Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 71

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

Problems at Template_talk:Did_you_know/Tatanua_mask

The article Tatanua mask was based on a translation of an article in Indonesian Wikipedia. I found some copy/plag issues that turned out to originate in the Indonesian article, which was (if one removes the infringing paragraph) no more than a stub.

Victuallers, who had nominated the article, listed the creator of the Indonesian article as DYK-Maker, a credit I feel should be removed from the template. I "struck" the DYK Make credit and put Victuallers, who has been doing a substantial rewrite, as DYK maker. The Template page does not reflect this, however, and I don't know how to change it.

I also am also unclear what our policy is for including translated wikitext in the minimum character count required for DYK. IIRC, copied PD stuff isn't included but a translation does seem closer to "new." Sharktopus ^talk 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Translated material has generally been accepted as "new" content. Keep in mind that normal rules regarding sourcing still apply however, regardless of how well (or poorly) sourced the other-language Wikipedia article is. cmadler (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

But translated material can still be a copyright violation (this is part of the reason why so many translations of non-English literature into English suck so badly - no competition, but that's OT) if it's done verbatim or literally. You STILL need to paraphrase the info when translating - which is what I think the issue was here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Victuallers withdrew the nom. Sharktopus ^talk 02:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was responding specifically to Sharktopus's last comment ("I also am also unclear what our policy is for including translated wikitext in the minimum character count required for DYK."). If the foreign-language content is free (so there's no copyvio issue) and is given as the source in the edit summary (so there's no plagiarism issue), a translation is counted as "new" content for DYK's newness/expansion purposes. Obviously a translation of non-free material remains non-free, as a derivative work, and so can't be accepted on Wikipedia; I thought that went without saying, but I guess not. cmadler (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a note-- verbatim translations are copyvio (or plagiarism as the case may be), too; I've noticed a number of Indonesian translations, and wonder who is consulting the original source to make sure they aren't copyvio (if anyone ever wants a Spanish-language copyvio check, pls ping my talk and I'll gladly do it. Titoxd or Yomangani can also do those, but someone should be checking translations). WP:NONENG discusses how to handle non-English sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

When we say "verbatim translations are copyvio", are we talking about translations of the original-language articles, or original-language articles which themselves may have been copypasted from another source? My understanding (I've seen a fair amount of articles I've written translated into German and other languages, largely as I wrote them, from those languages that I can read) is that in the former case all the licensing requires is acknowledgement that it was translated from the corresponding article on the other-language wiki, whereas in the latter our usual procedures would apply. (There have been some major plagiarism incidents on the other wikis ... in addition to all that stuff from the old East German encyclopedia that found its way onto dewiki, the frwiki article on "Freedom" was found to have been largely copied from a school textbook some while back. So of course we have to be careful).

And how "verbatim" does it have to be (to the extent that anything other than the most mechanical machine translation can be called "verbatim")? Even the most rudimentary translation requires making syntactical shifts, accounting for idioms, changing prepositions and whatever other adjustments are necessary in order to render the text accurately into the target language ... all things that, when done with source text in English, help avoid close paraphrasing. Is there some clarification somewhere on what degree of this in translation is necessary? Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: OK, here it is:

Translations of copyrighted text, even from other Wikimedia projects, are derivative works, and attribution must be given to satisfy licensing requirements. When translating material from a Wikimedia project licensed under CC-By-SA, a note identifying the Wikimedia source (such as an interlanguage link) should be made in edit summary and a link left to the original at the article's talk page. The template {{Translated page}} is available for this purpose.

Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Geeeeez, that is just so wrong on so many levels. Never mind that the very principle of translating without reading sources violates VP:V, because other Wikis are not reliable sources. Anyway, that's not a discussion for this page. Poor sourcing of translations, or verbatim or plagiarized translations aside, if anyone wants me to look at Spanish sources to check for copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing (a process which is EXACTLY like it is in English), please do ping my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Translating articles from other-language editions of Wikipedia without looking at the sources does have problems with WP:V, but it's not the same problem as plagiarizing or violating copyright. In particular, if the translator leaves the text unreferenced, then it's already clear that references need to be added, and thus the end result isn't really any worse than writing content without adding references anyway (which, again, is not in line with WP:V, but also not something someone needs to be tarred and feathered over unless they have a long history of it). It's perfectly acceptable to use translated text from another edition of WP as a starting point and then reference and improve it over time; Wikipedia is not finished. For example, when I created Suanmeitang I started by translating much of the text directly from Chinese Wikipedia, attributing, adding sources to statements when I could find sources, and adding to statements when I couldn't; there are still a couple statements tagged as needing citations, and anyone is welcome to improve the article if they want, and I don't think I've broken the wiki. — Rjanag 02:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

but it's not the same problem as plagiarizing or violating copyright. I don't think so ... if there was copyvio or plagiarism in the other Wiki, we'll be importing it into en.wiki. Again, without reading the sources, one doesn't know, and we should never be writing articles based on other non-reliable sources (other Wikis)-- we should be writing articles based on soures. If the other Wiki had a copyvio, we are continuing the copyvio, and you don't know that unless you read the sources. We also don't know if we're accurately representing the sources, but that's another problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it's been said before by other editors, but the hostile attitude of these discussions is getting a bit old. I want to improve the encyclopedia as much as anyone else, but I don't appreciate the veiled accusations that anyone whose articles aren't perfect from the very first edit, or whose ways of editing aren't the same as the FAC crowd's, is just as bad as a copyright violator or a plagiarizer. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation is a legal issue; it's not about whether articles are perfect or not, it's about whether someone is breaking the law and Wiki is allowing, condoning, enabling it. If you translate and import plagiarism because you haven't checked reliable sources, there is no personal animosity, but I don't know how to embrace with open arms the lax attitude at DYK to such editing. Of course, the "hostile attitude" may have been nipped in the bud way back when Truthkeeper88 was dissed soundly here, or at "namby-pamby newbie"-style personal attacks being thrown around here by regulars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

+1 to your first graf ... that's how this is supposed to work. The GFDL/CC is meant to encourage that sort of translating in order that knowledge propagate more freely. I write most of this; someone at the Spanish Wikipedia translates it (at least an earlier version of the article). I don't need to be Sandy the Spanish expert to see that it was clearly a close paraphrase over there, and without any citation (There actually was once something crediting that, something about an attempt to translate all our GAs, but it seems to have disappeared. Whatever; that's the editors' problem over there. Not mine; although no doubt Sandy will go over there and do her best Sofia Vergara impression to shape them up. I cited my sources, they can check them and add them too).

Certainly when translating, we should follow all our own policies with regard to editorial material ... why would we not? But if something is properly sourced in French or Russian, say, (where I would be most comfortable reviewing source material), I see no reason why we would have to reinvent the wheel if an editor at one of those wikis has written an effective article or section that would meet our standards once translated and properly attributed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

that's the editors' problem over there. Not mine; although no doubt Sandy will go over there and do her best Sofia Vergara impression to shape them up. ' Did someone mention "hostile attitude" somewhere on this page <cough, cough>? Seriously, if I had a last name like "Vergara", I'd see a judge about having it changed (threw that in just to see if Yo-man is still reading, since he *does* have a memory). Query: if you import a copyvio or non-reliable text into another language Wiki, where it is even less likely that editors who don't speak that language will detect it, how do you feel good about adding that to "the sum of all human knowledge"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't find being compared to her flattering :-)? Anyway, what I wrote over here had sources; the editor at the Spanish Wikipedia chose to import it there and translate it without them. Is it supposed to be my responsibility now that he or she did so?

Most texts here that get imported to other-language wikis are imported by editors from that wiki; it's their job to bring over the sources and footnotes as policies on that wiki require.

And would I just import and translate text from one of the other wikis? Certainly I would check sources. In fact, the most recent time I was doing this (over a year and a half ago, actually), I pretty much just wrote away in English based on the source cited there because the original was just a stub with that one source at that point. But, with more developed original-language prose, once the source is verified, I see no problem with just translating, citing the same sources, making whatever editorial changes we need for our policies and attributing properly. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Error got through: how will the report get back to reviewers?

I reported an error in a hook heading for the Main Page. It's now logged on:

• Template_talk:Did_you_know/HMS_Prince_Charles_(1930)

Defects in units of measure are *much* simpler to spot than copyvios. Units of measure were mentioned three times during review but nobody spotted the defect. It isn't a one-off issue. Does anybody read these post-selection comments in order to improve the process? Lightmouse (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would assume not (though editors who've watchlisted the sub-page might); once a nomination is closed as "promoted" and added into a prep area or queue, the nomination sub-pages is considered archived. cmadler (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Bencherlite already pointed out, the article talk page and user talk pages. If you want to chide a reviewer, you can go there. I'm not sure why Bencherlite added a note about it to the archived nomination page, given

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know, unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page). No further edits should be made to this page.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to chide anyone. I just wondered if error reports added any value. Lightmouse (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, they get the error fixed, which is the main point. Anything else you want to do (i.e., explaining it to the writer so they don't make the same mistake again, or explaining it to the reviewer so they don't let that kind of mistake through again) would best be done by leaving a message at that user's talk page. I don't think most editors watch WP:ERRORS or T:DYK, so they probably don't notice reports or changes made there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(after 2 edit conflicts) I didn't say that the matter should be taken to the article talk page. I added a comment to the nomination discussion as an experiment and so that there was a record on that page of the two problems with the approved hook, because that seemed the best place to note it. OK, so there's an archive box around the pre-selection discussion - big deal. I started a new section for that reason. Recording the problem on that page at least has a chance of showing up in the watchlist of nominator, reviewer and promotor; editing the article talk page (and remember, there might be more than one article talk page involved) may not do so, and is off-topic as far as the article is concerned; mentioning every problem at WT:DYK is overkill. Not mentioning anywhere means it just gets forgotten. I'd appreciate it if my note was reinstated, thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 17:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the note should not be reinstated. First of all, it's not necessary for the nomination discussion page to serve as record of all changes that happen to the article or the hook after the nomination discussion is closed; the nomination discussion page is for evaluating the article and accepting or rejecting it for DYK, and if there is a need at all or a permanent record of all changes to the hook (I don't think there is) this is not the place to have it. I assumed all you wanted was to educate the reviewer about his/her error, which can be done with a private not at his/her user talk page.

