Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)
Jump to: navigation, search


"Did you know...?" template
Queue T:DYK/Q
Nominations T:TDYK
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS
Shortcut:



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.

WP:DYK rule 3B[edit]

I've been bothered about this rule for a few months. It promotes ridiculous and pointless edits like this (mindlessly copying a perfectly good citation). It's also an annoyance to have to hold up reviews for trivial "issues" like this, since nobody seems to want to duplicate their citations in this way (who can blame them?). In any normal article, it's implied that a statement is sourced to the next citation. I fail to see why DYK should be any different. Citing two sentences after the hook fact instead of one does NOT make the hook fact unreferenced. It isn't even any harder to verify. I thus propose that rule 3b be changed to: b) Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the paragraph(s) offering that fact. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's an old cliche, but .... I'm not sure why the rule was made, but in most instances it does make it easier and quicker to confirm the hook is factually correct, and from my experience this scenario described above doesn't occur too often. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
As you may recall, I thoroughly agree with you on this. There's no reason why DYK referencing rules should be any different from the rest of Wikipedia. Relentlessly (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Requiring that hooks be absolutely directly cited doesn't bother me at all, and as Ritchie says it just makes things a bit more handy to verify, and kind of forces the article's "shepherd" to double-verify that this is indeed the source supporting the hook. It's just that one possible duplication, and easily removed, if redundant, after the hook's MP appearance.
What's ridiculous (here we go again...) is that dumb one-cite-per-paragraph requirement. That's beyond anything required anywhere else, and affects the whole article. EEng (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Another noble attempt to rationalize this withering on the vine. EEng (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Completely agree on this. It does my head in that the DYK requirements force you to duplicate references, while the MOS suggests that is unnecessary. Harrias talk 21:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Review request[edit]

