Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"Did you know...?" template
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Nominations T:TDYK
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Removed hooks WP:DYKREMOVED
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS



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.

Silence does not equal consent[edit]

I have been on holiday for the last week so imagine my surprise when I saw that Flag of the United States of the Ionian Islands ran on 4 July despite it being in the April Fools Day holding area and removed from the main nominations list. This appears to have happened after a comment from @Brianhe: that said it might be a good hook for 4 July. However this comment was taken as a genuine request and was moved from April Fools Day back to the general nominations page and promoted by @Cwmhiraeth: without either asking for my agreement, which I would have given a negative answer to as I felt that an April Fools Day hook on any other day would not be looked kindly upon (as has been made clear several time). And indeed after a few hours on the front page, it was reworded by @Dweller: because it was an April fools hook.

Rest assured I am not blaming anybody for anything here and it did manage to run the flag image and got enough views to go into stats, which is all I had hoped for. However I am not happy that my request was overridden without my consent or knowledge. Hence why to avoid this situation again, I propose that we have a new rule added to the supplementary guidelines stating that "nominations placed in a holding are should not be moved from there after being approved except for with the nominators consent or if there is consensus that it would not be appropriate to run on the proposed holding date". Something like this I feel would ensure that nobody feels left out or ignored. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It was a splendid hook to run on Independence Day and probably got more attention there than it ever would if mixed up with other quirky hooks on April Fools Day. I promoted it from the main nomination page and not the special holding area, and April Fools Day is nine months off you know, it would hardly qualify as a new article by then! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose you may be right here, at least it guaranteed the image being used (it's a nice flag after all!). As I said, I am not having a go at anybody for it. But I do feel that it highlights that courtesy in Wikipedia could do with a little improvement. Hence why I am proposing that new rule for the supplementary guidelines. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, well that explains why it was worded like an April Fools. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The C of E here, This seems to have stalled a little here. Any more thoughts on the proposed guideline? The Royal C (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree that when hooks have been designated or requested to run at a specific time (which is usually accomplished by placing the hook in the special occasion holding area), then they should not be run at a different time without the original author's input. In general, when a hook has been changed, I think it is good practice to wait to hear the original author's opinion about the change; most authors will be far more familiar with technical nuances (and the sources that articles rely upon) than reviewers. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I really do think that we do need to have this in the supplementary guidelines as I can see this happening again. The Royal C (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The Royal C/The C of E, I would support a bold addition to the supplementary guidelines; if anyone objects, we can continue the discussion, but I haven't heard any dissenting votes. I will leave it to your capable hands to craft the language, but your proposal sounds eminently reasonable. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Notecardforfree OK, I will try to add one later today. I only continued the discussion as I thought that the supplemental guidelines were admin written and protected. The Royal C (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My addition was removed by @BlueMoonset: so I'm going to do as @Notecardforfree: suggested and put out a request for consensus here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm a little hesitant about the wording (the second condition for moving it is not very clearly written) but I would support the principle of the proposed addition, to prevent a similar situation with a less pleasant outcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Vanamonde93: I thought that: "if there is consensus on the DYK discussion that it would be inappropriate to run on the nominated date (eg. Swastika on Holocaust Memorial Day or Anti-Christian sentiment on Easter Day.)", that would give a little bit of leeway to the community to move hooks that would be inappropriate or insensitive if it ran on the selected day because of a recent event, religious holiday or commemoration. That way there is a way for the community to move a hook without the nominators consent but this would of course be something used sparingly with the spirit of the rule being that the nominator's wishes should be abided by in all but the most extreme circumstances given it is unlikely there will be many that will be requested to be run on a contentious date. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I would support that, too; I felt the wording did not make it clear, is all. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of proposal removal and nominator error[edit]

I removed the addition from the Supplementary rules because they clearly state that they reflect existing consensus, so adding a new rule that as yet has no consensus behind it was clearly inappropriate. There is also another point that should be made: the special occasion section is something that has developed over time, and is currently not mentioned in the DYK rules or Supplementary rules, so if we really think we need to add a rule about how the special occasion section should work in a specific situation, we should probably first codify how it is meant to work. However, I think doing so is not only overkill, but as I've just discovered when investigating the chronology of what occurred, it wouldn't even address what happened to this particular hook.

This entire section is predicated on the assumption that someone took a hook from April Fool's and moved it back to the main nominations page, from which it was promoted. The opposite occurred. Hooks proposed for April Fool's are supposed to be listed on the main nominations page like regular nominations (in order to attract reviewers) and also on the April Fool's page "Awaiting verification" section. They stay in both places until the nomination has been approved, at which point the nom is removed from the main nominations page and moved from the April Fool's "Awaiting verification" section to that page's "Verified hooks" section. The problem here was not that someone took a hook from a special occasion section or moved something from April Fool's back to the main nominations page; the reason this was promoted at the wrong time is that the hook was in two places at the same time—the April Fool's page and the regular nominations section. What happened was that The C of E copied the nomination template transclusion to the April Fool's page "Verified hooks" section with this edit on June 25, but never removed the approved hook transclusion from the main nominations page. On July 2, Cwmhiraeth, as previously stated, saw the approved hook still sitting on the nominations page (under June 17), and promoted it in good faith. Errors occur, and adding new rules aren't going to help prevent mistakes of this nature.

In my opinion, as this entire section is predicated on a false premise (and unfortunate operator error on the part of the nominator), it should be closed without further action. Should we actually run into a problem in future, that's the time to consider further rule-making. For now, the volunteers here are doing the best that they can and try to grant as many special occasion hooks as are feasible—indeed, with far more latitude than once was the case. I would oppose any additional rules on this subject at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing Is I specifically put a comment in there indicating that I wanted it held for AFD. I would have thought that by the approval being given, the implication was that the reviewer agreed with the request. Thus when another editor came and suggested using it for another time, the fact I didn't respond as I was on holiday was taken that I had no objections to it. I know that it may have been a short time frame but the point I was making was that my silence was taken that I consented to the change, which I it should not have been. The reason I proposed this was so that such a situation doesn't happen again and gives a little courtesy to nominators who may not be able to answer comments within a week for numerous reasons. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the last thing DYK needs are more superfluous rules like this. Nominations, like articles, are not owned by the nominator. Out of courtesy, a promoter may acquiesce to a nominator's request for a selected hook/image/date. If they don't, for whatever reason (grammatical errors/prep design/choice), I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Waiting up to a week for a response to a personal preference after it has been accepted feels like more pointless bureaucracy for an already backlogged process. As a side note, you may be interested to learn that 3 hours into that 12 hour rotation the hook was altered based on this discussion. Fuebaey (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
DYK is a highly (ahem) imperfect process, and if you care about the fate of your nomination, the exact wording of the hook, and when and where exactly it will appear, you have to keep your eye on it throughout the process, right up to and through the main-page appearance. That's just the reality of it. EEng 18:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
That may be true, however a drive-by-comment from an uninvolved party was taken as a free licence to put it there when I had specifically noted that it was for AFD and was held in that area upon approval. The main case is that this is a minor case where we should have something that acknowledges the nominator's request while also having a system that allows for consensus to be made should there be no comment. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't expect DYK to be like this
Mistakes happen, things get overlooked. The process is not a clockwork you can wind up and set in motion to tick down until your automaton dances out onto the main page; instead it's a Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson mousetrap that will nip your finger as soon as catch the mouse, and it's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. You just have to keep an eye on your hook, and more rules will just gum things up more. EEng 23:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This happens now and then
Normal DYK workflow

