Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)
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

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.


Some people on the main page don't like the formatting of the Did you know section, and have proposed an alternate wording and are looking for a bold admin. See/participate in this discussion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at considerable length, but I can't find the archive to reference it. Harrias talk 06:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If this particular problem was discussed before, I missed it. As of now, what we have at DYK is this:

Did you know… From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content: ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?

Those who feel that the “From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content:” disrupts the sentence “Did you know that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?” suggest that any of the following flows better / avoids fracturing the syntax:

Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content

From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?

Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? ... that the above are drawn from Wikipedia's new or recently improved content?

As we know, very few people participate in discussion concerning the Main Page, but of those who have voiced an opinion, six say the present sequence is broke and needs to be fixed, two say it ain’t broke.

Cheers, Awien (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the previous discussion either, but I know it happened because I was part of it and made the same suggestions then. --Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the Sept 2013 started by you? Or March 2014? — Maile (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you please keep the discussion "over there"? It's pointless to present alternatives shorn of their typographic details, and no "bold admin" is going to change the MP layout without clear consensus. EEng (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This has been the format, at least as far back as Wikipedia keeps screenshots of the main page [1]. History says, it ain't broke. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have reformatted this as a Request for Comment, so editors can weigh in here and an administrator can ultimately close the discussion. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If we are going to have an RfC, let's do it properly with a {{rfc|style|rfcid=326B452}} tag to get it listed, and centralise the discussion either here, or on Talk:Main Page. Harrias talk 15:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I think the discussion should be held here, because it affects DYK primarily, and because all the DYK editors weigh in on this page. The discussion was started on the Main Page talk page by someone who seemed to be looking for a "bold administrator". An RfC is more effective. Yoninah (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Eman235/talk 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change. I agree that it's better to make a direct connection between "Did you know..." and "... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?" That catches the reader's eye. At the end, we could make the line into a sentence: See more new and recently improved content here. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change, as I have already said on the MP. Eman235/talk 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change for the reasons already explained on the main page: no amount of formatting redeems garbled wording, and no amount of "seniority" is justification for letting it stand. Awien (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose change because it's based on the Procrustean idea that everything's a sentence, and that things should be bent and twisted in obeisance to that mistaken notion. I would, however, recommend that the terminal colon be removed from
From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:
EEng (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I support change the fact that it has been like this for some time does not mean it's right, or optimal. I suggest the following flow: Did you know... ...that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? The above were selected from Wikipedias new and recently improved content.Fractal618 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change. The current layout puts the "from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" between the header and the blurbs. You wouldn't write "Did you know from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?" but that is what the current layout implies. Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it should continue to be done. Would prefer moving "from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" to the end and rephrasing as "that the above were taken from from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content?" --Khajidha (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change, per the argument given by Khajidha. This is a better way of presenting DYK hooks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change, This has always bugged me, but I thought I was the only one. Alternatively, if it can't be changed as proposed, perhaps remove all the ellipses so to break the suggestion that the title and the hooks should be assembled into sentences. ApLundell (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - It's hard to get behind an idea if you don't know what that idea even entails. So... what change are we discussing? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Answer Remove the words "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" from their present location where they intrude into the middle of the question "Did you know that blablablabla?" (i.e. "Did you know From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content that blablablabla?" and put them anywhere else, tweaked as necessary. Awien (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes well... I can't endorse anything until I know where "anywhere else" is. And I don't see a suitable alternative, so oppose change for the time being. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Can we first agree that a change is in order, and THEN decide on what the change is? Since April 29, 2015 multiple alternatives have been suggested. Breaking up the vote into two parts, decreases the chance of a split vote leading to no change, which is the one thing most of us agree is needed.Fractal618 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Questions - Why is it important to have the phrase "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:" on there at all? Wouldn't that solve the whole thing if that was removed? Why move it to somewhere else? Where is the FA equivalent of that in their section? — Maile (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think something like this would be an improvement Fractal618 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
That phrase defines the source of the facts, letting people know that these aren't just random things. The FA equivalent is the actual title "From today's Featured Article". (Although I find that somewhat ambiguous for uninitiated readers who might think that it is just any old article that is being featured and not an article determined to be of featured quality.)--Khajidha (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess what I'm getting at, is aren't "random things" the very basis of today's texting on various social sites? Why would the general public care whether or not DYK is like that...or not? At the bottom the "Archive" link points to exactly the same "Recent additions" that the linking "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:" does. So, why two links, top and bottom? What purpose does it serve? — Maile (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The general public wouldn't care, the notification is for those who decide to get involved in the DYK process. I don't know why there are two links. --Khajidha (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Understood. But, there again, the "Nominate an article" link at the bottom is for those who want to get involved. — Maile (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change format[edit]