Hi can anyone review Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Ali Mardan Khan. The reviewer says there is problem with paraphrasing. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Review has been done, and significant issues remain both with close paraphrasing and prose. A good copyedit is needed if the nomination is to succeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Now overdue; admin needed to promote at least one prep to a queue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Updated with ~10 minutes to spare. Thank you to HJ Mitchell for protecting the images yesterday. Very aware that updating queues with prep queues that I packed is not something we should be endorsing but with that tight a deadline I just jumped in. Unless a 10 minute deadline rises up again, that's not behaviour you'll see from me. This is the...3rd time? Where is everyone? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason I'm packing the Prep Areas is because they need to be up for long enough for even more people to review/tweak. EEng removed a hook that was approved, then approved by me, but now needs extra review and that is definitely the ideal system. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and this is one of the most important reasons for having a healthy-sized "approved reserve" of hooks (i.e. # of hooks approved but not promoted + # in prep + # in Q) -- it allow a set to remain in prep, where many eyes can scrutinize and adjust, a good long time. BTW, in about 48 hours we'll be decidedly below my magic trigger point of 100, when I recommend we shift back from 3x7/day to 2x8/day. EEng (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I would happily prepare prep queues to alleviate this problem, but I really don't know what the process is. All the documentation seems to be geared to admins promoting to the main queue pages. Can anyone set out how this is done? Relentlessly (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That would be absolutely wonderful! You can see the guide here. Remember to make them varied. You want to make sure the prep area doesn't just have long hooks, and that you don't fill it with the same subject (we don't want 3 hooks about movies!). If you need help I'm sure everyone would be more than happy to assist. 13:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
And if you don't feel brave enough to put a whole set together, you can get your toe in the water by just sticking one or two hooks into the middle of an empty set -- someone else can complete the set with appropriate balance. It would be especially helpful if you'd make a point of finding older approved hooks which have languished unpromoted for a long time. (These are easily found in the right column of the "scoreboard" at T:TDYK -- then if you click on the date you get taken right to it.) EEng (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've given it a go, with much fear and trembling. Edit 1 and edit 2. Have I got it right? Relentlessly (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't update Prep Area 1 right now though because I believe that goes out on the 24th and that's a special day. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Since we're currently doing three updates a day, Prep 1 should be going out late on the 22nd UTC. It will likely be not the current Prep 5, which is just now being worked on, but the one after it—and since there's only one special occasion hook for that date, it would be easy enough to adjust things if the hook being saved was overlooked. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Shall we revert to two updates per day with eight hooks per set? I don't think, with the current situation, increasing to three sets solves problems. I don't mind having currently 500 or 1,000 nominations until we have more active administrators. Shall I leave a note at admins' noticeboard? --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Christ Almighty, how many times do I have to point out that the appropriate burn rate (e.g. 2x8 vs 3x7) has nothing to do with how many unapproved noms we have awaiting review. It depends only on the number of approved noms awaiting their main page appearance (what I call the "approved reserve": # in prep + # in Qs + number approved but not promoted to prep). If the # of nominations awaiting review is growing (and it is) that's a problem, but burning hooks faster than they're being approved, once you've burning off the excess reserve, won't get them reviewed any faster -- it will just draw down the reserve to the point where (first) balanced sets becomes difficult to build, soon after which we just run out of approved hooks and stand there looking like idiots because the Main Page DYK section doesn't change for 36 hours (and yes, this has happened in the last year, for exactly this reason).
The fact is that since we went to 3x7 the approved reserve has drawn down faster than expected, which indicates that the higher-than-normal rate of approvals has returned to normal. That means we should return to 2x8, and it's only a matter of when. As I'm always pushing, "when" is when the approved reserve drops below 100, which coincidentally is the capacity of all the preps + Qs combined (6*8 + 6*8), which makes a nice symmetry (though it's not how I came up with the figure 100). That will be in 1-2 days. EEng (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • At 200-300 nominations, T:TDYK almost crashes my browser when I load it. At 400, people report that only part of the page is shown. With a thousand nominations, T:TDYK would break—and so would a lot of people's computers. Of course, T:TDYK could be divided into by-say subpages. Perhaps it should.
I can understand why no one wants to built preps and queues and seriously commend those who do build them. Consider it: prep builders are basically required to re-review every nomination. That comes out to seven full reviews for every prep. Even one full review is a tedious chore most of the time. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I love building prep queues. It's very zen. I also love seeing people engaged enough to move things about and remove them and add them in the (hopefully) 12 or so hours before it gets bumped up. It's a great ecosystem. Last time I was doing it on a regular basis though I got told off for doing it too much and not giving anyone else a chance. I don't want to take away anybody's fun - but I do want to keep it functioning and facilitate cooperation for as long as possible until the last minute. So I show up and leave depending on how likely I think a telling off is going to be. This is my hobby. Nobody wants to be yelled at for their hobby. 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That Masked Zen Prep Builder was Panyd, in case anyone's wondering. [1] EEng (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, what we could do with, rather than a reduction in the number of hooks per day, is a sweep of the nominations to get the overall number down. Maybe something akin to the GA backlog drives and similar. I don't know whether there would really be any interest, but we really could do with getting the total down from 350–400, to a more reasonable 200. And that ain't gonna happen if we are running less hooks per day! Harrias talk 23:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
A push to reduce the backlog of hooks awaiting review is a fine idea, and if it's effective we would need to increase the burn rate to pipe all those freshly approved hooks onto MP timely. But the increase in the burn rate would be a response to the increased number of approved hooks available, not a cause of it. They way people talk around here it's as if they believe that, if the reservoir is low, you should turn on all the taps in town to use water faster, because that will make it rain and so fill the reservoir. It's insane. See comments beginning "Christ Almighty", above. EEng (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I agree with you, but I am proposing a different solution. If there are not enough approved nominations to run, there are two solutions: run less hooks, or approve more nominations. You are suggesting one, I am suggesting the other. I agree, that given the general lack of interest in reviewing at DYK (and across WP) your solution is more likely, but I was merely pointing out that another, more beneficial, option exists. Harrias talk 23:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, my suggestion is more of a wishful one. In the short-term, unless there is a sudden pick up in the number of approvals, we need to change the number of hooks per set pretty soon. I just built a couple of sets, and there wasn't much variety to play with. Harrias talk 00:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
With that clarification I think we're in violent agreement. Your current difficulty in building sets validates my claim that 100 (which is almost where we are) is the trigger point for slowing the burn rate. EEng (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Panyd: Glad to hear you love building preps. I tried it a couple of times and found the process exhausting. Please build as many preps as you'd like, maybe leave one or two empty sets for those who may be jealous of the fun you're having. -Zanhe (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK cheating[edit]