LavaBaron's editing restrictions[edit]

Per this AN thread, LavaBaron is given editing restrictions on DYK. Any hook nominated or reviewed by LavaBaron must be reviewed by a second editor before it may be promoted to the main page. The restrictions are reproduced below as follows:

  1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
  2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
  3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
  4. (To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.
  5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

The enforcement of these rules should be the responsibility of all editors who promote DYK hooks. Any editor may undo the promotion of any hook to a prep area or a queue area (for admins) whose promotion was made in contravention to these restrictions, assuming good faith and citing this AN restriction. --Deryck C. 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this addition to the header section of T:TDYK really necessary? It feels to me like a scarlet letter. LavaBaron has agreed on his or her user talk page to note that double reviews are needed in his nominations and reviews, which is where the reminder is needed, so is a header notice necessary and appropriate? EdChem (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary given Lavabaron's commitment to add a note to his contributions, so have reverted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass - thanks, but I don't have an issue with it. It may be better for everyone involved if it was still in place. I'll defer to your judgment, though. LavaBaron (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, EdChem, I very much appreciate your comment. However, by way of explanation, I don't have any issue with the header, personally. This restriction will eventually slip off other editors radars and I don't want to risk getting blocked if another editor doesn't notice my own warning notes and accidentally promotes anyway. In the grand scheme of things, I'm fine with being publicly exhibited in the stockade for awhile if the alternative is the hangman. I'm probably wrapping things up here anyway, so it's not really a big deal. LavaBaron (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
You are not going to get blocked for the actions of another editor! However, since you've made the commitment to remind other editors of your restrictions in your contributions to T:TDYK, you will need to stick to it as failing to do so might attract unwanted attention. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity, I think LavaBaron is wise to include reminders on his nominations and reviews. Just because something is objectively unreasonable doesn't mean it won't happen, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, however, I was just blocked on accident the other day - which I've just learned can't be WP:REVDEL from my log and will be part of my permanent record as long as my account exists - so I would like to be extra careful in any edit I make, or any edit anyone else makes that may in some way reference me by name. (I apologize, in advance, for publicly disagreeing and if the preceding comment seemed insolent; it was not my intent to be but rather to observe a personal experience as a possible reason for maintaining the header alert so that as many people as possible know that my DYKs require extra scrutiny. I appreciate all the work you do for WP as an admin and will defer, without further debate or objection, to you judgment on this question.) LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