Secondly, would you leave comments on an AfD after it closed and think it's ok just because you left them below the box? That is never acceptable at AfD, why should it be acceptable here?

Thirdly, there are technical reasons why comments should not be left below the box. The nomination discussion is still transcluded on T:TDYK, but the contents of the box are hidden using <noinclude> (see, for instance, Brandreth Pill Factory on T:TDYK). Adding extra comments outside of that, after the discussion has already been closed, adds unnecessary clutter to T:TDYK.

Apologies for putting words in your mouth regarding the article talk page; I didn't read the discussion at WP:ERRORS carefully. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. For the rest, I frankly don't care enough any more about DYK to want to discuss it further. There was I thinking that I'd found an extra way to help DYK through an additional small role for the nomination page, one that didn't involve rebuking people on their talk pages and that also left a centralised note of a minor issue for future reference, if needed, but clearly not. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 18:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My views are somewhat similar to those of User:Bencherlite. Lightmouse (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what I can tell you guys. I already explained three reasons why extra comments shouldn't be left on the page after it's archived, and you guys haven't responded to any of them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you insist... (1) The page could serve that purpose – there's no reason why it can't. You don't think it should, but I (and Lightmouse, it appears) think it can. (2) AFD is a completely different set-up. At ANI, for example, if a new issue arises after a section has been archived, the discussion can be continued below in a new section. Similarly, if an admin returns a DYK hook to the discussion page from the queues or main page, the nomination would be unarchived. Neither situation is comparable to AFD. (3) So all I need to do in such circumstances is to add "noinclude" tags, and we're fine? Good. Bencherlite^Talk 20:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-ones spoken to me about this discussion, or left a note on the article talk page. The 150 tons figure is available in either source 2 or 3 - I forget which. I simply forgot to add the source to the end of the sentence. In future I'll be more careful. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you want to bring an issue to the attention of DYK reviewers, this page is a good place to comment. Not everybody reads this page, but a lot more people read this page than read archived pages for old DYK hooks. Sharktopus ^talk 22:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it's going to be impractical to add every discussion about a nom to the nomination page, because such discussions typically can and do occur anywhere (for example, this page, mainpage errors etc). As a compromise, I suppose we could allow links to discussions at other pages to the nom page if somebody wants to add them. I think if a hook is actually pulled from the queue, discussion could either continue here or the archive could be reopened, depending on how extensive discussion is likely to be. Gatoclass (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think if a nom is returned from prep, queue or Main page, it would make sense to reopen the nom archive consistently - or perhaps still have it open, close only after it appeared, together with archiving. - Btw, Nels Running was returned from a queue (no template then), waiting to be reconsidered, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally it's good if us reviewers are told of any misjudgements or glitches we make. I know it's more work for whoever is managing the system, though. Tony (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be automatically accomplished by continuing the nom template that reviewer hopefully will keep watching, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What about adding subsequent comments on the talk page for the nomination subpage? If the nominator, reviewer(s), and promoter are still watching the nomination subpage, an edit to the talk page will show on their watchlist also, but that way we don't have to worry about it being transcluded onto T:TDYK. cmadler (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the nom subpage is already a talk page (Template talk:Did you know/some article). It is possible to change the setup so the nom subpage is a regular page, although that will break some minor things (little things like having the article talkpage and user talkpage credit notices display links to the nom subpage) and I don't think it's worth the trouble given that hooks that get pulled or changed later on via WP:ERRORS are a vast minority. (Multi-hooks are also a vast minority, so I am not very worried by someone's comment above that "leaving a comment on the article talk page doesn't work when there are multiple articles.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That is most frequently what is done at FAC and FAR (but be sure to add a link to the new discussion from the mainpage, so that folks will know that discussion continued on talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the introduction of separate nom pages, a hook removed from the queue went back to T:TDYK for further discussion. I don't see any reason why we should do things differently under the new system. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind, too. I intentionally changed the wording of the "please do not edit this page" archivebox message to allow for the possibility of the nom being reopened via discussion at WT:DYK. (The easiest way to do so would just be to undo the edit that archived with it, since it involves template subst'ing and stuff.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Dixon (currently queue 2)

"survivors had to row four miles (6.4 km) to find medical assistance" We know that they rowed 4 miles: the article does not turn that into a claim that they needed to do that, and neither should the hook. We will never know whether assistance might have found its way to them if they had rowed one mile or three. We should stick to what we know happened, and not speculate as to what would have been necessary: "survivors rowed four miles to find medical assistance".

The estimate of 4 miles is most unlikely to have been intended to be accurate to the nearest 140 yards, and so there seems little justification for rounding to equivalent to the nearest 100 m. Kevin McE (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Survivors rowed four miles" is less hooky, and "had to row" is not inaccurate. Most of your corrections in the prep areas have been good, but here I think you're taking an overly literal interpretation of the wording. I don't know if this is an AmE/BrE difference (based on other comments you have made, I assume you speak BrE), but in my experience "had to X" is a common phrase and doesn't necessarily entail "was forced to X by somebody". Anyway, the point is, if they could have rowed 1 mile to find medical assistance they would have; if they rowed 4 miles, that implies that they had to. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that if we had left off a conversion of four miles to metric, we would have been attacked for the error of violating WP:MOS. Sharktopus ^talk 17:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that truth would be a greater priority than sensationalising for the sake of "hookiness". Wew know what they did: what was absolutely necessary is pure speculation. Kevin McE (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is the unjustified rounding to 2 sf that I commented on, not the inclusion of metric equivalence: c. 6 km would be more appropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Pacific sand crab (currently queue 2)

Why is there thought to be any contradiction between direction of propulsion on land, and the ability to tread water? The link to the activity only describes it as a human activity: is it really meaningful to ascribe the action to a crab? Kevin McE (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no contadiction, and the addition of the last phrase turned an acceptable hook into a poor one. Cramming unrelated facts into hooks is poor writing, which continues to be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.146.89 (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jason Kinpis (currently queue 3)

The reader who does not know what sport the Cleveland Indians play (the vast majority of the non US population of the world) will not know whether the sport he played at college (incidentally, is this football or football?) is the same game or not. If I am told that someone is a good receiver, I would assume that their expertise is in commercial accountancy. Kevin McE (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, "Cleveland Indian" should be changed to Cleveland Indians, and "receiver" should be wikilinked to wide receiver. cmadler (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Receiver" still needs to be linked to wide receiver. cmadler (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Better? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That works for me, thanks! cmadler (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Basket ferns (currently prep 3)

Why is it to be assumed that a non-venomous snake should be a nasty surprise? Kevin McE (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but since this has since been moved into Queue 5 it will now require an admin to fix. cmadler (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rodney Blake (currently prep 4)

St Joseph's is not a very uncommon name for an educational institution: it seems unreasonable to name it without identifying it. Kevin McE (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)  Done The prep areas are not protected; anyone can fix problems there. cmadler (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahmad Sarbani Mohamed (currently prep 1)

"is the second person in two years to die while in the custody of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission" The 2 year period began with a death on 16 July 2009: the two year period is therefore over, so it should be "was the second..." Kevin McE (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)  Done The prep areas are not protected; anyone can fix problems there. cmadler (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this one needs to be discussed because I reverted Kevin in this issue before. (He neglected to describe the full background of this issue.) Personally, I think Kevin's rationale above is an overly literal reading of the hook and change is not necessary. Using "is" makes the hook more specific time-wise (if changed to "was", it would refer to any two years—he could have died in 1950 or whatnot—and therefore the hook feels less recent). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rajang is right: using the present tense does make it more specific: it specifies a current period. So what two year period are you referring to? How is baulking at describing the past as though it were the present being "overly literal"? Given that the two year period is not current (it expired in the middle of last month), the verb must be past tense. The "full background" is that Rjanag reverted without explanation, and appealed to procedural issues rather than trying to establish accuracy. As with one of the issues above, this seems to be pushing for "hookiness" over truthfulness. Kevin McE (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I think this is being overly literal. "Two years" doesn't need to mean exactly two years. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In casual chat, two years could sometimes mean more than 670 days, but that is not the case here: no-one disputes that the two deaths occurred within a 24 month period. When a specific mathematical claim in an encyclopaedia "within two years" is made, then anything outside accuracy is error. If the second killing had been on 18 July 2011, we could not say that he was the second in two years. Do you accept that once the two year period has expired, it is more appropriate to talk about it in the past tense? If you are concerned that it makes it look like old news (as though that would be a bad thing), then rephrase it to incorporate the date: "... that the death of Ahmad Sarbani Mohamed in April 2011 was the second death of a person in the custody of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission in two years?" That has the added benefit of avoiding a redirect. Kevin McE (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the wording with "is" sounds better, you don't, and I doubt either of us is going to change our minds. I don't really have anything more to say, and the hook is already the one you prefer (Cmadler changed it before the discussion here began, since you failed to mention that there was disagreement over this change) so I don't see any reason to continue discussing it.

For what it's worth, there is no redirect in the current hook so I don't see why you are concerned about avoiding one. I think you are confusing a piped link with a redirect. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ayudhapurusha (Queue 4)

I think this needs "the" added before "Hindu". cmadler (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Added. Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How a DYK suggestion makes its way to the main page

Here I kind of rewrote WP:DYK#How a DYK suggestion makes its way to the main page. I don't know if anyone ever reads this, but I thought maybe it would clear up some people's confusion over why there are preps and queues and stuff, which seems to confuse some editors. Also, much of the stuff in that section was pretty out of date. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How to archive days?

The talk page says to send them here but the bit at the top says to archive them here. Help? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The former. Sorry, I just changed it up; see User talk:Mandarax#New DYK days. I'll update the instructions at the beginning of the page; guess I missed those. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

But, if there are no new-style noms on a give day, it should just be removed, not archived. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see there is one new-style nom under July 14, so that day is ready to archive.