So, I notice that once more DYK is spicing up hooks by simply cheating on basic formatting:

... that Dennis Marks survived life with an idiot to film the diary of one who disappeared?

Distorting movie titles by simply ignoring correct capitalization and standard italics makes DYK looks bad in my view. It's the same cheap trick that produced the following hook for Thor Heyerdahl Upper Secondary School:

.... that a Norwegian school was named for Thor Heyerdahl and built by a hammer?

Please don't let stuff like this through. Arbitrarily ignoring formatting to fit a pun isn't clever or funny.

Peter Isotalo 21:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It would have been more effective in terms of getting this fixed to post to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Nevertheless, as DYK can not ignore the MOS (with the oft-discussed exception of April Fools Day) I have put the proper formatting in place, even if this "ruins" the "joke". Harrias talk 21:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I think this is a bit overfussy. What distinguishes A.F's.D. is that the reader really might be fooled (temporarily misled until he reads the article and, hopefully, gets the joke). At least in the case of the first of the two hooks above, one will be "fooled" (misled), even temporarily, because it's too far out -- the moment the reader sees "life with an idiot" he'll know there's some double meaning. As far as I'm concerned that's OK.
The second hook I'm not so happy with because it admits a direct reading which is, indeed, not what is meant, and since that reading sounds perfectly reasonable, there's nothing telegraphing the reader to be on the alert. EEng (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Was it ever not the case that something that was funny to one person was grossly offensive to another? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm. You may have a point. Of course, there's plenty of room to find offense even when no humor is involved, but (attempts at) humor can make the situation a whole lot worse. I'll have to think about this. EEng (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No-nonsense hotel management[edit]

Is there any particular reason Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Guler went with ALT1 ([2] - now in the main Queue) instead of the main hook? If there's a reason (BLP problems with a recently deceased person?) then that's fine as long as I can find it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The humor of ALT0 offended someone. P EEng (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

question--need someone who knows DYKS to check this[edit]

"So hooky!"