Agreed. This combines "archive" and "from recently improved content" I think we are getting somewhere. At this rate we might even get bumped above "Featured Article". Fractal618 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your example is exactly what I think it should be changed to. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Your example omits the word "that" beginning each one. It's not a main page formatting for "that", but something built into the DYK nomination template. Could you redo it with "that"? — Maile (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Support this with the addition of "that". Eman235/talk 22:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Support if "that" is added. --Khajidha (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
support (w/ thats) - sure thing Maile, when i get a chance. didn't mean to try and slip that by just got a little "delete-happy" after the bullets.you guys made my day by the way :)Fractal618 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Support with the "that"s added. Awien (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Support with "that" added. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Support ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Support - (With "that") It's a minor thing, but I really do think it makes the whole section smoother. ApLundell (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose – FA and OTD both use Archive, so I think it would be preferential to retain that similar formatting, rather than changing it. Harrias talk 15:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a metric for determining when a vote is over? Fractal618 (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's 30 days typically but you can request closure, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. Eman235/talk 02:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If consensus remains clear, it can certainly be closed sooner than 30 days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. We started this RfC with a question of whether the line "From Wikipedia's new and revised content" should be moved, and now there is this parallel discussion of whether the "that" should be removed. IMO these should be two clearly defined discussions, which they are not. You're already talking about closing, but I'm not sure what we're closing. Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No one is suggesting that the "that" be removed. It was a typo that we are reminding people isn't part of the proposed change. --Khajidha (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yoninah, the omission of "that" was a typo, and not what this is about. What Fractal618 has offered, and what is being voted on, is a resolution of what to do about "From Wikipedia's new and revised content". As also discussed further above, that particular line at the top was merely duplicating a link at the bottom. Fractal618's example makes some minor wording change at the bottom, eliminating the need for "From Wikipedia's new and revised content" at the top. This vote is whether or not this is supported as a solution to the original question. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
If this was an election, the media wouldn't hesitate to call it at this point … Awien (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Dr. Blofeld has 1,500 credits. That's a huge accomplishment. Do we have an award for that, and if we don't, can someone create it? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't have one yet... While on the subject of awards, someone needs to go through Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs and give out the normal awards. It hasn't been done in a while. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the Dr. Blofeld U Can't Touch This Award? Harrias talk 16:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if Certes would be willing to make a 1,500 award? Harrias talk 15:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Well done Dr. Blofeld. Please stop; we're running out of colours! I've created File:Dyk1500N.svg. I think you'll need at least a {{The 1500 DYK Nomination Medal}} template to go with it but I expect you can copy that from the others at least as well as I could. Certes (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Certes: That's brilliant thanks! The only thing is... it's actually the File:Dyk1500CE.svg that we're after... *Feeling sheepish for not clarifying earlier.* Harrias talk 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
My fault, I think I read through to the previous section and saw the word "Nomination". File:Dyk1500CE.svg created. Certes (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

2x8 --> 2x7[edit]