Just to be clear: For dates up to and including August 4, archive them by pasting them to Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/YEAR MONTH DAY. For August 5 and later, it's going to be a bit different; I'll update the instructions when it's time to switch over. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The archiving you just did looks correct. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys for the help! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Perp Area 2

On the last hook, could someone else just clarify that this is ok? I thought it was but I'd like someone else to give feedback before I move it to a queue. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know but that hook is more boring than some of the others. i would put eating insects at the end, not poker placements. Sharktopus ^talk 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Dick Gordon (currently prep 4)

"got his nickname for first reporting golfer Bobby Jones's retirement in 1930": did he subsequently report in in other years? Suggest "got his nickname for being the first to report golfer Bobby Jones's retirement..." Kevin McE (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)  Done The prep areas are not protected; anyone can fix problems there. cmadler (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for a nominator to withdraw a hook at this late stage, for rewite? (set to appear in about six hours)? The hook doesn't do justice to my intention, which was to honor the longevity of his career, the basis for his notability and my interest in rescuing the page from deletion. I don't want to edit in the live queue, but I'd be willing to do the work immediately. BusterD (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ALT2: ...sportswriter Dick "Scoop" Gordon earned his nickname for reporting at The Daily Princetonian in 1930, then filed his last sports story for the Villager in 2008?

ALT3: ...sportswriter Dick "Scoop" Gordon filed his last sports column for the Villager in 2008, after earning his nickname reporting for The Daily Princetonian in 1930?

These are two hooks which meet the review process already undergone. I've truncated the anecdote instead of the career durability (from whence the notability derives). As is, the hook is merely trivial and not as interesting, IMHO. Hope this late interjection improves the DYK list of hooks with which it appears. In any case, thanks for the great work you folks do here to maintain the main page and promote pageviews on new article space. BusterD (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, I see you did what I wanted to recommend, but please sign) It's now in Queue 6, to appear in 8 1/2 hours to my calculation. Only an admin can make changes to the queues. I would propose an alternative hook here and hope. (I had suggested to keep the nomination template open until after it appeared, for such things, but it's not (yet?) in place.) - If the hook won't be changed, don't worry too much, to my experience the hook doesn't have to summarize the article. If it's interesting people will click and read more. Congratulations to rescuing "him" from deletion. I had an article relisted for deletion the second time today ..., --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I've done as you suggested. I've explained my rationale above. FYI, the page was written as a memorial (perhaps by a relative), and I was working my way through AfD lists when I came across it. Searching through sources briefly, it was reading the fellow's writing which inspired me to pursue the rescue. I got lots of help, so the DYK credit goes to the pagecreator (who might actually join us as a wikipedian) and another sports-loving editor who liked the story too and sourced the heck out of it. BusterD (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I replaced it with ALT2. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The elipsis doesn't look right, does it? BusterD (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That then looks distinctly odd: the word usually suggests a much more immediate sequence of actions. and would fit better. Sports rather than sport is US English, and we are exhorted to avoid phrases that are odd to either variety on the main page: can we not just drop the word? Kevin McE (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "then" to "and". I don't agree that "sports" needs changed or removed. The article subject is an American and standard practice on WP is generally to use the variety of language that corresponds to the subject when possible (e.g., using BrEng for British topics and AmEng for US topics). If we avoided all US- or Brit-specific terms on the main page entirely, we would also have to remove "football" from the Scotland national under-16 football team hook in the same queue (since we Americans don't call it that). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's better. Thanks to everyone involved. BusterD (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I would draw Rjanag's attention to the whacking great boilerplate at the top of WP:ERRORS, and to WP:ENGVAR. Nobody has said that such phrases can be avoided completely: in this case, the intended emphasis, that Gordon's journalistic career spanned 78 years, would not be compromised by this change. What do you believe is added to the hook by inclusion of the contentious word? Kevin McE (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The boilerplate at the top of WP:ERRORS specifically includes the disclaimer "Some spellings, grammar, or terms used on the Main Page may be different or absent in your variation of English." Furthermore, ENGVAR specifically says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation", like I explained above. Anyway, I don't think anyone but you will consider this word "contentious"; I'm waiting to see other comments in this discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That is extraordinarily selective reading. The boilerplate goes on to make a suggestion based on the observation which is the only bit you choose to quote:Wikipedia recommends the use of words that are common to all varieties of English. Similarly, ENGVAR also says Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English...Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms...Terms that are uncommon in some varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed...Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference You cannot cherry pick the sentences of a policy that suit you. And I note that, for at least the third time in recent days, you have tried to personalise a discussion about accurate and MoS compliant material on the Main Page. I really think that this is entirely unsuitable for an admin. Kevin McE (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "personalising a discussion". Just as was the case in the discussion of #Leal Garcia v. Texas, you raised a complaint about a word you disagree with, and so far no one else has expressed any concerns about it. I have nothing further to say here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how this has come and gone on the Main Page, it's now largely a moot point. However, since the words are nearly the same, and each is easily intelligible to all, I'd suggest that is more akin to a difference of spelling (e.g. theater v theatre) than to a difference in terminology (e.g. truck v lorry). There is no problem with using the term, and the spelling should follow ENGVAR rules. cmadler (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Leal Garcia v. Texas

Do we really need to construct sentences such as to present puerile double-entendres on the front page. I know its the school holidays, but... Kevin McE (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously missing something there. What is the puerile double-entendre to which you refer? It seems very straightforward to me. cmadler (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What? What on earth did I miss there? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Kevin may be seeing a double entendre as the Leal Garcia v. Texas hook is in the "quirky" spot of Queue 5, and since we usually put the rather "naughty" hooks there... I don't see a double entendre though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the double entendre he's seeing? cmadler (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I twist the meaning of "relationship" really badly I can see imagine some things that we wouldn't want on the main page (orgies, multiple partners, swingers)... brain bleach. But you'd have to do a lot of stretching to get that kind of double entendre out of the hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Crisco, for figuring out what it was. I am also concerned that in Queue Two one of the hooks includes the word "title." Whose puerile effort was this to make people think of a certain three-letter word? Sharktopus ^talk 14:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am so confused. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, not only are we not mind-readers, but most of us don't do cryptic crosswords either. You need to make your comments far clearer and use links like everybody else. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already told him this a few times in a few places. It's probably not going to happen. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

err: acts of congress? Sorry if this was not intended to be a double entendre, or if the phrase is not considered ambiguous in some circles; maybe people should be aware that it can look like euchemism, even if none was intended. However, I extend no apology to Rjanag, who has taken a rude approach to my observations and a very unconstructive approach to my attempts to improve what is proposed for the Main Page. His attitude seems most unbecoming for an administrator. Kevin McE (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Act of Congress. It's a common term in American English. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the legal phrase for them....Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love the variations in our supposedly shared English language. I doubt 1 out of a 1000 Americans would have seen the sexual connotation in "Acts of Congress." Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, as the connotation exists in other realms of Anglophonia, could it be rephrased? Kevin McE (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe that even English speakers outside of the US will see that connotation. I'd be happy for another administrator to prove me wrong though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Yank, and this connotation certainly didn't occur to me. "Act of Congress" is a familiar phrase even outside the US. But I think it's a poor hook regardless. Gatoclass (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• blank stare* Never occurred to me... Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Biological screw joint (currently Queue 4)

Scientists may have first discovered it in this species of weevil: that is a long way from being proof that it is the first time nature has evolved such a device. And "first ever" is a tautology. ... that scientists first discovered the biological screw joint in the Papuan weevil Trigonopterus oblongus? Kevin McE (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Dwarf sphaero for August 9th

Just a friendly reminder to whomever prepares the preps next: we have an article scheduled for August 9th, the Virgin Islands dwarf sphaero. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Patriarch Dionysius I of Constantinople (currently Queue 2)

Almost everyone I see every day allows me to see at least part of their flesh, but it offers little clue as to whether they are circumcised. Per WP:EUPHEMISM and WP:NOTCENSORED, perhaps we ought to say that he showed his penis; if we are going to retain the euphemism (which would be my preference), it should be in quotation marks. And I'm intrigued as to what the reference might mean by "but rather a small piece of skip..." Kevin McE (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Battlefield Heroes (currently Queue 2)

This is a severe misrepresentation of the interview referenced in the article. The relevant phrase is "I wanted to show that 1,300 years ago, when China was Tang dynasty, that these superpowers had exerted an enormous amount of power over Korea, thus causing a lot of internal conflicts within Korea." The USA was decidedly not a superpower in the eighth century. Suggest that the director of Battlefield Heroes wanted the film to show that powerful neighbouring countries affected Korea in the past, as they do now? Kevin McE (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So despite being flagged up here, and on WP:ERRORS, a gross misrepresentation of someone's comments appeared on the Main Page of Wikipedia for eight hours. Clearly the processes that should prevent this are not fit for purpose. Kevin McE (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is badly broken. Not enough people with admin privileges watch it. I've reported errors before and waited hours before they were fixed. Prioryman (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Cutting through the...stuff

