which would benefit much more from an image, such as Template:Did you know nominations/Stefan Baretzki, currently in Prep Area 6 as non-lead hook. Catrìona (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'd be up for just about any hook which didn't have "probably" in it. This really weakens the hook, to the point where something else should be chosen. Oh, and if I was to offer an opinion on the ALT4, it's good but distracting, so just go for "... where youth were taught subjects including Judaism?" The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basic DYK rules being flaunted flouted every single day

I often find articles which flagrantly fail fundamental DYK rules in the queue heading to the main page. These include simple issues like bare URLs, unreferenced paragraphs, etc. For example, we have the heavily maligned Working Definition of Antisemitism en route to main page in six hours, yet it fails a basic requirement, with bare URLs. We had just yesterday Theater Bremen which had dozens of unreferenced items. Honestly, is there any point in the QPQ process or this myriad set of DYK rules if they are ignored on a daily basis by just about everyone involved in the process? I suggest the DYK community decide whether these kind of simple tenets are worth embodying in the ruleset or whether it should just become a free-for-all, which is where QPQ is tending to drive the end result. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, a DYK review will cover the DYK essentials of newness, length, hook facts adequately cited, neutrality and copyvio-status. There will be many QPQ reviewers who are unfamiliar with the long list of rules and I don't think they should be criticised for missing the sort of details you are listing. Promoters will pick up some of the defects in hooks and articles and other editors such as yourself can further inspect them while they are in prep or in queue. It's a multi-stage process and hopefully, not many hooks get as far as the main page with serious defects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are basics, being overlooked on a daily basis. One problem here is that reviewers and promoters are seemingly oblivious to the fact that they continually accept and promote items which are in violation of the fundamentals. It's a multi-stage process which fails daily. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reviewers are doing a pretty good job of covering the "basics" listed on the Rules page, which only requires them to cover the five main DYK criteria. Things like bare URLs and unreferenced paragraphs are only mentioned on the Supplementary Guidelines page. (And I can hear reviewers arguing that these are only "guidelines", not "rules".) I agree with you that DYK has to enforce more quality control, but the avalanche of rules isn't making things any easier. Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about streamlining some rules and guidelines then? Perhaps bring some more in line with how the project actually operates, completely bin others etc.? If one is ambitious perhaps even a more comprehensive review of all rules and guidelines and rebuilding it from the ground up. Or perhaps making a page with specific review criteria, which then gets copied to every nom and gets a tick for each point in need of being looked at(perhaps in a hat so that it isn't too huge when just opening the nom). That way badly done reviews most certainly would be very obvious and there would be clear cut things to check in any given nom, just working off a small list of clearly defined criteria basically(making it as easy as possible for reviewers, yet harder to not do it properly without anyone noticing). There certainly seems to be a need for reform but it surely would take a lot of time and discussion(and bickering probably lol), if there even is a willingness to do such a thing. At least in my opinion, for what little that is worth. 91.97.251.107 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've only done a half-dozen reviews and one was pulled from the queue recently. I fear I'm not a good enough all-around editor for reviewing, but will try to take more care. There have been discussions at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals, BTW. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a great example of why a list of specific review criteria to tick off at every nomination could be usefull, especially for less experienced people. Nothing too excessive of course; basic DYK rules, referencing, bare URLs and so on. If one knows exactly what one is supposed to check, the task is much clearer for the reviewer. If one gets spelled out exactly what is expected of a review(in form of bulletpoints to tick off in every nom or whatever really), basically anyone can do it. No matter the experience. And quality control would perhaps be improved due to reviewers actually having to, more or less, say "yes, i checked that criteria" and more importantly just knowing what exactly to check and perhaps also being more secure with the knowledge of what exactly is expected. Easy to see a pattern if someone is not actually checking what they claimed to have checked during a review as well. But perhaps i am missing something that makes it less feasible than i assume it would be. 91.97.251.107 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, we do have {{DYK checklist}}, although at the moment its use is optional. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about making something like that the norm and mandatory then? I know that it will never happen because it would actually bring accountability to QPQ reviews, something that does not seem to be wanted at all. But i don't see anything about it that could make an already terrible process even worse. But that is for you lot to decide. Cheers anyway for pointing me towards the checklist. 31.150.101.33 (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe in the value of checklists and am grateful for the extensive edit notice on the nomination pages, which I have been using as my primary checklist. (It doesn't mention the original poster's concern for references to be formatted/no bare URLs, though.) I haven't used the checklist template because it doesn't display well for me and I can't distinguish the various ticks. If the checklist template was used for every review, I fear it would add significantly to the code size of [[TT:DYK]] Template talk:Did you know which is already very large. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your link leads me to some page in cyrillic, i assume you meant to link to something else? And i did not mean to say we should use exactly that checklist, which i did not even know existed when i suggested something along those lines. And it would not even need a graphicaly displayed tick, just yes/no or even a small sentence would probably be much more helpful when things are not good enough or unclear. The way i imagine it is that at the top of every nomination you get a collapsed checklist(so the display size of any nom stays small when just taking a glance at the nom or during hook discussion etc.) with criteria deemed the most important to get an article main page ready and meeting DYK criteria. Reviewers go through the list, confirm they checked the points in need of checking. Hook discussion and so on stays like it is. Basically all i suggest is adding a collapsed box up top with the criteria to be checked at the top of every nom, which then needs a confirmation of the reviewer that they indeed have checked the criteria. A small change, or addition rather, to every nominations page; very clear, every reviewer knows exactly what to check and is expected to do, accountability for reviewers, easily seeing a pattern of bad reviews etc. But as i said before, it well may be that i am missing something that makes it less feasible than i imagine it to be. 31.150.101.33 (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
31.150.101.33: I was adding to the discussion in general and did not mean to criticize you. Sorry about the bad link. Collapse boxes use javascript and add to the loading size and browser requirements. The html for the page is about 1.1 Mb, which I expect is largely due to the high amount of formatting in the text. We need that to aid discussion, but I'm cautious about adding to it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did not feel criticized, no worries. By the way, pings don't work for IPs. So while a nice gesture, it does not actually do anything. But whatever in the end. Clearly no one likes my idea, so be it. Let the status quo continue with the inevitable end for this project in a few years. Not my circus in the end. Cheers anyway Reidgreg :) 91.97.244.225 (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the section header should read “flouted” rather than “flaunted.” Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great input Brad! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So...what if we added something like "Eligibility criteria 4b": Ensure the article does not have, or does not need tagging for cleanup. GMGtalk 22:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GreenMeansGo: cleanup tags are the least of our problems. We're talking about referencing and formatting issues that are delineated at WP:DYKSG but are not read by most reviewers. Yoninah (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really concerned about tags in-and-of themselves. I'm just using them as a supremely concise way of saying "check for general problems with the article". A few thousand words of supplementary guidance is all well and fine, but that doesn't mean it's in a package that people are going to take the time to read, understand intuitively, and actually apply in practice. GMGtalk 10:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with losing the prescription is that the level of competence of some reviewers is such that they will simply overlook fundamental issues. And that will waste even more time downstream and run an even higher risk of issues making it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, one added side benefit of targeting cleanup tags is that AFAIK, they are disqualifying for the main page, right? So if someone ignores this guidance, then it would seem appropriate to tag the article, notify the reviewer that they've overlooked a fundamental issue, and the nomination can proceed once the issues are fixed. Yes, fixing the issues directly is more expedient, and more in the spirit of the project as a whole, but it doesn't really give any normative feedback to the reviewer that allows them to correct the problem moving forward. GMGtalk 12:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, at the moment, the dreadful QPQ process pays no attention to "after the pass" events. Reviewers could happily live out their entire existence without passing a single decent hook but never know it. Shambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1 - William G. Blakely hook needs urgent attention