EdChem you claim Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity..., could you provide an explanation for this including diffs please? As far as I could tell, most people who are pulling hooks are doing it based on the fact that they are erroneous, or ill-sourced or malignant. Of course, you could correct me if I'm wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I expressed my opinion. I am in favour of higher quality and minimising inaccuracies in articles on WP. I am not, however, comfortable with the discussions which come across as disdainful of the contributors and contributions to DYK. Examples, quotations all being from you, FYI:
  • "Admins who deal with errors here are under no obligation to do anything" is the exact attitude of image patrollers who tag and notify when fixing the problem was as easy or easier, and ignoring the disruption caused. It comes with an apparent belief of superiority which is really irritating. That you can just pull a hook rather than fix does not mean that that course of action is appropriate or wise. Also, you signed as an admin who "participate at DYK but rarely move prep sets to queues and updating main page" but reserve the right to disregard the structures of DYK ("DYK rules are non-binding on admins", "I'm not arguing, I'm stating fact. Admins are not under any obligation to comply with the arcane and multifarious "rules" of DYK") - hardly helpful. Maybe things wouldn't be so oppositional if hooks were corrected rather than pulled (by all means discuss here or with the nominator / reviewers afterwards) or returned once corrected. You could build some goodwill by protecting the main page and advancing the goals of DYK within that broader goal, rather than always coming across as critical. Admins are supposed to be editors with extra buttons not rulers, and while I have no doubt you can make a case for being uninvolved, from my perspective you come with a pre-existing opinion and bias against DYK - you come across as disdainful ("DYK are no longer interested in interesting hooks it would appear, they are just too obsessed with self-preservation").
  • "... not worth the grief and the disruption to the arcane processes and delicate individuals here" - good to see your healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here.
  • "... the review process is up shit creek" - this is an over-broad generalisation which does not acknowledge or recognise the good work being done by many reviewers. Take me, for example... I've never had a hook pulled from the main page (nor do I recall one from the queue) and I don't recall one of my reviews being subsequently faulted. I've noted problems with paraphrasing and sourcing and I believe I am thorough (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - you can look at all my DYKs if you like). In some cases, I have posted after a tick is given to address a problematic review. Is my work "up shit creek" too? Or are there people here who could use some acknowledgement and who can serve as examples for new reviewers to follow? The QPQ system has its flaws and I favour removing QPQ credits from poor reviews so that another review is needed for their nomination to proceed, but the flaws don't make DYK worthless. There is some high quality work done here, both editing and reviewing, and that seems to go unnoticed. For example, I am proud of this case where what was brought to DYK was inaccurate and low quality and what went on to the main page was much higher quality (IMO).
  • "The answer: slow the rate down" - you said this in the context of the JetBlue hook which you described as "dreadful and promotional" (an accurate assessment, IMO). You have posted repeatedly about section length and rate and built no consensus for change. I suggest that is, in part, because your approach leads to a high degree of defensiveness. I can't see why 8 hooks rather than 7 is a problem for DYK, and if that is better for balancing the main page then it is something that should be collegially achievable. Isn't it better for WP and our readers if we can work together?
All of the above are from the last two weeks or so. In that time we've also had a proposed topic ban at AN, and you are not alone in having an approach which I see as counter-productive. DYK has problems with reviewing, there is no doubt, and at times hooks need to be pulled from the queue and (sadly) sometimes from the main page - sadly because they shouldn't get that far - but what feels like a "gotcha" approach even in cases where a small edit would address the issue is IMO leading editors to feel threatened and attacked when what is needed is for them (and us) to understand how things get missed and to learn from mistakes. EdChem (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
TLDR: DYK regulars don't like the fact they're being scrutinised and that they're being unveiled as a reasonably owny bunch who are content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page. If you think the admin tools have been abused by me or anyone else in pulling detritus from the main page, then do something about it. As for "healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here", damned straight. The process consistently fails, and the individuals involved put up the shutters, heads into the sand and pretend everything's okay once these awkward people pointing out all these issues will go away. Well newsflash, we're not going away. And low quality or erroneous hooks will continue to be removed and those responsible for continually supporting them will be called out. Sorry if you misinterpreted that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Blunt version: Your strategy is frustrating your aim. Your description of MY work as "low quality" and me as being "content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page" as a consequence of my reviewing work is rejected as unsupported by evidence and obnoxious. Your attitude and behaviour convey disdain for DYK which renders your objectivity questionable. Newsflash, DYK isn't going away. You could try working with us to address problems... or is that too difficult? Sorry if this is too sensible for you. EdChem (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I work every day to improve every DYK that goes through the system. I don't have time to double check every hook but have pulled or suggested several be pulled en route to the main page. I have made multiple suggestions to improve things and yet DYK and its guardians see themselves as impervious and near-perfect, and criticism of any type is simply rejected. There's too much ownership and mollycoddling of editors in this part of the main page, it's unhealthy and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. There's not enough responsibility taken for continuous issues, this thread is the first of its kind and is probably about five years too late coming. Sorry if that's too much truth for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I made one suggestion for improving DYK, and you shot it down, in a fit of ownership, perhaps. Lay out your proposal(s), perhaps at VPP, if you don't like this page, and live with the fact that others have different opinions and views than you. Other people are not going away, either, and as you appear to think you are besieged, there must be more of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
It takes more than one opposition to "shoot down" a reasonable proposal. And I'm here for the longhaul, whether the masses like it or not, so wise up. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually it got quite a bit of reasonable support, including from Fram. But your comment shows either a lack of the wisdom of self-awareness, or just plain hypocrisy, you act as if everyone who does not agree with you is suddenly a borg, when what's true is they just individually disagree with you and you can't handle it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Off topic-discussion
Then I wasn't the only to object by a long chalk. I can handle all of this, unlike the whinging DYK owners. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Your whingeing ('to complain persistently in a peevish way') shows otherwise. Sure, the borg is the boogeyman. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Not at all, I've offered several ways the process can improve, and indeed I actively engage in improving each and every DYK myself, including preventing copyvios being posted, including removing non-fair use images, including actually reading beyond the hook, checking for grammar and other minor improvements. I have no idea what you're talking about, but that doesn't surprise me. Now either focus on the discussion at hand, or chase me to my talk page to continue in your lame attempt at berating me, but either way, stop wasting time here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course, you argue you don't know what people are talking about and then continue with extended arguments that are oddly excited and bizarrely preachy, wise up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I asked you nicely to stop wasting time here. Please continue the attempt to berate me elsewhere. Otherwise stick to the program, improving DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not wasting, anytime. Your way of asking things is decidedly not nice, don't fool yourself. Regardless, this is about improving DYK, as we are discussing the matter of proposing, discussing, and making changes in DYK. As your complaints persist about a borg in charge, here, you've been pointed to how to handle that complaint appropriately. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I've really got no idea what you are continually going on about. I have suggested solutions and actively work on problematic issues here. You? Nothing but odd and meaningless analogies. Try to be part of the solution, and stop eating time here failing in beating me up for telling the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Could someone uninvolved hat this worthless diatribe? We can return to trying to fix the many problems, rather than bizarre Star Trek comparisons. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It just cannot be true that you don't understand you whine and complain the "DYK guardianship" or "regulars" "ownership" obstruct your proposals for reform. Just stop and handle it the appropriate way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Alan, you've missed the point entirely. Unlike you I make positive contributions to every single DYK that passes to the main page, sometimes I have to stop them because they're junk for one reason or another. Sometimes other diligent editors have to pull them because they're junk. Those of us concerned with quality will take whatever steps necessary. Now, I urge you, please stop beating yourself up and saying the same meaningless things over and over again, and let some capable people try to handle the problem, and that includes stopping this meaningless guff. Now, over to you for the final word (and then a (ce)) and we're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, here's my take, speaking as an on-again, off-again DYK participant: First, EdChem is right that there is a sense of a "gotcha" approach that does discourage people from reviewing and promoting DYK hooks. We fear being slamblasted for a good faith error and fear reprisals. On the other hand, if The Rambling Man spots a problem and removes a hook, groovy, so long as I'm not slamblasted for a good-faith error, I can live with that, he does a good job of spotting problems others miss and so long as he wants to do that job, I'm good with it. Similarly, when Moonriddengirl sends an approved hook bac for another round, she does what she does best. At the end of the day, I am fine if I make a mistake and others have to fix it, as long as it is acknowledged that I did the best I could at the time and intended to do a good job -- we all are human. But finally, having created about 200+ articles for WP, and about 50 of them have been DYK, I do hope that everyone here who criticizes content also creates it from time to time and so understands the challenges we face. (I know that TRM does...which is one reason why I'm not too upset if he has a high standard; I've done GAN reviews for his articles, and he DOES create content) Montanabw(talk) 01:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Obviously, as my sometimes contributions on this page attest, there is no objection to re-running a review, where others take a look and find an issue that needs more discussion or reversal. Such additional review rarely need to be an accusation (or a gotcha) and in extreme cases where it does need to be an accusation, those should go to AN/ANI. And policy reform proposals should either be accepted or rejected here or at VPP, and then move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Query on editing restrictions[edit]

Deryck C., I was wondering about the fourth restriction, which starts with "(To balance the maths)". I initially thought this explanation meant the second QPQ would be requested to make up for having two QPQs used to review a single LavaBaron nomination, but the way this reads, LavaBaron's second QPQ can be of a nomination already approved by another reviewer. Is this what you meant? While sometimes this means simple duplication of results (as here, which would not normally be eligible for QPQ credit), it can mean LavaBaron finding issues with an approved review, which does help the process. Also, so far as I can tell, the first review doesn't actually need to start from scratch, but simply that the DYK review has not yet been approved/accepted, unless by "accepted" you mean "accepted for review (but not necessarily approved)". Please clarify. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Your interpretation is correct. One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because...". Rule #2 has essentially side-stepped LavaBaron from the review chain, so I tried to find a way to balance out the reviewer effort while allowing LavaBaron to participate meaningfully and receive oversight at the same time. From the reviews linked above, I think LavaBaron has been using the requirements of his restriction to participate constructively, which is encouraging. Deryck C. 23:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Deryck C. That's very clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2[edit]

Promoted hook:

  • ... that despite travelling to five continents as a musician, Gordon Tobing (pictured) continued to live with his father-in-law?

I changed it to avoid the suggestion of homosexuality:

  • ... that despite travelling to five continents as a musician, Gordon Tobing (pictured) and his family continued to live with his in-laws?