We need more people. Really. And a happier, healthy atmosphere of growth and learning, rather than finger-pointing and bickering. For this reason I suggest we start looking for some fresh faces, full of happiness and good faith, to bring into here. My suggestion is that we make templates out of this and this and make us some advertising campaigns! But then I am incredibly new here. So feel free to tell me to go to Hades. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I should probably make one of those for admins as well...Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea. I probably will only nominate new member's articles for DYK from now on like I did with an article today. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been mulling coming back. I only ever used to nominate articles where there was a hook fact I thought people would find interesting. But the new nomination procedure is daunting and there is still a lot of . . . stuff. I left because I was used as a bad example for having almost 50 DYKs. I can be pretty thick-skinned—I know people have differing assumptions and preferences—but I felt I was suddenly a liability for DYK. I believe it was MaterialScientist who suggested we try to recover the old spirit of mutual responsibility and get-stuck-in (my formulation) around here. How can we do that? The way it's been, I would be leery of asking a new person to contribute. The students in the Psych class are an example (I was the one discovered that.) If this page hadn't been demanding so much attention to arguments and if so many people hadn't been driven away, I have to think someone would have spotted the group of submissions earlier. As it is, I am still finding submissions from that group that, while they got accurate and thoughtful feedback on the order of "There are still big problems with this article" and "You didn't complete the process of making this nomination" didn't get any message to the effect of "I see you are very new. I've copyedited the article but it still needs better referencing. . . see the talk page." It isn't DYK's fault that this class group slipped through the safety net, but it's a big blinking red light, in my view. I've been looking in at the submissions page and I see a lot of "The article needs copyediting"; occasionally I've stepped up and done that. It used to be part of the culture to do that, especially with articles by relatively new editors or editors who clearly don't have English as their first language. It saves a lot of grief and talking back and forward, IMO. Similarly with sticking a copy of the obvious ref at the end of the hook sentence. (Reviewing always did include checking a reasonable sample of the references, so unless the hook fact is genuinely unsupported, it's not hard to see where it came from and dot the i's and cross the t's in that respect, too. If we can agree that we want to go back to that kind of spirit and make DYK more user-friendly—right now it is a pretty harsh gauntlet, and remember, most editors' first experience of having an article nominated at DYK is when it's nominated by someone else—then I'd support encouraging people to come back and to try it for the first time. If not, then I don't think it would benefit DYK for me to come back, and I don't think it would benefit new editors to be encouraged to try here. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! I was afraid I had to include you in my sad list but then saw the Sugar Museum and started to hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a new user would have to be insane to try DYK in its current climate, but I also just logged in tonight to see that a new user had been lectured and warned by her appointed ambassador for the "inappropriate" behavior of trying to review one of my pending noms at WP:GAN; when the new user pointed out to her ambassador that the top of the GA page explicitly invited any registered user to participate and that this invitation might be changed if it was inaccurate, she was, of course, met with silence. [1] Maybe it would be easier if Wikipedia just agreed project-wide that new users shouldn't bother, and left it at that? Madness. -- Khazar (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you see my remarks about the current climate. Nonetheless, the addressee also finds it too cold at the moment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't. And that poor new user :-( The thing is, what can we do? Here are a couple of radical ideas I have just dredged out of the depths of my underslept brain. Maybe they will knock loose some more feasible radical ideas.

1. Let's form a volunteer directorate of Helpers: people who will check the nominations page for articles that a reviewer says need copyediting/reference placing on the hook fact/re-wording of the hook/other fixable stuff, and go to the article and do it. I'm not sure whether the current nominations system makes it possible to also see nominations where the process wasn't completed so they don't show up on that page, but it would be good to be able to fix that too—as helpful people and bots do with incomplete AfD noms, for example.
2. Let's have a clear statement somewhere right near the top that pages nominated for DYK need to adhere to all Wikipedia's policies: they must be NPOV, adequately referenced, and contain no plagiarism and copyvio, and they should be ready for publication (no empty sections, no unencyclopedic stuff like addressing the reader, an acceptable standard of spelling and English usage), but they may use any form of referencing, any suitable variety of English, and have an infobox or not and a picture or not as seems appropriate to those who work on them. Concerns are being raised about DYK articles that apply to all articles; being new doesn't exempt an article from policy. On the other hand, requiring articles to use citation templates is simply wrong. They are completely optional. It's only suggested that articles use consistent referencing format (a recommendation honored more in the breach than in the observance, IME). There are project and MOS guidelines for specific groups of topics, but Wikipedia articles overall have considerable latitude in style and presentation; however, reviewers don't necessarily know that. Length also falls in here. Policy last time I looked was that the length of the article was supposed to be related to its notability. In practice, it relates to how concisely it can be written up: the requirement is for it to be ready (not finished, but not obviously deficient). The current minimum length requirement for DYK is shorter than the majority of articles I've written, but some science/tech articles have trouble meeting it. In describing a species, for example, it's not appropriate to pad the article out. And it's actually against policy to encourage it. We don't want only certain kinds of articles, in fact we want as many different kinds as possible.
3. If you are willing to do a thorough review of a submission and finish by judging it ready or not, explaining clearly why or why not (so that someone else can see if you forgot something, or disagree), you should be allowed to remove the reviewer checklist, because that obscures such a clear statement. Conversely, if you want to do a driveby review of just one aspect of an article, you should make it clear that that's what you are doing, and either use that item on the checklist or otherwise limit your review. So that others know the article needs the rest of it to be looked at.
4. Have people undertake to liaise with the WikiProjects to get people with special knowledge over to the nominations page fast to review specialized articles like, for example, the recent psychology crop. IMO we don't have enough scientific DYKs, and we have even more of a deficit in tech articles. My impression is that many of the projects are not responsive when you put a request on the talk page for eyes on an article or a group of articles, and we have a problem because DYK has a time limit, and a rapid one at that. So let's work through personal relationships and build a list of contacts and do it that way.
5. Extend the above to challenging members of projects to nominate an article to DYK every week or month, to get more articles on subjects they find interesting—and more articles they deem well written—into DYK. More fun than being in reaction mode trying to deal with AfDs, I think. I wonder if banners would work for this? Not necessarily Wikipetan banners like the ones suggested above, and I'd make them less wide and with less words, along the lines of: "Written a good new article in the past week? Seen a good new article lately? Expanded an article lately? With something interesting to say? Good. DYK wants it!".
6. Informally schedule who fills the next prep. Do you know how to do it—or feel you could manage it if someone showed you how—but you really only have time on Saturdays? or between the hours of 8 pm and midnight your local time on your workdays? If we can get it pencilled in who will normally handle it when, we can have more lead time to fix problems in the preps. And probably get more people to learn how, because they'll be joining an informal team not rushing into a burning building.
7. A mini-WikiCup for new contributors. This was an idea of Kobnach's because this year's WikiCup severely downgraded DYKs, making the Cup a game for the very experienced. Their suggestion was that the New Editors' Cup be for those who hadn't yet achieved autopatrolled, and start on July 1 to be maximally time-offset from the WikiCup. Have it be just a DYK contest, leave in place the strong statement the WikiCup already has that anyone who produces substandard work just to rack up points will be chucked out, and it could be fun. It might be better to have a far lower upper limit on eligibility, because autopatrolled status is now way hard to get unless some sympathetic admin notices you (as one did me). Say: have created a maximum of 20 non-DAB new pages. we have the WikiLove button and lots of creative people to help us create barnstars for participants who give us lots of DYKs . . . this could be really fun and net us very fresh and unpredictable articles.

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the last suggestion (having a DYK contest) is a good idea. Contests would likely just increase the amount of poor-quality nominations--especially plagiarism/closeparaphrasing/copyvio nominations, which are what started the entire mess that's been going on for the past few weeks. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Told you they were wild and woolly ideas '-) That one isn't even mine. The thing is, we're always going to get poor submissions. Otherwise there would be no need to review them. I really think we need that strong policy reminder in a prominent place - both the bits about what policy does require, including not infringing copyright or plagiarizing, and the bits about what it doesn't require. If we want to encourage newbies, we have to truly welcome them, and they come in all flavors, from ex-academics like me to young kids, and from people with extensive editing experience here or on another wiki who are just doing DYK for the first time, or writing new articles for the first time (not everyone registers an account in order to create a new article, although it is common) to people with a shaky grasp of keyboarding. We've all seen a vast range at the suggestions page. If they come over the transom, we can work on 'em. If we never see 'em, we can't. And it's not as if the contest would bestow valuable prizes or even tremendous bragging rights. It would just be fun. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I recently edited the rules page so that the list of rules was closer to the top. That list does include "within policy" as one of the criteria for DYK articles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think it should say briefly and clearly somewhere that DYK articles should adhere to all WP article policies . . . and that they should not be expected to adhere to non-policies (such as particular citation formats). Maybe that statement belongs in the guide for reviewers? (I also note that the lists of admins and non-admins below there is way out of date.) In any event, this section on this page is about attracting new people to DYK. The main thrust of my remarks was and is that when a reviewer mistakenly asks for something more, or different—such as highly polished prose, untypable dashes, or citation templates—this is discouraging, and if someone else sees that happening, they could fix the problem for the submitter if it would improve the article—and ideally the reviewer should do so—and if it's strictly a matter of taste, that should be pointed out at the article review.

Also . . . what about my other suggestions, and let's have some other people's ideas. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with Template talk:Did you know/Arthur Seymour

This nom template has some wikicodes missing. I was about to promote this to P1, but don't know what to do with {{DYKsubpage... etc. missing. This is no Template talk talk:Did you know/Arthur Seymour to talk about the template talkpage, so I am leaving a note here and also immediately below the nom on T:TDYK. I don't understand programming. Can someone help fix this, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have fixed it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like what happened (judging by the first version) is that the editor correctly created the subpage but then, instead of using the preloaded template, just pasted in his own code (perhaps some frequent nominators keep filled out versions of {{NewDYKnom}} in their personal sandbox or something and didn't notice the changeover). Usually in these cases I noticed earlier and left them grumpy messages "asking" them to please use the preloaded template. I think what Crisco added should fix this nom. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Crisco. --PFHLai (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor help needed here, too.

• Template talk:Did you know/Bruce McLenna
• Template talk:Did you know/Mike Keller

The link to these noms sit at T:TDYK#Bruce McLenna and T:TDYK#Mike Keller without indication if the hook was "Promoted" or "Rejected". I suspect the closing admin forgot to type in "yes" next to "|passed=". Not sure how to fix this after the fact. Can someone help get them fixed, pls? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.