Khajidha has raised an objection on the interest of the William G. Blakely hook currently on Queue 1. As the Queue is about to go live, an urgent response is needed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The objection raised at errors on Blakely was that the hook was boring. Of the eight articles in the set, it had the third-most views (~4300), only a few hundred behind the lead hook. The quirky hook was way ahead (at almost 14k). (numbers for all eight.) I'm glad that no one overreacted and did anything despite the snarky comments at errors. Pinging Stephen, Narutolovehinata5. MB 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Streisand effect! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be serious. WP:Errors only had 350 views that day, and there were a couple of other items being discussed. Maybe the hook just really wasn't that boring. MB 00:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I sure can. It was discussed in several places besides ERRORS! The hook was boring and poorly constructed. That's nothing personal, just the facts of the matter. Congrats on the clickbait result. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's more BS. The only other place it was discussed was at your user page by the same two editors who commented at MP:Errors. The facts are that your pronouncement of the hook as boring is inconsistent with the number of views, showing that your judgement is not infallible. MB 14:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, BS? Bad words. I think you ought to know that WP:ERRORS is transcluded on WT:MAIN so anyone visiting the latter sees the former... No, my judgement is not infallible, but there was a minority of one who though the hook was either well written or interesting. As I said, congrats on your clickbait, certainly amongst the worst of October, but there's a few days left. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the objection was that it was boring. Is "interesting" NOT something that the DYK project asks for in a hook? As for the number of clicks, unless you can say why those people clicked through, then I don't see that as supporting the worth of the hook as written. I've clicked many DYK hooks because the hook was so boring or pointless that I just had to see if that really was the best hook that could be made from the article. --Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 31 set?

I saw a couple of approved hooks which may be appropriate for Halloween. Could we perhaps set a date for the special occasion holding area?

  • Emanoil Băleanu (ALT0), paranormal reference
  • PSYCHLOPS
  • Max Troll

Just throwing it out there. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a nomination for 31 October as Reformation Day, would that also go there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review: Template:Did you know nominations/Zur Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the October 31 set right now. I promoted Emanoil Băleanu, but I don't see how the other two apply to Halloween at all. I put Satyr in the image slot and could reserve a slot for the Reformation hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/The Hexer (film) would also be a good candidate, if the issues brought up on the review are fixed in time. Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking Cyclops and Trolls as monsters/Halloween costumes. I hope the Hexer hook gets done, it would be an excellent addition. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: did I fix it? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you both. Template:Did you know nominations/The Hexer (film) is now approved and in the October 31 holding area ready for promotion to Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26: I think the Max Troll hook would work for Halloween if we piped the link, like:
ALT2: ... that between 1933 and 1936, a Troll betrayed hundreds of fellow communists to the Bavarian Political Police, a forerunner of the Gestapo?
But we would need the nominator's permission. Pinging @Turismond:. Yoninah (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you need my permission as I do not own the article or the hook, but, if you feel you do, I will happily grant it. While the name Max Troll struck me as funny, too, I'm just wondering whether the subject of the article is suitable (betrayal to what essentially was the Gestapo in all but name) for Haloween? I leave it up to you to decide. Turismond (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Turismond. We do take the nominator's preferences into consideration when suggesting revisions. Know that the Halloween set needn't (and shouldn't) deal totally with witches and goblins, since many readers outside the United States aren't even celebrating the festival. But we do like to use Halloween imagery for a few hooks to add some flavor. In a previous year, I promoted a hook about witch-hazel for the nature hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoters needed to move the Special Occasion hooks under October 31 to Prep 2. Gerda, what is going on with your Reformation Day nomination? Yoninah (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

needs a reviewer, I also have a hook open for 2 Nov, same, and will create one soon for 4 Nov. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check for new review