As many of you know, I have tirelessly and tiresomely advocated that when our approved reserve (approved noms not yet in prep + prep + Q) drops below 50, it's time to cut back to one set per day. We're not at the point yet, but we're awful close, after several weeks of steady decline. May I suggest that we cut the burn rate back from the current 2x8/day to 2x7/day, which may stem the tide just enough? This is easy to do because there's no fooling with the bot and update schedules needed. EEng (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree. There are about 270 unreviewed nominations, and the greatest need is for some extra reviews over above the QPQ requirement. Adopting EEng's suggestion would only further slow the sluggish rate at which DYK deals with nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. It's like saying that if we spend our checking account down to nothing that will magically make more money start coming in. As a separate matter we should crack the whip (or offer a tastier carrot) on reviews, but until that happens we can't post hooks we don't have. We're already having nearly or actually missed updates daily, and aside from missed updates making us look like fools, they cause prep building and queue review to be rushed, which increases the chance of an error making it into MP. Then you-know-who lays on the tsk-taking and we certainly don't want that. EEng (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
But there's almost nothing to work with when the approved nominations count hovers in the 30s. There are too many U.S.-related hooks and not enough bios to make balanced sets. Yoninah (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
One set per day is fine. I couldn't review one article because I got college work lately and because I no longer am able to nominate someone else's article without a QPQ. --George Ho (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I would also agree that one set of eight is a better way to go at the moment. Yes, this will slow things down, but right now, I think that's a good thing. We need full queues and full prep areas so that we can vet things before they hit the main page. Our priority needs to be keeping the queues and prep areas full, and then building a base of reviewed and ready hooks. When we have full preps, full queues, and lots of reviewed hooks, we can go back up. Right this second, we have room for 86 hooks in the queues and prep areas, and only have 50 verified hooks. That shows, clearly, that we actually have a clear deficit. I support a drop to 1x8. Harrias talk 19:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Harrias. Now the hysterical WikiCup contestants have chilled out a little, there seems little reason at all to rotate DYK quicker than the rest of the main page, ITN notwithstanding (due to its very nature). Slow it down, take time to check for errors and we have a better solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't recommend 1x8 because I thought people would think it was too much trouble. If we do that then when the approved reserve rises to 100 (about a week from now) that's the time to return to either 2x8 or more likely 2x7. Otherwise we'll be back at too many approved hooks like we were a month ago. EEng (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Changed to one set per day. Potentially lots of hits for these hooks! We need to find a way to increase the number of reviews been completed, or this is going to be a much more frequent occurrence. Harrias talk 07:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have made a unilateral decision with little discussion and absolutely no consensus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Given that I enacted the position supported by four users, rather than the one supported only by yourself, I disagree. But irrespective, the real issue is: How do we get more people reviewing? Harrias talk 16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: Not so. George Ho and TRM supported, EEng and I were against the proposal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. Just before Harrias' post in which he said he'd made the change, I said (well, clearly implied) that I'd be happy with 1x8.EEng (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Surely better to be one set a day for a few weeks until there is enough of a reserve to increase again. Problems isn't necessarily hooks but lack of reviewers.Blethering Scot 17:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a DYK reviewing contest like the GA Cup. I agree that a lack of reviews is a real concern, but even by EEng's system, we still wouldn't go to 1 per day: last time I checked, we had 73 in reserve. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Two for one[edit]

  • When I opened this thread the approved reserve was 52; it's now 86, an increase of 34. Of that 34, 8 stem from the one update skipped so far under the now-adjusted schedule. The other 26 are a sudden surge of approvals in the last 36 hours. What this illustrates is the great unpredictability of approval rates, which just underscores the need for a healthy reserve.
I dislike the contest idea because I'm afraid it will encourage rushed reviews. I'd be more happy to see a rule that those with more than 10 DYK credits, who therefore have 5 reviews under their belt, be asked to do two reviews per new nomination, until the count of open noms drops below, say, 100. EEng (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I can see having to do two reviews may put off some people nominatingBlethering Scot 14:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
So be it. EEng (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Certainly at that level; if we were going to implement further QPQ, then I'd say it should kick in until 25, or more likely 50 credits. But I'm not sure it's the route to go down anyway. That said, we clearly need to do something. Harrias talk 15:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Right now we have two kinds of nominations, depending on the nominator: those requiring a QPQ (so nominator is adding 1 to the backlog, but also taking one out, for a net change of 0), and so those requiring no QPQ (adding 1 to backlog and taking nothing out, for a net change if +1). It doesn't take Einstein to see that the sum of a sequence of zeroes and ones is going to simply grow and grow.
The only way to get the sum to decrease is to introduce some negative values into the stream. Conceivably that could be via volunteering (which inserts a -1), but that's apparently not working. The other way is, as I'm proposing, requiring each nominator with 10+ credits to do 2 reviews per new nom, thus turning their 0 into a -1.
Again, this would only apply as long as the backlog is 100 or more. Yes, you can imagine someone gaming the rules by delaying making a nom until the backlog drops below 100, and if some people want to do that, fine -- be that way. (There's a way to fix that, actually, if necessary.)
The problem with having this kick in at 25 or 50 credits is that there are very few such people. (If someone has a way of counting DYKers by # of noms made historically that would be great.)
This approach divides nominators into three groups: newbies (first 5 noms) who don't perform reviews but learn about them by being reviewed; intermediates (5-10 noms) who do one review per nom they make; and sophisticates (10+ noms) who have done 5+ reviews, and are hopefully pretty good at it, who do 2 reviews per nom they submit. EEng (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There are now 91 hooks ready out of 327 hooks. There is an increase of people reviewing two at a time. Why don't we just have a drive, notifying all participants of DYK to get it cleared.Blethering Scot 21:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not just have a drive? Because if 60 editors did 5 reviews each, that still wouldn't clear the backlog, and even if it did it would just grow back, for the iron mathematical reasons I give above. The only longterm solution is to build into the process a mechanism for balancing the no-review provision that applies to newbies with an increased requirement for someone else -- the "oldies" in my proposal. EEng (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
A drive would bring the number up rapidly and solve the current short term problem. Im not convinced enforcing more reviews on medium experienced members is a solution long term, in fact I would argue the opposite. If we are enforcing then I would go with Harrias proposal which only effects serious long term collaborators to DYK and not ones who may only do one two or three times a year.Blethering Scot 21:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Drive what number up? The approved reserve? If that's what you mean you're confusing two different things. We control the size of the approved reserve by adjusting the burn rate, like we're doing now. The purpose of a review drive, or change to QPQ rules, is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed nominations -- but you're right about a drive having only a short-term effect on anything. If we don't want to have to keep having these discussions about the bloated backg we need a systemic fix such as I've proposed.