@Rjanag: Could we possibly have a reminder in hidden text in the template, like <!--Enter yes if promoted or no if rejected when closing-->? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Added, rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again, Crisco. --PFHLai (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, twice over. Thanks, Rjanag. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing as a two-way street

Wanted to make the point here that reviewing should be a two-way process. Reviewers are not perfect editors (no-one is) and can end up learning from editors they interact with. What I would hope to see in every discussion about concerns over article (especially the more subjective aspects, such as close paraphrasing) is that the reviewer lays out clearly what the concerns are, and is prepared to come back and discuss with specific examples, and to even propose new wording if needed (though in most cases, you would want the editor to do the rewrite to get a feel for themselves for how to do such rewrites). Equally, if a reviewer is being overly sensitive to concerns (again, especially with subjective ones such as close paraphrasing), that can be a valid outcome to a discussion as well. It should be an open, frank discussion, with everyone learning from it, and improving their writing skills and reviewing skills.

Such discussions also need to reach closure as well, with parts of the article rewritten (if needed) and the reviewer stating explicitly whether their original concerns have been met. This may need a period of close engagement with the article and other editors, but that is what reviewers may need to do if that is what is needed. No-one should review something if they are not prepared to engage to that extent (or at least they should point people to where they can get further help). Drive-by nominations are not helpful, but neither is drive-by reviewing.

The outcome should ultimately be that the editor of the article about which concerns were raised ends up improving as a writer and the next article they work on benefits from this, and the reviewer gains from getting feedback on their review and has examples of rewriting to point to at their next review. Carcharoth (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hear hear! Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hear hear hear! Related concern -- if a hook/article is rejected with the X tag, the rejecting reviewer should not immediately pull it off T:TDYK. A lot of times people have rescued articles others thought past saving. There should be at least a 24-hour delay between rejection and vanishing, IMO. Sharktopus ^talk 15:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Along those lines, a hook/article rejected by one reviewer usually should not be removed from the page (or "archived", under the new system) by the same reviewer, unless a long time has passed or if the issue is extremely obvious (e.g., the article is clearly not new or expanded or recently moved from userspace). It's usually better to wait and let someone else do it--this gives someone else an opportunity to make sure you made the right judgment, and it looks "fairer" to the nominator. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Prep1

For the Arthur Seymour article, ALT2 was ticked off, but the original hook has been promoted. Given that I have submitted this DYK, I thought I shouldn't meddle with it myself, but will bring it up here. With future noms, I shall strike out those hooks that have been rejected, so that this doesn't happen again. Schwede66 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed to ALT2. Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jacquie de Creed

An article which was pulled from DYK at a late stage due to apparent paraphrasing issues. I intend to revisit the article and tweak it, then wish to resubmit it. I also wish to register my displeasure at the disingenuous way I feel this matter was handled. The editor who pulled the article failed to bring the matter to my attention, which I feel is only a polite and courteous thing to do in such circumstances. Although she subsequently posted a comment to the talk page, I believe protocol dictates that those involved in the issue should be informed. Certainly on previous DYKs where there have been issues, editors have posted to my talk page. Is this no longer the case? Are we now becoming like the corporation which announces redundancies to the media before they inform their employees? If so it's certainly a step in the wrong direction. If that is the direction we're going in, I will be taking this matter higher. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The editor who removed the article did leave a note on the article talk page (although she didn't specifically say she had removed it, she just said there were issues).

As for resubmitting, I think once an article has been on DYK (even for a short time) it's ineligible to reappear. But there may be loopholes for this situation; we'll see what others have to say.

As to "taking this matter higher", I'm not sure what you mean. Are you going to tattle to Jimbo on us? Sorry, but there is no "higher", in that there's no one who can tell DYK they have to repost your article. DYK is a WikiProject and as such it doesn't have to answer to Jimbo or ArbCom or wherever else you are thinking of "taking this"; it's just governed by community consensus, like most projects. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, my issue with taking things higher is not about whether or not it is reposted, I'm just very angry at the lack of consideration that was shown to me. Maybe it was an oversight on her part that she didn't inform me, who knows? I certainly felt quite insulted by it. I made my displeasure known to her and she has lead me to believe I can resubmit the article once the issues are dealt with, and says this has been done before (though gave no examples), so I would like to do that if possible. Had this matter been raised earlier while the article was still up on the talk page,it could have been saved and all this unnecessary bad feeling avoided, but now the time limit has elapsed and I've missed the boat, so to speak. Can you blame me for being annoyed by that, especially after the amount of work I put into the article? As for taking it higher, well Jimbo wasn't my next port of call, but I might have got there in the end. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, Nikkimaria left a note at the article talk page. I don't think she meant to insult you (and I don't think any other editor would feel insulted at this); she probably just assumed you were watching the page.

As for complaining to Jimbo...let me just go out on a limb and tell you right now that Jimbo almost certainly doesn't care about this particular matter and it would be better not to waste his time with it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. Maybe life is too short. I've just had a stressful few days in the real world and so was bound to be tetchy. If I can resubmit it, then great. If not, then life moves on. Not sure whether I'll submit anything else here though (but not because of this incident, but because since the process changed I personally find the whole thing a bit of a head%^&* - the old system was far easier to navigate in my opinion). TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What part of the process do you find difficult? There have been several changes implemented at once, some with prior discussion and some without. If you mean the process of nominating pages (creating a subpage and then adding it here) is difficult, that is the part of the process that I am working on and you can make suggestions to me. If you mean something else, it is probably outside of my control. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

On a separate note: the article never made it to the main page (it was in prep 4 when it was pulled) so it would still be eligible. As far as I can see, the nomination wasn't reinstated on the nominations page though. Yomangani^talk 23:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple quick notes: I did post to article talk, but should have explicitly said that I had removed it from prep. My understanding is that since it was on prep and not on the main page it can be re-added to T:TDYK (as Yomangani mentions); RetroGuy, one example of this is Nels Running, removed from queue under similar circumstances and currently on the noms page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, common practice when pulling a hook from a prep area or queue is to leave a note here (WT:DYK) and if the problem can be fixed, to return the item to T:TDYK. cmadler (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's a note: removed another article for similar concerns. This case is more egregious than the one discussed earlier in this section, so I will not re-add it to T:TDYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Another one. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. If it hasn't already been re-added I'll put it back on TT:DYK and fix the problems that were highlighted to me. Sorry about getting stressed out over this yesterday. It was a very difficult day for me. I had to give away my dog because he was too badly behaved and I couldn't cope with him any more. He's gone to a good home though, but I'm quite sad that I had to make that decision. Then this happened and it was all too much. But I've had a good night's sleep and I'm feeling a bit better now. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been following the concerns raised on these two articles, and I'd like to point to Talk:Patrick Lawlor as an example of how editors can disagree over close paraphrasing concerns. What I think is needed is for those who point out concerns to not only quote from source and article, but to say how they would write things to avoid close paraphrasing. I am about to post there saying that more discussion and suggestions are needed on actual wording for the article, rather than just pointing out similarities and identical wording. Just pointing people to a guideline doesn't really help that much. Carcharoth (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK navbox

I'm trying to brainstorm ways to make the DYK rules look less creepy and scary for newcomers, and particularly to make the 4 basic rules easier to find and understand.

Would it be helpful to edit {{DYKbox}} (the navigation box at the top of this and other DYK pages) such that "Additional rules" renamed to "Supplementary guidelines"? I think newcomers are probably confused at why we have 'rules' and 'additional rules', and "supplementary guidelines" would probably better represent what WP:DYKAR is anyway (it exists mainly as a quick way to answer perennial questions and avoid perennial arguments, but as it says at the top of that page it's not necessary to know all those rules to participate in DYK; they are supplementary to the real rules and many of them are just guidelines that are more flexible than the real rules). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For that matter, perhaps we could also remove the link to WP:DYKSTATS, which is not necessary for the day-to-day running of DYK. The link to WP:RA, labelled as "Archives", is also not particularly useful I think. (That "Archive" is actually just an archive of every update of the main template; archives of the nomination discussions did not exist before the new system was in place, and now they are sarting to be made at Template talk:Did you know/Archive. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I like all those suggestions. Thanks for thinking of these improvements and even more for making so many improvements yourself. Sharktopus ^talk 23:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The review checklist, redux

At #Review checklist templates above I posted a proposal for a new template to handle the reviewing checklist. Discussion there seems to have petered out, but I would still like feedback regarding this, especially since a lot of people are complaining about the way the reviewing checklist is being handled and the whole reason I've taken time to make this is to try and help those people.

In particular, I'm hoping for feedback regarding whether you guys think it's necessary for signatures to appear within the review checklist itself or not (see the discussion near the bottom of that thread, with NuclearWarfare, regarding this issue). Beyond that, the only real issues are minor typographical ones, so once this signature issue is settled we can discuss the possibility of putting some sort of review template into the preloaded nomination template (so it shows up automatically in every nomination). As I have stated elsewhere, I don't want to include any review template in {{NewDYKnom}} until there is community consensus on what it should be. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether signatures are needed

• I think this is important element in the responsibilisation of the review process. Unless it is clear that one reviewer is taking responsibility for the whole review, signatures within each little box should be mandatory. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've left a sample above (#Samples) of how a box without signatures could be used but still be clear about who did what part of each review. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether the checklist should be used in all nominations

I think a review checklist is a good idea for some cases, but for others which can be approved by one person in a few words of prose it's a burden, therefore I vote against an inclusion in every nomination. It's good to have the checklist table and include it if one person can't complete a review or if questions are open. In that case, what do you think of a short signature like in some newspapers - for example I would use "ga" - in the checklist table, and then add one full signature at the bottom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think some people want there to be an explicit checklist used every time (that is to say, some people think there should never be reviews like "Everything looks good ~~~~", but that every item of a checklist should always be checked off, even if it seems obvious).

As for the matter of short signatures, this is not really possible because of technical limitations, which are explained in more detail at User talk:Rjanag#Technical stuff. If people want to have Ys and Ns appear in the template, it's either going to have to be without signatures at all, or through a design such as the one I showed samples of in #Review checklist templates above.