But really, it's not very hooky. It makes sense that the family of someone who is traveling all the time would choose to stay with family. I suggest returning this to the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"I changed it to avoid the suggestion of homosexuality" Er, what? That suggests homosexuality? I'm guessing you are one of the people who also thinks Clefairy is gay... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pinging Chris Woodrich, since it's his nomination. I don't know in what culture that a man living with his father-in-law even hints at homosexuality. However, the article itself actually says "This limited him financially, and he and his family lived with his in-laws in a 3-by-15-square-metre (32 sq ft × 161 sq ft) house in Kebon Sirih, Jakarta." and was worded that way as of the nomination. "father-in-law" was not then, or now, mentioned in the article. Only Chris Woodrich can say why he worded the hook that way. — Maile (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Square feet by square feet??? Do they live in the 4th dimension? EEng 07:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I would say that there is no real reason for "returning this to the noms area for further work". That comment is a mystery to me. There might be some editors who slip enough to warrant that, but Chris is pretty good at what he does. His work on Featured content is impressive. I don't see anything in the article or nomination that warrants yanking it out of prep. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Then I don't understand why the two parts of the hook go together. This would make more sense to me:
  • ALT1: ... that despite his successful international musical career, Gordon Tobing (pictured) and his family continued to live with his in-laws? Yoninah (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Because the article specifically states "Tobing and Hutabarat continued to represent Indonesia as cultural envoys, ultimately travelling to five continents." and is sourced at the end of that sentence. The word "international" is not in the article. This is beginning to look kind of overkill for the need to come up with an ALT hook. Let it go. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Fine. Yoninah (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Where the hell did a "suggestion of homosexuality" come from in "live with his father-in-law"? Living with someone is different than sleeping with someone. "Father-in-law" was closer to the sources (which give much less information on his mother-in-law), but "in-laws" definitely works better for the hook.
I avoided "successful" because it's a ridiculously subjective metric. International could work, but "five continents" is a more descriptive phrase (and one emphasized by the sources). International could just be "known in Malaysia". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • And it's not just his family; he did as well. The sources emphasize how simply he lived (giving the measurements of the house, going on and on about him taking the bus and refusing to play at hotels [which is where the big money was for a lot of musicians in those days] etc.).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4[edit]

... that Erin McLeod (pictured) played soccer in Indonesia for two years before joining the Canada women's national soccer team?

Well she lived in Indonesia and played some junior level stuff, but she didn't then move onto joining the national team. She left Indonesia in 1999 before playing in the Canadian under-19s in 2001. She didn't play for Canada proper until 2002. I submit that the hook is misleading as it implies something that isn't really true. I'd say she started her football career in Indonesia before being selected for Canada some years later. Even that, as a hook, is dull. Many hundreds of international footballers played their junior football in different countries before going on to represent their national team. We ought to be able to better here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to return it to the nominations page for reconsideration of the hook. I particularly liked the image and its indication that top level football is not exclusively a male preserve. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I know that I can return anything to the noms page, I was hoping that it could be resolved without too much bureaucracy but I guess I have little choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mary Mark Ockerbloom and Soccerfan1996: for input from the article creator and reviewer. — Maile (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that goalkeeper Erin McLeod, who now plays for the Canada women's national soccer team, recorded 11 shutouts in 21 games during her college career?
ALT2 ... that Canadian football goalkeeper Erin McLeod practices meditation to prepare for games?
ALT3 ... that Canadian football goalkeeper Erin McLeod is also a successful artist? 184.147.117.244 (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I like alt3, it's different from most footballer hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I like ALT3 also. It's short and catchy and hooky. — Maile (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Any way we could add "and fashion designer" onto the end of ALT3? I still like it otherwise, though. Soccerfan1996 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
According to the cited article, she's "an investor in and brand ambassador" rather than a designer. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
ALT2a ... that Canadian football goalkeeper Erin McLeod practices meditation to prepare for games, to be a calm and comforting presence on her team? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
ALT3a ... that Canadian football goalkeeper Erin McLeod held her first solo art exhibit, entitled "Limitless", in 2013? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
ALT4 ... that while Canadian footballer Erin McLeod played goal for the Vancouver Whitecaps, the team never lost a game?
Regarding ALT1, it gives statistics from a single year during her college career, but the phrasing sounds like it's for her entire college career, so I think we'd have the same sort of issue as the original hook. ALT2 and ALT3 both seem to me to be a little too general. In particular, in ALT3 "successful artist" seems like it might be an overstatement, since one successful show does not make a successful career as an artist. I've suggested variations that give more detail specific to this person but still develop the idea of the original hook. I think ALT4 could also be fun. I've confirmed that all the possible ALT hooks are accurately sourced. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, Alt3a gets my vote, with Alt4 a late possibility. That she could have played a couple of games of the Whitecaps means the latter is effectively "meh" territory, the former is actually of note because so few of these individuals are actually interesting outside their sport. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This hook has now moved, unaltered, into Queue 4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio detector[edit]