One reviewer accepted my hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Church, Newton last week. Then, earlier today, as the approved hook was waiting to be picked up and put in the pipeline, some other user shows up says your hook seems "more factual than hooky". WTF does that mean? and what does it have to do with the criteria? There is no objective, actionable reason, IMHO, for this to be interfered with for such a nonsensical reason. I ask someone who knows someone about DYK and is objective with the criteria to take a look and sort this waste of time out.--JackTheVicar (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the editor was referring to this guideline: When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content. The "actionable" suggestion (not well explained perhaps) would be to find some pithy, interesting fact you could use to pull readers in, rather than just a dry recitation of facts. Up to you, obviously, but more intriguing hooks tend to get chosen (and read) first! :) MeegsC (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Until we start facing the fact that some articles just don't have the raw material for interesting hooks, so that the nomination should be rejected, we're pretty much stuck with running deadly boring hooks. My recent favorite was:
... that upon its opening, the Washburn branch asked to borrow materials from other Minneapolis libraries to meet the high demand from patrons?
That got 600 clicks! Wow! So hooky! EEng (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that some articles are limited to "boring" hooks but we shouldn't stop them from coming on DYK. Not every hook can be amusing or mention sex or include a swear word (the reasons why anyone ever clicks on most DYK anyway!) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Pshaw—I can think of "hookier" hooks for that library, just based on a quick reading of the article!
MeegsC (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A hook can be "hooky" without sex or swears - if there's really absolutely no reasonably "hooky" hook in the article, absolutely we should stop them from coming on DYK. But, as MeegsC points out, in many cases there are better hooks possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely Nikkimaria is right -- DYK is not the Special Olympics. As for MeegsC, he/she is right there as well -- I can probably count on one hand the times I saw an awful hook that I didn't find, on looking at the article, a much better one. Only now and then have I had to say, "Wow, this article is utterly barren of interest." (Of the two suggested, the millstone is definitely the one.) EEng (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Pshaw"? What – are we suddenly in a Peter Wimsey novel?
You say that but there are number of sportspeople whos pages mostly consist of their playing career with little else. Now that may lead to less that interesting hooks but are DYK rules really designed to stop things appearing? The hooky rule is really something that should be aimed for and reviewers should certainly encourage more interesting hooks (as happened with Wan King Path) but if there is nothing there more interesting, we shouldn't penalize nominators by not running something. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

A modest and probably hopeless proposal[edit]

I violently disagree. From the rules:

DYK consists of a series of "hooks", which are interesting facts taken from Wikipedia's newest content, of the format "Did you know that...?" Thus, to nominate something to appear on DYK, an editor must either write or identify new content (see below for what qualifies as "new") and propose an interesting "hook".
The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience.

If there's nothing to say about a sports figure more interesting that "Born in Place X and ate apples in Place Y", then that article doesn't belong on the main page. Before someone comes along with the "Oh, but that's subjective!" complaint, here's how this would be determined (rough draft):

(1) Nominations are made as usual, with proposed hook(s)
(2) Let's say we want to run 15 hooks per day. Then every day, some bot picks 20 hooks from the pool of noms.
(3) Everyone votes on those 20. The top 15 win, and pass to the review stage.
(4) The 5 "losers" go back in the pool, unless they've participated in three elections already, in which case they're rejected as too dull.