(edit conflict) I am aware that some people want it in every nomination, and some people - including Yngvadottir (s.a.) and me - don't want that, I heard the term bureaucracy. - If everything DOES look fine - this happens! - why make it complicated? It seems a waste of time and clutters the nominations page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This comes from #RfC proposal: a proper reviewing checklist. I know there is controversy over whether these RfCs are valid, but anyway the motivation for including an explicit checklist in every nomination is that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Stating 'I have checked and have not found any copyright violations' has a different value (in terms of commitment to the quality of the process) to 'I think everything is OK'. Perhaps Gerda could give me a concrete example which would highlight her concerns? Furthermore, assuming I have correctly read Gerda's request to be able to not use a standardised template for every (implying some will still use it) what criteria would be used to determine which reviews carried the template and which not? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure where to put a comment so I'll put it here at the bottom. There have been so many RfCs at this page that with the best will in the world, people have stopped commenting, or not been able to find their way through the thicket. The checklist is IMO a net negative. It clutters up the page, it gets in the way of the kind of responsible discussion of the nomination that the "two-way street" section just above references, and as I said above, pages proposed at DYK should adhere to Wikipedia policies anyway; the nominator should have made a good faith effort to see that they do, and the reviewer should, too. Also a checklist tends to imply that all points are on the same level. Not having plagiarism/copyvio, for example, is a major point of policy. Not having glaring syntax errors is a matter of standards—whether the page is ready. Having well written prose is nice, but optional. Three different levels of concern. I like the rows of checkmarks/Xes better because they take up less space, but if a checklist has to appear at all—and I don't think it should, for the above reasons—I think it should be strictly optional. Second best choice: removable by a reviewer who wants to take the responsibility to do a complete review—part of which is being open to people then making comments on the whole or part of the nomination and review. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Seconding Yngvadottier, I'm arriving here late because there are too many RfCs. But this one seems a practical suggestion. The checkboxes in a row are good. Putting things of different values together as if they were of equal importance is hard to avoid. The option for a reviewer to check of "all of the above" in one place seems good also. Sharktopus ^talk 23:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Daily log" setup

In case anyone didn't know, I recently changed the way individual days' worth of nominations are handled on T:TDYK; see #How to archive days? and User talk:Mandarax#New DYK days. Basically, the setup is now more AfD-like; each day is not a subsection of T:TDYK, but is actually its own subpage transcluded on T:TDYK. In other words, each subpage looks like

===Articles created/expanded on August 7===
<!-- After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Template talk:Did you know/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment).
When this section is complete, remove {{Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 August 7}} from the nomination page (Template talk:Did you know). -->
{{Template talk:Did you know/Skin cancer in horses}} 
{{Template talk:Did you know/Thelma Pressman}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Peter (dog)}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Whorlton Castle}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Muslim Mosque, Inc.}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Battle of Pakchon}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Theropod paleopathology}}

(e.g., see Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 August 7). And once all the old nominations are off and everything is in the new system, the whole T:TDYK page will look something like

==Older nominations=
{{Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 September 1}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 September 2}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 September 3}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 September 4}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 September 5}}

== Current nominations ==

{{Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 September 6}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 September 7}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 September 8}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 September 9}}
{{Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 September 10}}

This change makes archiving a bit easier (since, technically, new nominations are posted directly into the archive; the only thing that changes is that later on the "archive" is no longer transcluded on T:TDYK). One possible shortcoming I thought of, though, is that it's no longer easy to monitor when new nominations are posted. The old way, I could just check the history of T:TDYK and see the diff of any nomination recently posted. Now, however, all these diffs are going to be in the subpages for the individual days. (For example, nominations of articles created/expanded today are in Revision history of Template talk:Did you know/Daily log/2011 August 7.)

Is anyone concerned by this? I don't know if it's a big deal or not; I guess mainly the issue is whether the convenience of the newer way of archiving (which really just amounts to one or two fewer button presses, since it removes the need to paste a day's worth of old noms into an archive) outweighs the loss of being able to track newly-posted noms. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is concerned. If there is a problem with it later, people will complain about it then. Could we just have a round of DYK support here for Rjanag to proceed with things he thinks are improving the process, with a plan that others will feel free to notify him/us if a problem is created? And the NOBODY will feel free to flame Rjanag if a problem is created, since obviously he is doing a lot of hard work for free here with the best intentions in the world and NOBODY codes perfection on the first go. Maybe you just include an ongoing single thread on this page "Coders' Corner" for announcements and questions and etc. Sharktopus ^talk 23:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Indonesians (queue 2)

"Being bad luck" and "bringing bad luck" are two separate concepts. According to the article, Prince Diponegoro thought that Chinese Indonesians brought bad luck. Kevin McE (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice is not appearing on newer sections of the suggestions page

The edit notice Template:Editnotices/Page/Template talk:Did you know appeared for a while to people who tried to edit each date-specific section of the suggestions page, but it is not appearing on the more recent pages. (I've only checked August 6, August 7, and August 8.) I think it needs to be there -- otherwise it's too hard for an infrequent contributor to figure out how to create a nomination. I would add it myself, but I don't know how... --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, I'm on it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's going to be a bit harder than I thought; I had to ask something at WP:VP/T#Group edit notices.

I guess this is another unforeseen consequence of #"Daily log" setup. If there's not a way to fix it, it may be best just to go to the old way of logging (having each day on T:TDYK rather than in its own subpage). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This page is now ridiculously long

Didn't old conversations used to get archived? In the interest of using this page for "discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Did you know", it should be used for current discussions of improvements. Sharktopus ^talk 22:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They're archived by a bot after a certain amount of time passes without new comments in a given section. There has been a lot of activity here lately, so all the conversations still left on the page are ones the bot considers "active" (i.e., they've had comments within the past 7 days). The archiving is still happening as usual. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of "current discussions of improvements", I'm still waiting for feedback at #DYK navbox, #"Daily log" setup, #The review checklist, redux, and #Samples. A week ago everyone had so many opinions about so many things; now that some people are trying to actually make some of those things happen, suddenly no one wants anything to do with it anymore... rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Some old specific threads that are resolved can be archived manually - might do that in a moment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I made an attempt at that, but there was so much stuff I ran out of time and patience. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Separating out reform discussions. If you want to finish up what I started there, please feel free. Also, don't forget the list at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#2011 DYK reform proposals above. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Did I review this correctly?

This is my first time reviewing an article with the new set up. Did I review Template talk:Did you know/Charybdis (IRCd) correctly? Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I wouldn't sweat the review setup too much right now, since the precise format of the review setup is under discussion (see e.g. #Review checklist templates). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by your edit summary of shameless advertising? I'm not assuming anything bad at the moment. Joe Chill (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(I just mean trying to get more people to comment on my threads above) rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK in wrong category, 2001 instead of 2011

Earl Best, the Street Doctor, should be in Category:Passed DYK nominations from July 2011, not Category:Passed DYK nominations from July 2001. However, I see I'm not supposed to edit the page. What now? Trilliumz (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I just fixed it. Sorry about that; looks like a typo when it was promoted. These errors should be less likely to happen now, because the template now preloads the date (this was one of the first nominations to be posted under the new system, so many of those kinks weren't worked out yet). rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Queries timely or unnecessary?

I asked a series of questions about the current state of play at DYK in response to a query by Dr. Blofeld at my talk page. I suppose I didn't put them here because I wondered whether they were too wide-ranging, inappropriate, or numerous, to be useful or appropriate at the moment. Do they need to be asked, and should they be pruned or filtered? Tony (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of fixing the link to the questions, as it was pointing to another Talk page. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd put them up here for wider discussion. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Tony (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've spelled out these questions without prejudice so that the community might consider them. I haven't formed clear opinions on some of them, and I haven't formed strong opinions on most. Tony (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a number of these are valid questions that I too have had on my mind, but I haven't raised them yet since I've been waiting for Rjanag to finish his alternative checklist. I'm still not sure what the status of that is ATM.

In relation to the last, however, I'll respond to that now - we don't have the manpower for a directorate such as the one you are suggesting. That's why I suggested an enhanced process for admins loading updates into the queue as an alternative. It's the most we can hope for IMO, but even that has been queried by Yomangani as possibly too demanding. Gatoclass (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've informally asked around about this and it appears that most administrators are too scared or bewildered to touch DYK. I think that putting together an official proposal for a directorate which clearly outlined the responsibilities of administrators moving hooks and gave a shared responsibility amongst them would help solve the manpower issue quite rapidly. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Should there be an expectation that a single person review every aspect of a nom?

And specifically, now that the expectations of DYK have risen—both in explicit scope and intensity—if the QPQ reviewing system is to continue should it be modified to recognise that an entire review to promotion or rejection by a single (QPQ) reviewer is impractical, given the goals of DYK? Is an explicit set of aspects the way to go for QPQ reviewing?