Can someone direct me to the venue for discussion of Earwig's copyvio detector, please? I'm sure it's a useful tool but we need to get to the bottom of this absurd idea it provides a "probability" or "confidence" that there's a copyvio. It's completely impossible to compute such a probability, or anything remotely like it. So where do I go? EEng 19:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Here: User talk:The Earwig. — Maile (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @EEng: One thing everyone needs to keep in mind, the tool does not show likelihood of something being a copyvio, but just that there is a certain percentage of content that matches some content elsewhere. That content might be PD, might be a WP mirror, might be album track-listings or lists of someones publications, or might just be simple declarative statements that are not copyrightable. It would be a large disservice to automatically equate a high Earwig % with being a copyvio. Rather, it is just one tool to alert us to the potential of one. It is always up to a critical and reasoned eye to actually evaluate the "match". CrowCaw 21:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I certainly do know that, which is why I'm concerned. The tool itself declares things like "Violation Unlikely -- 3.8% confidence" (whatever that means), which then causes people to say things, in DYK reviews, like "The tool says there's only at 3.8% chance of a copyvio". In fact, the little automated template that now seems to pop up in most nominations says right out, "The probability of copyright violation is 1.0%. (confirm)", which is nonsense. EEng 21:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
So I am confused here, if only a 1% of the wikipedia text is identical to a source, how is it not probably that it is not a copyright violation? I am not talking "close paraphrase" but ensuring that it's not straight up copied from somewhere else? What am I missing here?  MPJ-DK  22:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Even in low % cases, it is worth the time to compare the top couple of potential hits. I've seen low % returns end up being deleted due to enough specific words being changed to lower the score, but still keeping the identical flow and structure, thus running afoul of WP:PARAPHRASE. I agree the wording of those notices should be changed or removed altogether. As a heavy user of the tool elsewhere I've learned its quirks and its limitations. If anything, the % can often be little more than just a convenient way to rank the potential matches. I know the workload here is crippling already, but (again speaking as a heavy EW user), I would say any hit above 0.0% should be manually evaluated. Once it is used a few dozen/hundred times, a false-positive can usually be dismissed just a few seconds of comparison. I should definitely not like to see the EW % being used as a rubber-stamp in either direction. CrowCaw 22:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Totally agree, it's a help, not a replacement for actually looking at the comparisons to make a judgement.  MPJ-DK  22:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec) To MPJ-DK's question, a 1% match is in fact usually not a copyvio, but even when discounting the paraphrase options, one major place the bot can miss copyvios are in sources that make heave use of frames, or have java-based "click here for more" sections. In those cases, the bot sees enough to list (usually the title or part of the intro), but can't list the rest of the content. Like I say, 1% is usually clean, but is always worth the couple of seconds it would take to ensure that. CrowCaw 22:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Look, the point you're all missing is that nobody has been able to tell me what the 1%, 10%, or 20%, represents -- presumably there's some dividend and some divisor, yielding a quotient of x%, but I'm still waiting to hear what those are. If none of you know the answer to that question then everything you're saying is based on nothing. I've asked over at Earwig's page, to which Maile so helpfully pointed me.
To one specific comments here: if 1% of a 6000-word article (i.e. a quote of 60 words) is taken verbatim from somewhere else, without quotation, then that definitely is a copyvio. And I suspect Crow's advice about ranking, and reviewing anything above 0% (once we find out what that is) is going to turn out to be correct. This "% confidence" is misleading everyone. EEng 22:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Everything I'm saying" is based on my experience with using the tool, where I've learned that whatever the % means, "likelihood of copyvio" is not one of them. I was trying to address what I thought was your reasoning for even bringing this up, to wit: that people are putting far too much weight on the % returned. If you just want the algorithm, then yes, Earwig's page is the place to go. Out, CrowCaw 23:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I want the algorithm, after which I'd like to be sure people are using it appropriately. EEng 23:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
You can be sure that it is used inappropriately all too frequently. This was true even before the new bot was created. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is the tool: [1] You can probably go to the operator with algorithm questions. For me, the big advantage is that you can look at each source it flags individually and see what is the specific concern. Where you have sources flagged by the tool that match citations in the article, it's easier than dup detector (where everything has to go one page at a time) to compare them directly. No tool can catch certain types of close paraphrasing, there's no escape from human review. The biggest issue I've seen with Earwig is that it flags wikipedia mirrors sometimes and also can flag areas with a lot of direct quotations, even if properly sourced and cited. My own style in evaluating DYKs with it is to state something like "Checked with Earwig" or "Earwig tool did not reveal copyvio" without mentioning a percentage, thus making it my own assessment and not an arbitrary cutoff. Montanabw(talk) 04:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Imperial / metric conversion[edit]

The hook "that the first Sirloin Stockade restaurant had a giant 1,800 pounds (820 kg) plastic ornamental cow", currently in prep 4, contains an example of something that bugs me. Modifiers in English don't show number (or gender), so the normal way of expressing size is "a seven-foot basketball player", "a three-hundred-pound linebacker" and so on. But when the converter is used, it pluralises the modifier as above, "pounds" where it should be "pound". The only way of getting rid of that is to delete the automated conversion, and type in the values instead. Is there a way it can be adjusted? Awien (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I promoted this hook, and I had actually just used the imperial measure, but I had linked it so anybody unfamiliar with it could follow. @Yoninah: went ahead and added the conversion template. I actually would prefer the use of a single measure, for the sake of readability; but if we wanted both measures, surely we could just type them in? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
For those who have not read the documentation for Template:Convert, the option |adj=on renders the units in adjective (non-pluralized) form. --Allen3 talk 17:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
That's what I usually do for the instances I encounter, but it would be good if the source, the converter itself, could be fixed. Awien (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Oops - edit conflict. Will go see. Awien (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, the way the conversion template pluralizes the modifier really bugs me too, but as I live in a country that uses metric, 1,800 pounds doesn't mean anything to me. Thank you, @Allen3: for that handy add-on. I was actually looking for it before I added the template. Yoninah (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Don't worry ma'am, I've got the secret service on DYK, they'll get Tiff's hook pulled for ya."
... that Tiffany Trump has been called part of the "Snap Pack" for her voluminous postings to Instagram?

Trump's article is currently at AFD, so there's five hours to decide whether to run this hook or pull it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you pull it. It should not be on DYK with a deletion tag plastered across the top. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You could replace it with this uncontroversial nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Copenhaver Hanes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I would also suggest pulling it and putting it back at T:TDYK. It's highly unlikely that it will be deleted, in my view, but as Cwmhiraeth says, it should not go on the main page with a deletion tag on it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Replaced with the suggested one, along with the credit. I'll leave it to you guys to decide what to do about reopening it, adding it to Removed, and formally closing the Helen Copenhaver Hanes DYK review. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have archived Helen Copenhaver Hanes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted the archiving of Tiffany Trump, and added a note there about the AfD. If the AfD is kept, we can look at the nomination again; if it isn't, the question is moot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Tiffany Trump is not at AfD!!! It was snow kept today! Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, about 45 minutes after it would have been on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realise 11:30 was 45 minutes after 12:30. A quick perusal of the AfD or the nomination template at the time this was raised would have shown that a previous deletion discussion occurred a week ago. It would've been more reasonable to note that and procedurally close the AfD, instead of partially yank a DYK hook and leave others to pick up the pieces. Fuebaey (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
My mistake about the timing. However, you might note that I replaced it while the AFD was still underway. Better safe than sorry and no harm done. Anyway, if you'd like to be of help here, please do so, it's great to see you here (very unusual, perhaps you were seeing what I was up to today?!) For what it's worth, it's not my fault DYK operates in such an arcane fashion with all the template and transclusions and hidden pages, but I certainly won't tolerate garbage like AFD'ed articles getting close to the main page. Now time for you to do something constructive, something that might benefit the readers, no? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Taking administrative actions without cursory background checks is wrong. I cannot see why an admin would not take two minutes to check if a maintenance tag/an error was valid and not a means to keep something off the main page. If pointing that out is "unconstructive" than I'd suggest you reconsider your position. If you think that DYK is coded in a way that you cannot understand, you could ask for help or leave it to someone who is familiar with the process. Fuebaey (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You missed the point. When I made the change, the AFD was still open, therefore a valid admin action. (Or maybe the other editors who helped out are wrong too....) Of course, if you don't understand that, I can find someone to help, or someone else to help you monitor my edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, your point was that a tag was placed on an article. A tag that required consensus to decide whether the article was suitable for deletion. Consensus was decided a week prior, to keep said article. Hence you blindly followed an invalid tag. I know it's difficult to take [constructive] criticism for one's actions, but maybe we could just accept mistakes without getting too defensive? Fuebaey (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm sure you will learn from this. If an AFD tag is on an article about to head to the main page, it needs to be stopped. No matter what. You have no real pedigree that I can recommend to others in decision-making or admin actions, so you'll have to defer on this one. The sooner you stop following me and start accepting your own failures here, the better for everyone. Thanks again for your sudden interest in DYK!! P.S. Do you think you're adding any value here, now it's all done and dusted? You're the sole complainant and your motives are, well, stalkish and questionable at best. Or is DYK your new ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Nice Cruyff turn, though I think Hal made a better one. I made a suggestion and you seem to have taken it a bit too personally, so I'll just leave it there. If I thought it would help, I'd ask you to take to heart what Iridescent wrote a few days ago and add that not everyone is out to get you. Stay safe. Fuebaey (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
And I think you should refrain from stalking me and go back to whatever it is you try to do here. Bye now. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that the article is barely above stub-class and starts "Tiffany Ariana Trump is an American heiress, singer, fashion model and Instagram user." Yeah, really the stuff of an encyclopedia. Laura Jamieson (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 1[edit]