If you like we can start by requiring double-QPQ for nominators with 20+ credits (instead of the cutoff of 10 that I'd proposed) and see whether that's adequate. Does anyone really believe there ar more than a handful of editors active here with 25+ credits? EEng (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Im not confusing anything, a drive would improve the number of approved hooks drastically decreasing the backlog. That needs done pretty quickly if we are going to get away from 1 update a day, in the short term. I would be happy with 20+ to help longterm but not 10+Blethering Scot 22:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
No, there's something here you fundamentally don't understand. In another 48 hours we'll be at the point where we can return to two sets per day -- no review drive needed for that. If we were to have a review drive, it would be to reduce the backlog of unreviewed noms, not to increase the number of approved noms (though that would be a side effect). If the approved reserved does rise significantly as a result, we'll have to increase the burn rate to eat that up -- there's little point in a drive to move noms from unreviewed to reviewed status, just to hold them up in a new backlog of reviewed noms. EEng (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Your a bit argumentive are you not. The backlog decreases and the number of hooks approved increases. These are fundamentally the exact same thing, as if you do one you, you do the other. As for increasing back to two, that won't help for long unless the backlog is decreased we will be back in the same situation before long. Increasing the burn rate if there are more approved articles is absolutely fine. We have loads of stale articles awaiting reviews and drive is clearly necessary. This is about new content not stale ones awaiting reviews because we don't have enough reviewers.Blethering Scot 11:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I tried. EEng (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Back to 2x8[edit]

The approved reserve is at 118 now, so if we don't go back to our normal burn rate quick we'll be bursting at the seams again. EEng (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What about increasing active administrators? Queues have been locked as always and are still locked. And what about promoting and/or re-reviewing approved nominations? Even nominations' approvals get rebutted. --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, both EEng and George Ho should run at WP:RFA to ensure the smooth running of DYK. Both would get my vote by default. Time to step up to the mark. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Pardon me. Is this serious or sarcastic or a joke? --George Ho (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a serious suggestion. Part of fixing the problem means more DYK sympathetic admins are needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Um... I'd rather not. I have to obey all existing policies and guidelines. Of course, I can propose policy changes, but I don't see one broken policy yet. Also, I must deal with vandals and incivility. I have to use protection settings appropriately. --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know, I've done it already. Let's just try and keep this surge of reviewing up! Harrias talk 07:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Preps and queues...[edit]

...need filling. Just did one. Will move the one I just filled to Q5 soon. Might give us a better idea of content and frequency of cycling hooks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

there is enough hooks ready to fill most of the prep queues. Agree that If this was done we would be in a much better place to assess the frequency that we can recycle the main page.Blethering Scot 21:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
If folks can start doing that - my free time very patchy but as an admin I can slot into queues when ready. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Blank review templates[edit]

I was going to review the nomination for Ralph H. Cameron (May 1st) but the review template is blank. The same is true of The Icelandic New Business Venture Fund (April 30th). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Fixed. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 08:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The use of 'funny' misleading hooks[edit]