That's it -- straight voting based on primitive emotion. No discussion, no consensus. It's a complete popularity contest, to weed out the 25% dullest hooks. This isn't penalizing anyone, because a penalty is taking away something someone's otherwise entitled to, and no one's "entitled" to an appearance on the main page. EEng (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Making a popularity contest out of DYK is completely against the aims of what DYK is meant to be, to showcase a wide variety of new and improved content. For example, some of Cwmhiraeth's biological articles would end up not running no doubt due to !voters not either sharing an interest or not understanding it. It is also asking for systematic bias where people will vote for what they like to the detriment of things that is not covered often. In doing that proposal, it would make DYK more subjective. The problem is that DYK will always have a case of (for example) stating "X has represented Australia in rugby at 3 different levels." Now to the non-sports editors that isn't very interesting but to those interested Australian sports or rugby in general would find that interesting as they would want to find out which levels these are and what he has done in his career to merit this. A "dull" hook may have so much more behind it, that is why we shouldn't discourage people by banning all the "boring" hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm openly advocating subjectivity or, more precisely, the objective measurement (polling/voting) of the subjectivity readers unavoidably exhibit, even if we try to pretend it's not there. Sure, someone might want to know about Footballer X's three levels or something, but a whole lot more people might want to know about something else. Again, choices have to be made, and by polling a small group in advance (it takes a surprisingly small number of participants) we can tell what people will actually want to click on. Right now the choice is made by the ridiculous "new article" requirement, which has nothing to do with anything. People being asked "Did You Know" expect something interesting, not just something that happens to be new.
We should be banning boring hooks -- why should MP space, viewed by millions of people each day, be wasted on hooks that no one wants to click on, just so one editor can enhance his DYK barnstar collection? You'll notice my proposed system (and, again, it's only a rough-draft procedure) is structured to cull out only the least appealing 25% -- but it could be just 10% maybe, or even 5%, if that's all the stick necessary to get people to make "interesting" a priority. Culling out the dullest hooks will get people to go to the trouble of finding interesting hooks in their articles -- as noted already (not just by me) there's almost always something interesting in there somewhere, if you care enough to offer the reader something worth knowing, . EEng (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not completely against a radical change to nomination procedure because I think it may help refocus reviewing efforts against the backlog. My proposal would be to include a subject based selection system - categorising nominations at the initial stage rather than leaving it to the last minute when prep building - so we're not seeing the same topic crop up every other set. However much I appreciate the work done by our regular contributors, seeing another river/film/footballer pop up yet again does get tedious. Editors are always going to gravitate towards certain interests so there's no point forcing someone to write about something they're not motivated to write about, but seeing 5+ similar noms on DYK a week doesn't help combat systemic bias - it just replaces it with a new form. A few issues with the original proposal:
1. The original hook(s) are the only possible options since the review take place after selection - just because the nominator proposes a poor hook doesn't mean another more creative person can't come up with a better one. Sure, it might encourage some nominators to initially propose better hooks but, take non-native English speakers for instance, sometimes editors are not aware of more interesting hooks. Should we just dump their nomination without trying to salvage it in favour of another well covered subject that has a better written hook?
2. It assumes once selected a review will be completed in 3-5 days (or however long the set to scheduled for) - far from the current arrangement which can take up to weeks, depending on nom/reviewer activity.
3. If a selected hook fails its subsequent article review for whatever reason, what then? We'll be short on noms for the scheduled queue.
4. Not a big fan of straw polling - it's an easy option that doesn't require much thought, with no requirement to explain why you've come to that decision. Editors put a fair amount of effort into writing these articles and to have them rejected outright like this is unfair. Is it beneficial if say a random user makes a flippant comment like "Oppose: I don't like it" about an obscure well written article, by a new editor from an education project, that meets all five of the original DYK project goals and all five of the main DYK criteria? Or conversely "Support: Great hook!" about a three line unsourced stub, last edited five years ago, primarily because they want to see their favourite band/team/trivia linked on the Main Page? No. Obviously, if there's consensus for it then fine, but a head count is not necessarily well reasoned consensus. Fuebaey (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1. If the ALT0 passes the not-boring test, I'm not worried about ALT1, ALT2, etc. The collective mind during the review will rarely settle on something worse than the original ALT0, so if ALT0 is minimally OK we're all set. Anyway, we're not looking for a failsafe system here.

2,3. No, once the hook is voted not-boring, it can go into a big pool of noms awaiting reviews, like now. The voting isn't on tomorrow hooks or anything like that.

4a. We don't care why people think a hook is uninteresting -- if, out of 20 hooks, this is one of the 5 voted "most boring", then it would appear to be pretty boring. End of story. Except remember, I said it can circle back to compete in another coupla rounds of voting. If all three times it was in the bottom 5 out of 20, then can there be any doubt?

4b. If a hook fails the test of 4a, you can renominate the article with another hook.

4c. Acknowledging there are many things to work out here, let me outline a voting system that meets your objections.

  • Noms with hooks go into a pool P. Every day a bot picks 20 of these hooks from P for voting. (They don't have to be a balanced set in the sense of balanced prep sets.)
  • Now, every 24 hours any given registered editor, or any IP, has a 1/1000 chance of getting the banner: "Help us select upcoming DYKs! Would you rather click on THIS hook, or THIS hook?" Each editor is only offered a pair of hooks to choose from, randomly taken from the (20)(19)/2 = 190 such pairs. When an editor picks a hook, that hook gets one point; the other hook gets -1.
  • I have no idea how many distinct visitors we get each day, but let's say it's 10 000 00, so that's 10000 votes, which is plenty (and even if only 1/10 of those offered actually vote, that's still plenty). Or maybe only people who visit Main Page are offered the chance, since they're our target audience anyway.
  • The 15 hooks scoring highest move to pool Q, for review as usual. The other 5 go back to pool P, unless they've already "lost" twice before, in which case they're out. (Not sure this 3-chance provision is needed, but I'll leave it in for the moment). Even then, the article can be renominated with a new hook.
  • As mentioned, new hooks can be added in review without needing to go through voting.