that mathematician Sergei Nikolaevich Chernikov already had the first of his five department chairs before defending his DSc in 1940?

Perhaps I'm just dim, but (a) I certainly don't understand what "defending one's DSc" means, and (b) I don't understand at all what makes this claim so remarkable or even vaguely interesting? For such a legend of maths, this hook leaves me cold. But perhaps I am alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • If I'm not wrong, it's saying that he was made chair of a department before he has completed the equivalent of his doctorate (or thereabouts). Which is quite unusual in academia (I've never heard of such before) but I doubt that anybody outside academia would find it terribly interesting. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Surely there's some potential in the fact that he worked as a laborer and driver before becoming a mathematician? "...that Sergei Nikolaevich Chernikov worked as a driver after secondary school, and went on to become head of mathematics at five different universities?" Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • pinging @Cwmhiraeth: who promoted the hook: I would not feel okay pulling this myself. Thoughts, Cwmhiraeth? Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Like TRM, I wondered what defending a DSc meant. There is nothing basically wrong with the present hook, but a more interesting hook could be found. Either what Vanamonde93 suggests, or how about "... that Sergei Nikolaevich Chernikov was considered to be "one of the pioneers of linear programming"?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The hook is certainly factual, but I think any of the suggested alternatives are a vast improvement on the interest level and accessibility level. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh well, we had some good ideas, but nothing was done about it and it moved untouched from prep to queue to main page. How depressing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3[edit]

@Allen3: you just promoted Josi S. Kilpack to Prep 3, a nomination which had been reviewed by @Cwmhiraeth:. To be entirely honest, I'm not certain she passes our notability guidelines, and I'm worried that somebody will slap an AfD on it in the next couple of days, and then we'll have another mess like the one above. The relevant guidelines would be WP:GNG, which I don't believe she meets, and WP:NAUTHOR, which rests upon how we treat Deseret News. Given that the LDS church owns the paper, and that Kilpack seems to want to be known as a member, I'm hesitant. Willing to be persuaded, though. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, what does the LDS church owning the Deseret News have to do with Mrs. Kilpack's ability to pass WP:GNG (Actually the newspaper is owned by a holding company which is in turn owned by the church, creating another level of indirection)? Mrs. Kilpack is a rank and file member of the church and not a member of the church leadership. This means that, even if you accept the accusations that the church exerts influence over the newspaper, there is no evidence that Kilpack had any influence over the newspaper's editorial decisions. This means we have multiple new stories about the article subject in a major newspaper that satisfies both Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources, a text book example of a subject that meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. As for the possibility of someone submitting a deletion request for a author who has books in hundreds of U.S. libraries,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] my years of experience at Wikipedia have taught me that if someone wished to be WP:POINTy then they will usually manage to do so. --Allen3 talk 13:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Amgisseman(BYU) the article's author. It would be a good idea to have some independent sourcing in there. World Cat search shows her to be well-published. However, all the publishers are subsidiaries of Deseret Book. Both Deseret Book and Deseret News are subsidiaries of Deseret Management Corporation, which is owned by the LDS Church.
  • Of the 17 sources used, the Utah Valley Writers is a dead link "account suspended". One is the author's personal website. 7 are the Deseret News, and one is the "LDS Writer's Market". The Whitney Awards are directly affiliated with the LDS church. The Trina Boice reference appears to be self published according to World Cat, and the associated ISBN number in the article doesn't point to anything I can find.
She might be notable, but I think sources not owned by LDS is a good idea, to avoid this looking like a publicity from LDS. The author's own website is primary and should not be used as a source. Utah Valley Writers definitely needs to be replaced with a link that works. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have been working to get this article up to snuff, and I cannot find much non-LDS coverage for a Mormon novelist. However, the Standard-Examiner cited several times in the article is not an LDS source. Yoninah (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Allen3:, Maile pretty much said what I was thinking. On the balance I do believe she is notable, but I think we could do a slightly better job of demonstrating that. I would treat an LDS owned newspaper as perfectly reliable in most cases, but where they also gain publicity from the piece, I hesitate a little. I would do the same for any newspaper. I hope this better explains why I posted here. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 I knew exactly what you meant. We have a fairly recent editor here who just happens to like producing articles related to Mormon people and subject matter. No problem with that idea at all. The editor just needs to get used to finding sourcing in addition to the LDS ones. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
My comment was actually directed at @Allen3:, but thanks for understanding. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the ISBN on the book. I also removed the Utah Valley Writers reference and replaced it with a new source. I will use more caution in the future when using Deseret News as a source. Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Holding Out for a Hero[edit]

You're all heroes in our community, and you all respect each other's work tremendously. Fab. We're done here. BencherliteTalk 19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have a dispute at Prep 2. TRM started tinkering with the lead hook. I reverted to the hook that was hashed out in the nomination. Now TRM is edit-warring his preference back. I don't think we should be having such a free-for-all in the preps – it should just be a matter of posting the reviewed and approved hooks. Anyway, I'm pinging the parties: @Allen3, Doug Coldwell, and The Rambling Man:. Andrew D. (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Approved hooks can still be erroneous or prone to POV that still needs to be sorted out before hitting the main page. What worries me more is the initial review of that hook that you made where you missed a whole bunch of problems with the article. Still, we are, none of us, perfect, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There were two articles in that nomination and I flagged up several issues in my first review. I looked quite closely at Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope and consider that the description of him as a "hero" is reasonable because he himself made a gallant rescue of this sort, winning a silver medal for this. When people are awarded medals for valour, it is not POV to describe them as such. As for other issues, these seem to be trivial matters such as dash/hyphen usage. Andrew D. (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see this is now rendered moot, as the nominator has agreed on the rewording by Yoninah which omits "hero". Now time to move on, but we need to watch your review quality from now on, as I saw myriad issues with that which you were going to pass once the ENGVAR was fixed. Troubling indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • TRM should please see WP:DYKNOT which explains that our reviews are intentionally limited in scope. We are not here to nitpick every aspect of the articles. Andrew D. (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I get that you give very quick and weak reviews, because you feel justified in doing so by parroting DYKNOT. I, on the other hand, prefer to fix things before they get to the main page. It's no problem, I'll just keep on checking every item! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
TRM, it's hard to believe you have time for DYK at all, your abundant bonhomie putting you in such high demand for parties, tea, society lunches, and so on. EEng 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it? And it's amazing that you have time to spread your generous wit and indefatigable wisdom so gossamer thin over every part of Wikipedia we are all so privileged that you touch with your dilithium digits. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK is almost overdue[edit]