Enough, already. Wikipedia is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.[citation needed]

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've been having a spate of misleading hooks, with 'funny' phrasing and misleading piping in links. Why on Earth are we continuing to mislead our readership? Is it just to show off how clever the editors are? Maybe we could pretend to be an encyclopaedia and act maturely by posting only normal hooks? Fgf10 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Taking pleasure in humor and wordplay are well-known indicia of intelligence, education, and an appreciation of deeper subtleties. Just because you're unable to appreciate that doesn't mean the rest of us, and our readers, must live in your dull world of droning, lifeless facts. EEng (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Cut the personal insults, please. So are we a wordplay site or an encyclopaedia? The two are not the same. Fgf10 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
False dichotomy. We are an encyclopedia with a main page containing several features designed to pique readers' interest in a variety of ways. EEng (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Wtf. Are you just trying to be funny?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The whole reason for DYK articles running is often based on how hooky the hook is. If people get tricked into reading a new or improved article because of the hook, then DYK is doing its job. There is no point in just running dull boring hooks as then less new content will be showcased as fewer people will be reading them if the hook is mundane. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
'Tricking'? Really? You used that in a positive sense? Fine, clearly people don't realise what this is doing to the reputation of Wiki, I shall retract my complaint as it is pointless. Fgf10 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Pointless indeed. EEng (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's have more droning, lifeless facts, I say! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
And more DYK's about Britain's worst football team. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fgf10: It isn't pointless, it's a discussion that needs to be had. In fact, EEng started such a discussion on my talk page recently, although it hasn't gone anywhere. I think perhaps that discussion needs to happen here, with not only the DYK folks, but a number of the regulars from ERRORS, particularly those with concerns about strongly misleading hooks. One way or another, we do need to find the line, otherwise we'll just keep chuntering for the rest of DYK's existence. Harrias talk 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just returned from traveling and was about to resume with you. EEng (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Feel free, it was no criticism of the status of that discussion, just a thought that given this thread, the discussion could be had with wider participation here. We can discuss it wherever though, I'm easy. Harrias talk 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

For those of us keeping score at home, could we have some examples of offending hooks plz? Herostratus (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, by all means let's see the awful hooks the naysayers are saying nay about. Here's a notorious example of a hook pulled from MP (called by the schoolmarms "atrocious" and "over the line" -- see [2]):
  • ... that while testifying in a 2004 lawsuit involving the meaning of the word steakburger, a corporate CEO was grilled on the witness stand?
EEng (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC) For those who don't know, I wrote that hook, so naturally my authorial vanity was wounded.
  • This one was perfectly fine, I don't think there were any complaints about this. "... that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery". Or have I got the wrong sort of offending? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing wrong with that (though I can't find the word mayor in the current version of the article -- I assume the hook made more sense for some prior version). EEng (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The most recent example was " that Van Brunt Creek and its tributary Langan Creek are significant sources of flooding in Moscow, despite not being in Russia?". Clearly this show have been linked to Moscow, Pennsylvania, and the Russia part has no place in the blurb. This is in direct contradiction to the spirit of WP:EGG and the letter of principle of least astonishment. The "grilled" blurb mentioned above, while somewhat immature, is not actually misleading. There is a difference. Apart from this, when was the last time you saw the BBC broadcast a deliberately misleading headline? When was the last time Nature had a article title was didn't cover the contents? When was the last time the Britannica had a joke entry? If they don't, why should we? Is this supposed to be a hobby for people, where they show off their cleverness with words, or is this supposed to be a serious project to develop a global encyclopaedia? You decide. Fgf10 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
You're right Fgf10 — some of those other media outlets don't regularly use humor or cleverness in their headlines (though they do at least occasionally). However, they're also not trying to recruit new writers to add content. If we're trying to engage potential new editors, why not use a bit of cleverness to get them interested in what's involved? It's only a hook, after all; the articles themselves aren't jokes. Or has research somewhere shown that such hooks actually drive people away? (If so, I'd love to see a link to it, please.) MeegsC (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Well put. EEng (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I won't defend the Moscow hook -- unfortunately we have a stream of hooks in this one topic area which range from simply dishwater dull to (in this case) hopelessly strained. As to whether this is a place for people to show off how clever they are, or is a serious project: again your dichotomy is false, because there's no contradiction between hard work and having a little fun. If you don't understand that then I don't ever want to work wherever it is you work; indeed I can't think of any creative endeavor in which humor isn't a prominent feature.
Our Main Page isn't part of the encyclopedia, and DYK isn't the research section of Nature (which, BTW, has been known to carry the occasional droll caption or subhead) nor should it try to be. As for the BBC, here are a few choice ones:
How immature! EEng (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I hear that Antonio Fazio is very good with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree that a little humour sprinkled here and there is a good way to get folks to learn and get involved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
None of those cited headlines are misleading, and I fail to see why you can't see the distinction. And for the record, I work in a neuroscience research lab, and tend to laugh my head off at least once a day. However, I can make the distinction between what is professional behaviour and what isn't, and when either is called for. It would seem this skill is thin on the ground here. Fair enough, I'll give up (again). Maybe I'll go an fight another losing battle, US bias or something. Fgf10 (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Good choice. It's not that you "know" when so-called professional behavior is and is not called for, rather you are very certain in your own ideas about that question and expect everyone else to share those ideas. In any event, Wikipedia editors are not professionals. EEng (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Usage note: the idiom thick on the ground is used only with count nouns—​at least according to the professionals.
... only if your really thin-skinned. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry User:EEng, it is condescending behaviour from people like you that makes people leave wiki. Rather ironic that you accuse me of being dogmatic.... Fgf10 (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2015 (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.