So there's no way to volunteer to vote or stack the vote -- vox populi. We're not electing delegates to the Galactic Peace Conference here, so the many biases one can imagine don't matter. (If someone wants to switch IP addresses 1000 times to get a chance to vote, more power to him.)

So wadja think? EEng (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Idealism is a wonderful thing. Imagining that unsolicitated users are going to care about picking "clickbait" is optimistic at best, and no one is going to sanction mass messaging/botting for this purpose because it's spammy and disruptive. One of the reasons why there's an opt-in option for Wikiproject newsletters. Perhaps creating a newsletter and sending that to interested parties is a better way forward?
I'm still not convinced about straw polling. This feels a lot like what they have over at WP:TAFI but the obverse. An editor is deciding on an article that has already been improved and the creator is told it don't meet one single subjective requirement. If we're going to have a polling system, I'd rather have one that doesn't split the reviewing process and add another layer of bureaucracy. We could introduce more editorial collaboration, like ITN and the Featured projects, and have more than one editor constructively comment on a nomination. That way more problems can be caught, including those "uninteresting" hooks. Fuebaey (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability issues and Reviews[edit]

I made a review where I was skeptical of the notability of the article as a stand alone article (I suggested a merger). What is the policy for approving/declining a nomination when you have (serious) doubts about notability? I know one option is to start an ADF/Merger discussion myself, but sometimes you just want to make a review. Iselilja (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK is not a forum to discuss notability. If you have notability concerns, open an AfD or similar. If you don't want to do that, then either don't review the article in question, or review it without considering notability. Harrias talk 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thx. Withdrawing review then. Iselilja (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand; DYK is definitely a forum for discussing notability, along with all the other key Wikipedia guidelines. Many articles are posted on Wikipedia without any references, poor grammar, etc., but those nominated for DYK must meet the high standards. If I questioned the notability of an article and decided not to go through with an AFD or a DYK review, I would at least put a notability tag on the article, and perhaps copy the explanation of my concerns onto the article talk page, so that the page nominator and future DYK reviewers would be alerted to the possible problem. Yoninah (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
What Harrias is saying is that we don't decide notability here. That should be AfD (or maybe via CSD). If you have notability concerns you can (1) just say so on the nom page and move on, letting others nominate for AfD if they like, or (2) nominate for AfD. I think that tagging the article for questionable notability isn't such a good idea here, since such a tag blocks DYK approval -- either someone has to disagree with you and remove the tag (in which case you might as well have just mentioned the concern on the nom page), or someone has to go through the trouble of nominating for AfD that you didn't want to bother with. EEng (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ellen Pickering[edit]