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 #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Now over an hour overdue. Admin needed to promoted a prep to queue as soon as possible. (All preps are filled!) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through July 8. Some of these entries have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 53 nominations have been approved, leaving 145 of 198 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from June, which continue to need a reviewer.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Problems on the nomination page[edit]

I notice these two problems on the nominations page:

  1. The nomination for El Gran Destafio (2011) brings up an empty page.
  2. The nomination for Hoi Tong Monastery has got mixed up with the following nomination.

Expert help needed! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Destafio is a spelling mistake. The word is desafío, if that's any help. Awien (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Nominated under the wrong name, article was moved, but looks like DYK template was not?  MPJ-DK  11:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I think I fixed the Gran Desafio issue.  MPJ-DK  12:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
MPJ-DK, I notice you moved the template to solve this issue. Templates aren't supposed to be moved. Messes up something in the system. BlueMoonset can you add something here? — Maile (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah dang I did not know that, anything I can do to fix it?  MPJ-DK  12:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It's probably a simple fix, but I've never done it. I mistakenly moved a template years ago, but someone else fixed it for me. Best to wait now for someone who knows more about this glitch. — Maile (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The 2011 was a fairly simple fix—most was done by MPJ-DK after the move to the nomination template and the nominations transclusion—but a similar move to the 2009 left things in a mess, which I've just fixed. Remember, folks, if the article is moved, don't move the DYK nomination, but mention on the template that the move has occurred, so the wikignomes can do the necessary fixes. That way nothing needs to be done to the DYK nomination transclusion, and fewer changes are needed to the actual nomination template. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The Hoi Tong Monastery problem has been resolved. Had nothing to do with that nomination. The one right below that Priscilla Nzimiro was the problem. Where the template stated "Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line." a lot of people wrote below that line. When the nomination was closed, everything below the line remained on the nominations page with nothing to connect it to. — Maile (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A reminder to all prep set builders: when you approve a nomination template, check it in Preview first: if there are comments hanging out below the bottom of the blue "closed" section, move them back inside the template (and check again) before saving the promoted template. That prevents problems like this one. (I had to fix one just yesterday that had dozens of lines outside the template, and thus showing up on the nominations page and making very confusing reading. Thanks—a few extra seconds to check saves boatloads of confusion later. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations to me![edit]

Thank you to The C of E who just noticed that my DYK hook for Tiffany Trump is the most viewed non-lead DYK in the history of the world! (Unfortunately, I don't think my current DYK double-review restrictions will allow me to unilaterally make edits to the stats page, so you'll have to take my word for it.) Barnstars or general salutations can be placed on my Talk page for those so inclined. This is a very positive note to retire on and I appreciate all the reviewers, promoters, admins, etc. who helped make this possible.

For the article Tiffany Trump to receive this honor just goes to show that, truly, anyone can successfully contribute to WP even with very little knowledge or, in fact, no knowledge at all. My advice to all of you is to never stop dreaming and reach for the stars. Thanks again, everyone! LavaBaron (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Very true @LavaBaron:. I remember when I once held that honour of having the highest viewed non-lead DYK (and I also held with the most viewed lead simultaneously for a little while), I knew little about American law yet was able to write a decent article on a small lawsuit that took the title. Everyone editing should heed the advice given above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Congratulations. The bulk of the hits on that page will have been due to her appearance at the Republication convention and so LavaBaron got lucky in that DYK scheduled it at the same time. But his development of the article will have meant that all those readers – about a million of them – got to read a page which was more accurate and polished than it would have been otherwise. Kudos. Andrew D. (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I just took a look at the page and feel that it really lacks a good picture. Surely the Queen of Instagram can spare us something? LavaBaron's next challenge is to obtain a good selfie or similar which we can use on the page.  :) Andrew D. (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a great idea, Andrew. I'll get on it. She really is our Princess Di. LavaBaron (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @LavaBaron: The page views for your hook may actually be only half as much, as Tiffany Trump was already receiving over 100,000 views the day before (and after?). You need to do the formula VX − (VX−1 + VX+1) to determine how many page views came from the DYK hook. Yoninah (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it is actually VX − (VX−1 + VX+1) / 2. EdChem (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Queue 3[edit]

Fixed per ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I've been offline for a day and didn't see this hook in prep. Could someone please explain why the words in this hook are in quotes ... and why it is hooky?

  • ... that Irene Barnes Taeuber "helped found the science of demography"?
Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems it's in quotes because it's word-for-word from the source. Maybe @David Eppstein: who wrote the article can offer some insight. I guess it's hooky because she and her husband Conrad Taeuber sort of invented the science of demography. Where would the census people be without it?— Maile (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed a quote, hence the quote marks. Removing them would cause it to become plagiarism. As for why it's hooky: demography is an important area of study and practice. Did you already know who its founders were? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Just thinking of all those (millions?) of Wikipedia geographical articles that list demographics in their content.— Maile (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What I mean is that the words are so simple, you could paraphrase them yourself. Meanwhile, I'm looking at the article and seeing the hook fact only in the lead. It is sourced, but it should be fleshed out in the body of the article, no? Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What, I should embellish the quote, add more quotey words to it, to make a longer version of the quote that would appear in the text of the article so that the lead quote could be a summary of it? That's...not how quotes work, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Well at the least, the quote should be repeated in the main body and expanded upon, i.e. discussed encyclopedically. I agree that the hook is dull, and the quote is unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Prep 1[edit]

Pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

... that Norwich City Football Club joint majority shareholders Michael Wynn-Jones and Delia Smith had the least net worth of any owners in the 2015–16 Premier League?

Joseph2302, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah This claim is referenced by the Mirror and the Star, neither of which is a reliable source. The claim is probably true, but please fix the sourcing before this gets to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is the least good of the three approved hooks, inquiring into people's net worth being a pretty low form of undertaking beloved by the reptile press. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Well whichever hook replaces it, please ensure RS's are used to cite it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The closing reviewer said that any of the hooks were fine, and frankly, the rest of the hooks were pretty ho-hum. As this is now in the queue, we non-administrators can't change the hook. Could an administrator return it to the main noms page for further work? Yoninah (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth If you think that "inquiring into people's net worth being a pretty low form of undertaking beloved by the reptile press", then why did you approve all the hooks originally then? And ALT1 and ALT2 are supported by better sources, such as broadsheet newspapers. Joseph2302 09:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Please fix this nomination so we don't have proposers arguing with promoters and bad sources being used. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Main page discussion on DYK project[edit]

A discussion has been initiated at Talk:Main Page#Should we lose DYK from the Main Page? which will be of interest to some editors at this project. EdChem (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1[edit]

... that BJP MP Hukum Singh claimed that Kairana had become a "new Kashmir"?