Could someone please check whether Template:Did you know nominations/Hijabophobia requires a new reviewer? Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer has done a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about fourteen hours ago; here is an updated list with 35 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through October 9. Right now we have a total of 346 nominations, of which 180 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones that remain from August and September.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empty queues yet again redux

16 hours to go and nothing lined up for tomorrow's main page. Come on admins, we need to sort this out so we can review what's going live tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there you go. three moved over. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
C'est forte amusante that TRM is unable to look at hooks while they are in prep, where he could alter a faulty hook himself but his action might go unappreciated, but instead feels it necessary to wait till they are in a queue, by which time he can no longer make alterations, but can add any errors he finds to his splendid "Errors" page and expect other editors to make alterations at his behest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you already know why this happens, I've mentioned it to you several times, but since there's a proclivity for last minute changes to be made before queues are constructed, it's simply not of any interest to me to review things that aren't heading to the main page. I should also note, again for the nth time, that I do not expect other editors to make alterations at [my] behest, I simply record the errors and track whether they're fixed. I note that literally hundreds of issues have made it all the way to the queues at DYK over the past few months. So instead of attempting to berate me, try spending some more time making sure the hooks that are passed and promoted to prep sets and queues are in good form. Seeking to continually personalise the issue will not get you anywhere, indeed it may be detrimental for you in the long term. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest solution, of course, is to work on the hooks while they're still on the main page prep. It's not difficult and it saves a lot of time. Merely noting them while expecting others to fix them is a waste of time and energy, energy that could be put into good use if the problems could be resolved immediately. I fail to see what's wrong TRM with simply fixing the errors yourself; I know you decline to do so for "philosophical reasons", but complaining that they haven't been resolved when it's already too late for non-admins to respond is a waste, and most of the time, they're so simple that you could have edited those hooks yourself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Did you really mean "on the main page" in your first sentence above? I would agree with you entirely if you really meant "in prep". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry; meant to say "in prep"; fixed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to keep repeating myself to you people. Your admins chased me away from here (i.e. there's no "philosophical reason" at all, so please don't just make things up). I don't care about the DYK project. I care about garbage on the main page. So I am performing quality control on the items that are on their way to the main page. None of this needs to be any kind of personalised comment on when I decide to apply my wealth of knowledge to your offerings. That I do it at all should be applauded, not berated for opting to do it at a point of my choosing. Now, crack on working harder at reducing the error rate, currently around 80 hooks per month are getting to the queues with issues, it's down to this project to get its house in order to stop that from happening, and stop personalising issues, criticising those of us who actually do care about main page integrity. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if, as you claim, the issues are so simple that you could have edited those hooks yourself then why are so many getting passed through QPQ and then making into prep sets, then being sent to queues? The problem isn't about me finding these errors at a time convenient to me, the problem is with all those who clearly aren't doing the job properly as each hook moves en route to the main page. Think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, you have a good point about errors. If you are finding so many errors in the queues, the hooks do need to be checked more closely. But the question we are asking is why you are waiting until the hooks reach the queues to list the errors on your userpage, instead of doing something about them when they are still in the prep sets?
Over the last few months, we have made a special effort to load up lots of prep sets in advance. The goal, as discussed on this page, is so lots of eyes can look at them, find errors, and change them or pull them before they're locked into the queue. Nikkimaria is one editor who surveys and pulls hooks at this stage. Any editor can do that, including you. So why wait until the hooks are locked away in a queue that only administrators can touch? Yoninah (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great question. What TRM is doing (or not doing) is making more work for other editors. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true, per WP:VOLUNTEER, TRM is free to choose when he wishes to review hooks, and is free to post those where he wishes. If he chooses to review things only when they are in a queue, however, it's our prerogative (also per WP:VOLUNTEER) to ignore his demands to fill the queues early enough for him to review them. I for one am not going to promote a set to queue unless I have the time to review it, the demands above notwithstanding. Vanamonde (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
”demands”? Dick. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=867150129"