Could someone reopen Template:Did you know nominations/Ellen Pickering please? It was created, nominated, and closed by the same user, which appears highly irregular. I identified a NPOV issue which required me to make a resource request for offline sources a week ago.[3] On April 22, the request was finally fulfilled.[4] Strangely enough, approximately one hour after acknowledging that I had received the sources, the nominator of the hook closed out his own DYK.[5] I have a hard time believing this was a coincidence. During the original review, the nominator refused to cite these sources in the article, hence the NPOV issue and the resource request. I left the review at the behest of another user and made the subsequent source request to fix the problem. I see what appears to be a pattern of deliberate obstructionism. Gerda Arendt was the last known reviewer of the hook and I had contacted her to let her know of the source request and my plan to fix the problem, so the close was not just unexpected but unusual, particularly given the one hour separating the fulfillment of the source request and the close itself. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, any nominator is free to withdraw a nomination at any time. Mind, they aren't supposed to close the nomination themselves, but they can decide they don't want the article on the main page after all, and we normally respect that. You're certainly free to make whatever edits you wish to the underlying article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a totally transparent, textbook definition of deliberate obstructionism in the passive aggressive style. The nominator did not want to improve the article nor did he want anyone else to improve it; more importantly, the nominator did not have a reason for withdrawing the nomination. The nominator simply closed the DYK because I volunteered to do the work to fix the NPOV problem. By so doing, the nominator wasted a great deal of time and energy of other editors who volunteered their precious time (I have a full time job) to improve this encyclopedia. The nominator is someone who does not respect other people or their work. Many, many different people worked hard to review this article, check the article for problems, check the sources, request sources, find the sources, upload the sources, download the sources, check the DYK criteria, etc. The nominator closed the DYK for no reason other to stick it to all of these people. The nominator demonstrates a vast ignorance of the concept of a collaborative encyclopedia, and makes me seriously question their competence. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, your complaint seems overwrought, to put it charitably. The nominator decided that the whole thing was getting to be too much trouble -- big deal. Work on the article if it's important to you. EEng (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
That was the original point. It was too much trouble for the nominator, which is why other editors stepped in to collaborate and fix the problem. Editors like:
  1. Gerda Arendt
  2. Gobonobo
  3. GoingBatty
  4. Johnbod
  5. John M Baker
  6. Maile66
  7. Mandarax
  8. NQ
  9. Tim riley
  10. Viriditas
  11. Wehwalt
Clearly, the nominator did not want to collaborate with other editors, which defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. It appears to me that the nominator believes DYK is special and does not involve collaboration. Tell that to the eleven editors listed above who donated their valuable time and energy to work on this DYK. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop it right now
  • Stay off people's talk pages
  • Don't post about this anywhere but the DYK template, this talk page, or the article's talk page
  • Stop name dropping - nobody mentioned above wants to be involved; stop exaggerating their involvement
  • Gerda only got involved because I asked her to, and she's a trooper who always tries to assist.
  • Stop the personal attacks
DYK has attracted some real idiotic mud wallows, and this one is not far from the top. You are so close to, if not over the line of, personal attacks on any number of people. I got hauled into this, because you posted on my talk page and asked for a second opinion on the DYK review. I chose to do some minor editing on the article. But after this got SOOOOO out of hand, I asked you on the DYK template to back away. You told me you had. Apparently not. But knock it off. — Maile (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Completely agree with Maile. I modify my earlier post's evaluation by changing overwrought to crazy, as in: your complaint is crazy. And I note that none of the 11 editors you list seem similarly concerned. So stop it. Do yourself a favor and let it go by not posting to this thread again. Instead, go work on the article. EEng (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list over a week old, due for archiving, and mostly used up, so I've compiled a new set of the 41 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has one nomination that was "new" back in February, the second has 26 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 14 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 75 nominations are approved, leaving 284 of 359 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Working on the one from February 2015 would be great.

From February:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 06:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Request[edit]

I wondered if someone would be kind to review one or more of my four current DYK nominations, so that hopefully one of them could be on the main page within the 28th. I know we aren't supposed to about the Wiki Cup but I have these four unreviewed nominations, and then I got some unexpected problems other places where I had expected to pick up points before deadline and now I am in a difficult situation.

Exception from size requirement for expansions from copyvio?[edit]

See my nom Death of Andrew Sadek. I remember at least a few years back we waived the size-of-expansion requirement for material that was essentially rewritten from copyvio. Are we not doing this anymore? Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The rule you are talking about is Supplementary Rule A4: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception)" The rule is still in effect. The fivefold expansion is therefore waived in this case, but the other DYK requirements are still in effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 06:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)