... said the editor with 391 edits in four year, nine of them (NINE!) in article space [3]. Funny how people who refer to Wikipedia as "Wiki" are always the ones who grasp least how it operates.
You either don't know what dogmatic means or don't know what ironic means; and you either don't now what condescending means or don't know what projection means. You lectured your fellow editors on how things ought to be, with not a smidgen of recognition that, even if there's some truth in what you say (there is) it's not the entire truth, and discussion might be needed (it is) to define the limits of what's acceptable. Some of us are attempting to have that discussion -- join it or don't, but you'll need to drop the meaningless bludgeon-labels such as professional and mature. Now be my guest and have the last word. EEng (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, you guys need to let this go now. Let's get back to the real work here, and leave the cat fights to the children! MeegsC (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you know... that Commons has a category called Female toplessness by clothing color?
This cat's a lover, not a fighter
Or the cats? EEng (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. Many people forget that no less than the great John Stuart Mill had this to say about people who dislike fun DYK hooks (On Liberty, "Chapter III Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being" [4]):

In some such insidious form there is at present a strong tendency to this narrow theory of life, and to the pinched and hidebound type of human character which it patronizes. Many persons, no doubt, sincerely think that human beings thus cramped and dwarfed, are as their Maker designed them to be; just as many have thought that trees are a much finer thing when clipped into pollards, or cut out into figures of animals, than as nature made them. But if it be any part of religion to believe that man was made by a good Being, it is more consistent with that faith to believe, that this Being gave all human faculties that they might be cultivated and unfolded, not rooted out and consumed, and that he takes delight in every nearer approach made by his creatures to the ideal conception embodied in them, every increase in any of their capabilities of comprehension, of action, or of enjoyment. There is a different type of human excellence from the Calvinistic; a conception of humanity as having its nature bestowed on it for other purposes than merely to be abnegated.

"John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


I wrote an article for Pentecost - celebrated today and in some countries also tomorrow - but then I had to be offline for several days. Template:Did you know nominations/Komm, Gott Schöpfer, Heiliger Geist is now reviewed, but queues and preps for both days are full. Is there any chance to get it in, without image, perhaps as an exceptional additional one in the next set? - It's never too late for creative spirit but would make most sense today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Gerda Arendt: As you asked so nicely, I've added it as an exceptional ninth hook for today. The main page remains balanced, so no harm done. Harrias talk 11:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: will you be able to place that to the article talk that it appeared? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearing preparation areas[edit]

I updated the Main Page code, and by extention, recoded all the preparation areas, inluding the master template Template:Did you know/Clear. However, some editors keep clearing the prep areas with old code. Either I have missed a template, or those editors are using some private code storage (or the old history). Please use Template:Did you know/Clear only when resetting the prep areas. Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list is mostly used up, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 8 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 30 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 112 nominations are approved, leaving 204 of 316 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. (There's one from March that could use some attention.)