The target article starts with this sentence.

  • "Kairana and Kandhla migration row ... refers to the migration of families from Kairana and Kandhla during 2014–16, allegedly due to extortion and looting by goons of gangster Mukim Kala."

Goons? Describing a living person as a gangster with no sources? (he and his "goons" aren't mentioned again in the article).

Less of an issue (but still a bar to it being linked from the main page), this is a very poor article, littered with terrible English and grammar ("Hukum Singh had also requested him for the same", "Naseemuddin Siddiqui blamed BJP and said that it was doing drama over the issue"), using native terms that aren't explained or linked ("Sangeet Som organised Nirbhay Padyatra from his constituency. Before he could reach Kairana, police stopped him. After some initial disagreement, Som ended his yatra"). I was no wiser after reading it as to any detail of what it was about or why it was important, apart from being some minor local political disagreement. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, while some reviewers favour a "light touch" when it comes to passing hooks, usually based on just checking the hook itself and ignoring the rest of the article, I'm with Laura in that the articles themselves must be up to a certain standard and not full of jargon, grammar errors, poor English, BLP issues etc. Suggest this hook is pulled and the nom re-opened. ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I was the one who reviewed this. The language is definitely sub-par. However, I searched through web news sources before approving it; and the only characterizations of the individual in question are "criminal," "gang leader," etc (all of these from sources currently in the article). The sentence TRM points out is based on the reference at the end of the next sentence. That reference, from an excellent news source, has the sub-heading "Nearly 350 families have reportedly fled from Uttar Pradesh's Kairana city since 2014 due to repeated extortion and threat calls from gangster Mukim Kala." Likewise, the language at the bottom of the page contains some native terms but which are used in the source material. My familiarity with articles on Indian politics perhaps led to my ignoring those. So pull the hook and reopen the review, by all means, but the constraints I pointed out remain. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • TRM, I've copy-edited the page, and during that added links or more detail to a lot of the local terminology. Take a look. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This is better, but I'm still not understanding (a) why it's important, or (b) why this is even a notable topic. We don't even know that the main issue is even true; as the article says, many people dispute it and even Singh admitted he had not checked the veracity of his list (indeed source 6 says much of it is wrong, yet the lead suggests it is correct). This is the danger of having articles on local political disagreements throughout the world; sources disagree so much that writing a neutral article is very difficult, especially with ones where the facts are as unclear as this one. Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm still with Laura, it's a struggle. It's also notable that the actual country to which this is relevant (i.e. India) doesn't even appear in the lead. I still suggest taking this out and having some time to reflect on how best to present these kinds of hooks to our general audience (most of whom, let's be honest, won't get it AT ALL). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1[edit]

I have promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Jericó Abramo Masso to Prep 3 to provide a hook that can be slotted into the empty slot in Queue 1. Could an administrator please move it into the queue? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

DYKReviewBot on the nominations page[edit]

Seeking input about the notion of reducing the point size to small text for the DYKReviewBot entries in DYK nominations. Is it just me, or does the significant extra information make it more difficult to read through all of the entries on the main DYK nominations page? A reduced point size will make it easier to discern between bot- and human-generated content. Another idea is to use {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} along with the small point size for the DYKReviewBot entries in DYK nominations. Pinging Intelligentsium who developed the script. Below are examples, using content from this DYK nomination. North America1000 22:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Using small point size[edit]

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review.
    • This article is new and was created on 20:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This article meets the DYK criteria at 2246 characters
    • All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • A copyright violation is unlikely (2.9% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected
    • The media File:Rivière-Cavo.jpg is free-use
    • The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 89 characters
    • Wuerzele has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 1 more DYKs.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Using collapse box[edit]

(Note: This would look nice left-aligned, but having difficulties in accomplishing this.)

DYKReviewBot content
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review.
    • This article is new and was created on 20:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This article meets the DYK criteria at 2246 characters
    • All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • A copyright violation is unlikely (2.9% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected
    • The media File:Rivière-Cavo.jpg is free-use
    • The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 89 characters
    • Wuerzele has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 1 more DYKs.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Using collapse[edit]

Using the {{Collapse}} template, with content expanded.

DYKReviewBot content
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review.
    • This article is new and was created on 20:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This article meets the DYK criteria at 2246 characters
    • All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • A copyright violation is unlikely (2.9% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected
    • The media File:Rivière-Cavo.jpg is free-use
    • The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 89 characters
    • Wuerzele has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 1 more DYKs.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Do you think it might be helpful to move this discussion to Requests for approval/DYKReviewBot? It's in a trial phase, and this would be useful on the bot's request for approval page. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It's unlikely that many people will see that discussion, whereas those that are involved in DYK are highly likely to see the discussion here. So, I've added a link to this discussion on that page (diff). North America1000 22:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I'm neutral on this. If it gets shrunk, fine. If not, fine. There are a lot of nominations that have lengthy talk threads that go on and on and on. However, having the review bot make the type size smaller would have it more noticeable so it wouldn't be overlooked. — Maile (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting point about the smaller point size preventing the bot content from being overlooked, which I didn't consider. This makes sense, so that the content in nominations is varied, preventing it from appearing as one long wall of text. North America1000 22:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Even better if had a little box (border) around it to set it apart, somewhat like it looks above in the box you collapsed. That might be too much to ask for, tho. — Maile (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This can also be done. See the "Using collapse" section I just added above. North America1000 23:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
North America see this. Looks like you're not the only one with this concern. — Maile (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Thus far, I personally like the "Using collapse box" option to collapse the content entirely, which will significantly reduce the length of the nominations page and make it much easier to read. All users have to do to view the content is select "show" in the box. North America1000 23:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────One other thing brought up at the BRFA was to noinclude this section, so it appears in the review, but not in aggregated reviews. — xaosflux Talk 23:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I share Northamerica1000's concern about wading through reams of copy to find nominations to promote, and said as much on the bot review page. A collapsible box sounds very good. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)nom

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'll add <noinclude> tags to prevent bot reviews from cluttering the nominations page or impacting load time for slow connections. However, I'm a bit wary of collapsing the comments, especially if there are issues that need to be addressed as I'd like those to be immediately visible to the nominator and to reviewers. I'm also open to making the font smaller if this doesn't present an accessibility issue (which other users are more qualified to comment on than I am) Intelligentsium 00:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)