• The problem now is that the checklist is taking DYK reviewing into territory that is not the domain of DYK, and is too burdensome, while there is as yet no assurance that DYK *is* reviewing for things within its remit-- specifically, that the expansion is based on reliable sources. I have yet to understand how reviewers are determining that the expansion criterion is met if they are not checking (minimum at least) reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Sandy. I think we need to take a step back and consider, item by item, exactly what should be included in a DYK review. Personally I favor something like Yomangani's suggestion, but I'm open to discussing it. The proper order to do things is first to figure out what is to be done, and then devise a checklist or automate it. Creating a checklist while there is ongoing disagreement over what is to be checked has just created chaos. cmadler (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Adding my comment in support of Sandy. We especially can't expect new users (and there can be users with under 200 edits who still have more than 5 DYKs) to be able to sufficiently check for the trickier aspects of copyright violations and source reliability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So who is going to do it? There are very few people who want to check for copyvios. If we don't insist on QPQ reviewers doing all aspects, we are going to end up with dozens of hooks that are only partially verified. Additionally, many DYK contributors do have plenty of experience and should know how to check for copyvio like anyone else. Those who don't know can learn, and DYK can help facilitate that. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Who is going to do it? The idea that you *must* insist on QPQ reviewing is wrong on every level, as is the checklist, as you have no assurance any of it is being done *correctly* by unqualified, inexperienced reviewers (but we do know that this template checklist is placing an additional burden on DYK). The solution is what it has always been: reduce the volume at DYK, and allow for experienced editors to review for what matters (copyvio, reliable sources-- crappy prose is not a DYK issue, it can be solved by letting others edit, and it is not a policy violation). There is no rationale for this sense of entitlement, that every new or expanded article *must* be on the mainpage, and it has resulted in DYK being a breeding ground for faulty editing. Find a way to limit nominations, and then qualified reviewers will be able to handle the reviews needed, and give them the attention they deserve. A checklist only means unqualified QPQ reviewers are ticking boxes that they don't understand (and some very esteemed qualified reviewers are doing same as we speak, btw). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, why is it so strange to expect that some people will be interested in reviewing DYKs whilst not being interested in submitting them? I mean, look at Tony for a start. Maybe having clear roles for people means they'll find a niche they're good at and like, rather than thrusting people into a role they're not suited to. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's strange to expect it because it goes against the history of the project. I've been working at DYK longer than most, in all the time I've been here we have rarely had enough reviewers. I can't see that more reviewers are going to magically appear just because we have a snazzy new checklist for them to play with. Gatoclass (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And speaking as someone who has reviewed a lot of DYKs over the years, the snazzy new checklist is likely to deter me from doing reviews -- particularly if the checklist takes as much vertical space on my screen as it does now. I have often done partial reviews of hooks. For example, I might determine that article length is insufficient and leave a quick note to that effect. In another case, I might visit the article, read the sources, add some citations to the article to support uncited content, edit text to eliminate content that is too close to the source, and suggest a couple of "ALT" hooks, but leave the DYK unapproved because a large part of the article doesn't cite any sources and I can't figure out where it's from. A template, particularly the more complex templates discussed here, actually would discourage me from doing those kinds of reviews, partly because they make it so hard to skim the list of nominations and partly because they create the appearance that I "own" the review and need to be on call for the next week to monitor the nomination. --Orlady (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

But there's that problem now, I mean look at the backlog! I don't think we've fixed it by making newbies review articles to a level they can't possibly be expected to achieve. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Gato, you say "It's strange to expect [partial reviewing] because it goes against the history of [DYK]". Well, some things need to adapt to new circumstances, and in terms of QPQ, that history isn't very long, is it? There are compelling reasons that QPQ should be retained as only part of the checklist: (1) induction/training of newish editors; and (2) the advantage of having some of the more straightforward aspects done. So why not require for QPQ:

(a) the top four items in the checklist for the original hook (surely nominators need to have a stab at that; they're hardly burdensome—I'm happy if they can suggest why a hook needs to be updated by an ALT, even if they don't say what the wording of the ALT might be); plus

Article length and article vintage.

That leaves space for specialist reviewers to go through filling the gaps. Tony (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm having no problem doing the full monty, as it were, but then again I've got a lot of reviewing experience. I do like the idea of bifurcating the checklist into essentials and non-essentials.

I'm sort of pleased and surprised to see that Sandy feels we went too far with this, and that we now have some clarification as to what she thinks is really necessary. However, part of the reviewing ambit has always been whether, as a whole, this was something we wanted or didn't want linked from the Main Page (I remember once rejecting an otherwise OK hook from an article on some road in Saskatchewan because it was so poorly formatted and written that I would have been embarrassed for us to have it get even one more click than it would have if it had never been linked from the Main Page). I still think reviewers need to keep that in mind. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Tony: I don't think having straightforward aspects of reviewing (e.g., article length and age) checked by QPQ is a huge benefit. That aspect of reviewing is so quick and easy it was never a major burden on reviewers anyway (in a crunch, I or any experienced reviewer could check 50 or more noms for article length, history, and whether the hook was cited, in just a couple hours). The part of reviewing that takes a longer time is checking for text issues (by which I mean plagiarism/copyvio/close paraphrase) and other potential cleanup issues, as well as sometimes getting into lengthy discussions over the hook. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"I don't think having straightforward aspects of reviewing (e.g., article length and age) checked by QPQ is a huge benefit." That is just about all that QPQ reviewers have ever done. How will you ever know that the other aspects have been checked out unless there's a checklist to expose this with blanks or comments or signatures? This is what the community has demanded: see the RfC. If you want to persist with this "one reviewer owns each review", you can't have QPQ, since it defies a central notion of DYK that every nominator be able to review for all aspects. Tony (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say QPQ reviewers were doing a good job of doing more than that; I just said I don't think QPQ reviewing of that stuff is alleviating a huge burden anyway. I also didn't say there shouldn't be a checklist (I didn't mention the checklist issue at all in my above comment). Also, I don't think anyone here said that "one reviewer owns each review". The question above is should a reviewer be expected to finish a review he starts, not should other reviewers not be allowed to comment on an article someone else has started reviewing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be expected that a single person conduct a full review. For most articles (short articles with a short history) this is not difficult; even checking for plagiarism can usually be done within a few minutes by sampling a few sentences and a few sources (I never check every single sentence, I just either check until I'm confident that the nominator knows how to write without plagiarizing, or I check until I'm not—and then I tell them they need to get someone to rewrite it). In the past I have spoken in favor of people being able to do partial reviews on things they are interested/knowledgeable in (similar to at FAC, where some people specialize in image reviews, link reviews, etc.), but have found that in practice that doesn't work well here. Often, once someone reviews one part of an article, other reviewers are afraid to touch it (unless a juicy dispute arises, in which case everyone suddenly wants their hands on it). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Rjanag; yes, it is perfectly possible for a single person to conduct a full review at DYK, which does not have the same remit as FAC, but it is not yet clear that the correct things are being reviewed for here. DYK should be putting articles expanded from reliable sources that correctly represent the sources without plagiarism or copyvio on the mainpage-- anything beyond that is getting into GA or other territory. Prose, for example, is not a DYK issue, although it should be possible to fix glaringly gross typos and grammatical errors on short(er) DYKs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that a single person should always be expected to conduct a full review. Just as no one owns an article, no one owns a review. If I find in my initial review that the article does not meet minimum qualifications for DYK (for example, it's an insufficient expansion), it's not worth my time to see if the hook is adequately supported, etc., etc. If someone later fixes the issues with the article that disqualified it (this often happens), maybe I will stop by and review it again, but any reviewer should be able to pick up where I left off, and there should be no expectation that I will make myself available at instant notice to finish the review. (In particular, I don't want to feel like a DYK review obligates me. In the past, I felt that I could help out by doing some DYK reviews the day before I'm heading off on holiday, as there would be no obligation for me to be available to follow up. Lately, it seems like a DYK review creates a longer-term obligation.)
  From a practical standpoint, some of the DYK submitters (both newbie submitters and some DYK veterans who never previously did reviews) who have done reviews because of QPQ have been lousy reviewers, so it is important for someone else to check their work (or do it over). However, I think that it has been beneficial to have those people doing reviews because it may make them more clueful in the future. --Orlady (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you don't have to finish a review right away, I'm just saying that there's an expectation on QPQ reviewers (or indeed any other) that once you start a review you will finish it. This doesn't mean someone else may not come along in the meantime and finish it for you, but if you start a review you should obviously keep an eye on it to see what responses you get, because it often happens that once you begin, other reviewers will avoid it in the expectation that you have taken charge of it, and it's not fair to nominators to have them waiting an extended period for someone to realize that's not going to happen and finish the review for you. Gatoclass (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the role of the pre-existing system of icons? Should another system be developed?

The question is somewhat premature IMO since we dont have Rjanag's alternative checklist yet. Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the watchlisting system working well?

• Too new to say, since editors are still getting accustomed to it. In principle, it's a good idea, but it's possible that we may need to tweak the implementation. cmadler (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• I don't really know what this question means. Just like any other page in the encyclopedia, people can choose to watchlist nominations or they can choose not to. I don't know what you mean by "is it working"—what's it supposed to be doing? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I like the subpages and watching them for my own noms. I miss seeing the activities on the noms of others unless I make an effort and mark them. Of course I mark the ones I reviewed. But in general, the page is less interesting than before, its history doesn't show areas of interest anymore, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is possible to follow changes on a page that transcludes items by using 'related changes' (should be on your sidebar under the toolbox heading) and selecting a particular Wikipedia namespace. In this case, template talk namespace. This method works at WP:FAC if you click related changes and select "Wikipedia" namespace, and it works here as well. Use this link to follow changes over all the transcluded DYK nomination subpages present on the nomination page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, learning. Thanks also for pointing me here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It does make it easier to check on the status of noms, and communicate with the reviewer when there are issues, when the nom subpage is transcluded onto the talk page. We lose an incidental benefit of making people go over to the main nominations page in that might see something in another hook that needs to be noted while they're looking, but I don't know how much that actually happens/ed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Being able to add a DYK nom to one's watchlist is a big improvement. I now do that with those that I'm interested in and find it to be very helpful. Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Are nominators advised in the instructions to watchlist their nom? Tony (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Do the instructions need to be revised in the light of 1–3?

Assuming that some of the recent proposals are adopted, I think the answer is an obvious yes. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Which instructions? DYK has a lot of instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• DYK has too much instruction creep and too many pages, and as far as I can tell, the point is being lost (expansion or new text based on reliable sources), so that we sometimes see only non-reliably sourced text padded so that the crit. is met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Our existing guidelines could do with some rationalization, so the problem of "instruction creep" is not IMO insurmountable. Gatoclass (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think instruction creep is insurmountable, I just think we need a good amount of ruthless chopping and design prioritisation to fix it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Should a review template be integrated into the nomination template at DYK?

(Section title shortened from "Should the template—or an equivalent template that does justice to the community-endorsed RfC result—be integrated into the automatic nomination template at DYK?")