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) 03:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No one checked for metric conversions?[edit]

Keyser Creek, currently on the main page, has one section full of imperial units unconverted. How did that happen? Tony (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you don't feel it is a serious issue as you didn't fix the problem upon finding it. Harrias talk 06:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And before anyone responds with something along the lines of "what a typically useless response from DYK", I would contest that I was only equalling the uselessness of the original post. DYK is not FA, it is not GA, it does not require articles to adhere to every little part of the MOS. (In fact, even the GA criteria only asks for adherance with certain parts of the MOS.) Obviously, it would be ideal if they did, and glaring issues do require fixing. However, the point of DYK is to bring wider attention to new and expanded articles, and part of the reason for that is so that other editors can help to improve them. Finding an issue, then choosing not to fix it, but make a snarky comment here is not useful. If an article on the main page has an issue, it should either be fixed, or be raised at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Harrias talk 06:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What a typically useless response from DYK. Tony (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Harrias is absolutely correct, except that I wouldn't call Tony's comment snarky, but ignorant (in the not-insulting sense of that word) -- most editors don't realize rather I think it stems from forgetting that DYK is explicitly a place for new content that (usually) needs substantial work, and may even be somewhere between Start and C class. I've often said that articles, while their hook is on MP, should carry a banner saying, "This new article, like most Wikipedia articles, is a work in progress. Click <here> to learn how YOU can help! [etc etc]". EEng (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"Ignorant" can't help but be insulting. My words for the DYK jokers who are supposed to vet content before it goes onto the main page (a great privilege, not justified in my view) is: lazy, disorganised, and arrogant. Tony (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
As I tried to make clear, I meant ignorant in the sense of "lacking knowledge of a particular thing", not "uneducated and unsophisticated". In any event I've modified my comments to avoid any unintentional offense (and I thought you knew me better than that, Tony).
I disagree re "lazy" and "arrogant", because "disorganized" covers things well enough. It's long been my opinion that DYK should run only 1/3 to 1/2 as many items so that (a) they could all, in fact, be interesting, as called for by the rules; and (b) quality of reviewing etc. could be much improved. But my pleas have been in vain. EEng (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
People come to Wikipedia because they are ignorant of the facts. It doesn't have to be insulting at all. It just means someone doesn't know something. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think what's worse than a few missing conversions is the current inclusion of links to no fewer than three (3) disambiguation pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

EEng (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well if you can't spot irony, time to ship out! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Back atcha! EEng (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Cripes, EEngy! you're such a card (allegedly). Personally I think you're up Keyser Creek without a metric paddle. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ... yoiu need to get the anti-booing technology installed...
Tony1 I added the convert template into the section I think you were most concerned by. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, TRM. Tony (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I am more concerned about a section of prose elsewhere saying "The elevation near the creek's source is between ... (540 and 540m) above sea level" which is nonsense. I've fixed it manually based on hand-cranked calcuations. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the now inconsistent use of "between 540m and 540m" in the infobox and "between 536m and 542m" in the main article.... make it stop. P.S. If it ain't in the hook, it ain't getting reviewed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Voyager 1[edit]

This was recently promoted as GA...and I went to create a DYK template and found......this. So should I just put something at the bottom? Or get consensus here? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: When you create the DYK template, type in a title like "Voyager 1 (2)" – you can then create a new nomination template without having to touch the old one. 97198 (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
aaah, thanks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Now in Queue 3...[edit]

Nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2015 (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.

I'm concerned about the accuracy of Affair of the Dancing Lamas. While bees dance, and kangaroos box, llamas to my knowledge do not dance. EEng (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Llamas may not dance, but apparently Lamas do. Besides, I'm sure if you google "Dancing llama" you'll get something. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May be a question for User:Llamasharmafarmerdrama? [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hilarious as ever you lot. Move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you lot, move it like Desmond. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (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.

What's really sad is that this article (no kidding) would have supported the hook

... that the Affair of the Dancing Lamas included a bit part for llamas?

or something like that. Breaks a hooker's heart. EEng (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Opinions? Thematic hook set.[edit]

Just to check if there are volunteers to offer an opinion: Template:Did you know nominations/K Street Bridge suggests to make an entire hook set on streets, based on a picture that shows them all. I am one of the supporters but this is probably going nowhere. If you could give us a piece of your mind we could end that discussion and move on. --Pgallert (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is worth having. Let me suggest we centralize it on the nom page, not here. EEng (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)