• I'm not aware that there was a "community-endorsed RFC result"; my memory may be faulty, but it seems to me that the template was put into place only a few days after the launch of the RFC, and based on "voting" not "discussing", which isn't the way RFCs should be run or interpreted. Perhaps someone can verify time from launch of RFC to implementation, and I believe there were less than 40 respondants. I consider the template to be a very big step in the wrong direction, a wrinkle on top of the last step in the wrong direction (QPQ reviewing). I think the template should be scrapped, as it's already giving a false sense of security while creating too much of the wrong kind of work. Reviewers should be checking that expansion is based on reliable sources; checking the boxes without knowledge of RS or COPYVIO isn't helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, DYK rules say the article and hook must be "based on" RS. There is no DYK requirement to eliminate from consideration (as part of expansion) information that WP policy permits as per WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, so long is these aren't the basis of the article or the source for the hook. Sharktopus ^talk 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you're clarifying, since SPS and ABOUTSELF are not unreliable when used correctly. I'm talking about the grossly marginal sources we regularly see at DYK, even in BLPs-- things like blogs, non-medical sources for medical text, tourist webpages, and the like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• As per above, I agree with Sandy on this. The entire RfC process was malformed. First we must reach agreement on what reviewers should be checking, then can we consider any kind of checklist (template or otherwise). cmadler (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• If we are going to have a checklist, it should probably be integrated into the nom template. One possible argument against doing so is if we decided to have a choice of templates as they do at GAN for example. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no basis for this assertion: the community voted overwhelmingly in favour of the explicit checklist in the RfC text. With the sole exception of the last bullet ("Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting"), every single item is in the DYK rules, which leave open no doubt. Sandy, you appear to be coming from the angle that DYK should be terminated—throw the baby out with the bathwater—but the community clearly !voted against this. I say, make DYK live up to its own rules: find a way, even if fewer hooks are exposed on the main page for longer as a result. The community has recognised that the checklist is the only way of ensuring that DYK rules are followed. Tony (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • As both Gatoclass and Sandy have repeatedly pointed out, the RfC was malformed for a variety of reasons. Further, as several editors have repeatedly pointed out, the RfC asked whether reviewers should explicitly confirm that they had checked a list of items. The specific form of the template was not part of the RfC, and we've wasted an absurd amount of time debating this because you refuse to "get the point". cmadler (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
      • What we have now is a checklist template by fiat. Malformed RFCs also got us into the current mess of ArbCom; I must commend editor Mike Christie for making sure that no RFC has ever been launched at FAC without a thorough discussion *before* so that we knew what the RFC was supposed to measure, the wording was clear, and clear outcomes were obtained. We do not have that here: we have a template by coup, that no one has appeared willing to revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A review template should eventually be integrated, but not until there is consensus about which one to use. There are several threads above discussing the checklist issues, and my reading of them is that, while most people agreed in the RfC that a checklist should be used, not everyone agrees on what the format of it should be. The fact that Tony has been adding his checklist to almost every nom in spite of that lack of consensus doesn't mean that it has been adopted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree but I also think it's a good temporary measure to let people know what they should be checking for. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Has the role of the queuing admins changed?

Who should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring policy compliance and quality on main-page hooks? Should this be shared among the admins, the reviewers, and the nominators? Should anyone still be permitted to load noms onto the prep pages?

I think that not only should everyone be allowed to move noms to the prep pages but that everyone should be encouraged to do so. It spreads responsibility which can only be a good step towards ensuring that more mistakes are caught (even questions of taste and grammar can be solved quite easily). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality control must be shared between reviewers and admins - admins certainly can't be expected to be responsible for every aspect of every DYK, there aren't nearly enough of them active on this project. Gatoclass (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• The role of the queuing admins has always been a janitorial one, not a filtering one. They happen to be able to edit the queue whereas other editors can't. The point of reviewing, and the prep areas (where usually an article is passed to the prep area by someone different than the reviewer) is to be the filter. Queuing admins never were expected to be fully responsible for what articles go to the main page; that responsibility belongs to every editor who participated in the process (writing, nomination, review, promoting). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• We may have a difference of opinion here. I think the queuing admin has some responsibility for quality control, although they can't be expected to check for everything. This may be due to the fact that when I started at DYK, the queuing admins often moved hooks to the main page within minutes after assembling the set, so there was more of a sense of responsibility in that role. I have always thought that the queuing admin was responsible for at least a superficial review of the hooks -- looking at each linked article for obvious issues, checking the eligibility of the image and making sure it will be protected when it goes to the main page, checking the hook wording for clarity and potential controversy, reviewing the hooks for balance within the hook set, checking the main page appearance, etc. I generally think it unnecessary to look at the review history for the hooks, but I have done that on occasion when I had concerns about a hook. Once I found that a hook in the prep area was basically an advertisement that had been reviewed and moved to the prep area by newbie users who probably were in cahoots with the article creator; IMO queuing admins need to watch for things like that. --Orlady (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blatant advertising yes; but there have been some things in the prep areas with regards to controversial topics like fringe psychology which anyone not familiar with the field wouldn't be able to pick up on. That's an issue. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

They need to take on more reponsibility. Tony (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How exactly? Their names are already plastered all over everything. I really don't understand. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a normal limit on the number of DYKs in a single hook?

(Original title was "Should there be a normal limit on the number of DYKs in a single hook? It seems that each DYK article in these noms needs to be examined separately."

• Not only should there not be a limit on the number of qualifying articles in a single hook, but where practical, we should encourage nominators to combine related articles into a single hook, since this reduces complaints about having too many related articles on the Main Page within a limited time. Yes, each qualifying article needs to be examined. cmadler (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Per cmadler, I would add however that while every article in a multi should be checked, I think only one should be checked for copyvio, and if checklist templates are used, one reviewer should be able to use one template for multiple articles, although more than one reviewer may help check the articles, ie one template per reviewer rather than one template per article. Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand Cmadler's point "since this reduces complaints about having too many related articles on the Main Page within a limited time". There are three strong reasons to resist multi-hooks, especially those with eight (or 11, perish the thought):

    (1) it adds significantly to the burden of reviewing, which people are already complaining about (especially Sandy); (2) it dilutes the likelihood that any one DYK article, prepared and reviewed with considerable effort, will be visited; (3) a huge tranche of bolded, linked text looks visually awful and overbalances the neighbouring DYK hooks. I'd hate to have my DYK article hooked in a set that includes an exploding supernova. Tony (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

    • For discussions on the most recent occurance of this sort of complaint, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 66#Dan_Savage, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 67#Removed some of my self noms, and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 67#DYK with hypothetical COI, the latter of which you (Tony) participated in. This was less than two months ago, speaking of lack of institutional memory! cmadler (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
      • @Tony: Like Cbl62 says below, what "reduces complaints about having too many related articles on the MP within a limited time" means this: suppose I just wrote 30 boring cookie-cutter articles about roads. At 6 updates per day, I could have at least one road article on the MP for five days nonstop (and soon people would come a-running saying, "Why does DYK have such a thing for boring road articles?"). Or I could make, say, 2 hooks with 15 articles apiece, or 3 hooks with 10 apiece, and get them out of the way much more quickly, without giving the idea that DYK has a "thing" for road articles. (Or, if the articles are terribly boring I could just not submit them, but a lot of people seem to feel this is not an option—I think some people think any article that meets the objective criteria is "entitled" to a DYK. At the moment I have no comment on that issue, it has been discussed elsewhere.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
        • "if the articles are terribly boring I could just not submit them, but a lot of people seem to feel this is not an option—I think some people think any article that meets the objective criteria is "entitled" to a DYK." This is at the root of the malaise in the DYK culture. People need to stop thinking of their main-page serotonin surge as a right. Tony (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
          • If there is one complaint I do have with DYK since I backed off active reviewing, it's that we have way too many dull hooks. I like to find something interesting or unusual that can be reliably sourced in every new article I create or expand, but that's not a given. For example, I couldn't find anything in W.E.B. Du Bois Boyhood Homesite that would have been interesting enough, so I just did the minimal expansion I could. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The issue of limiting multi-article hooks has been proposed elsewhere.[2][3] The consensus has repeatedly been that they should be allowed. On the other hand, practically speaking, reviewers are probably more reluctant to review a multi-article hook, so nominating one almost guarantees your "new content" will have to wait in line longer to get reviewed. Sharktopus ^talk 16:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• As cmadler mentioned, multis serve a useful purpose in minimizing overload on a particular topic. I recall one where there was an outcry about 15 or 20 cookie-cutter articles being submitted on a closely related topic. The issue was resolved by combining into 2-3 multis. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• It's often not much more effort to review multi-hooks as they tend to use the same sources and duplicate text. I don't believe there should be a limit. That said, I also think nominators should ask themselves why they are putting forward huge multi-hooks. Most of the time I think it is for the benefit of something other than the encyclopedia, the readers, or the articles themselves.Yomangani^talk 22:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A great many of my submissions have been multis and the reason is twofold; firstly, that in researching one topic I often find a bunch of related topics to write about, and secondly, putting them in a multi saves space. I'm quite sure that many of my submissions would get a lot more hits if I submitted them on an individual basis, if only because I could usually come up with better hooks for individual articles, but I submit multis as a space-saving measure. Gatoclass (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a space-saving measure if you think it necessary to submit every article to DYK. I don't blaming you for doing that - it's in the tradition of DYK - but when articles are closely associated and interlinked I don't really see it serving any purpose to put more than two or three up. Anyway, that's a minority view, it's never going to be a rule, and it wouldn't be enforceable if it was, so I'll shut up. Yomangani^talk 01:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Should DYK encourage more work on articles, after main-page exposure?

(Original section title: "Does DYK have a role to play in encouraging further work on articles, after main-page exposure? Should there be more official support for a trajectory from DYK to GA to FA/FL?"

• Not directly. To the extent that suggestions are made during the DYK review, that may form the basis for next steps. But once an article passes through DYK, we are generally done with it. I'm not aware of GA having a post-review role with articles either (beyond periodic GA review) to push them toward FA. I can see a potential value to some sort of organized article trajectory project to help editors with WP:Article development, and DYK would have a role in that, just as GA and FA would, but that goes beyond DYK itself and should be organized separately. cmadler (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Can't see any point to this. If someone is not working to improve one article, he's working to improve another, there is nothing special about DYK articles that they should get priority. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• The role is to expose the article to wider views, and get it on some watchlists. That's it. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Plus, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, some things can't get to GA or FA. That's ok! They can be good DYKs instead. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• A fine idea for somebody's separate project, as cmadler says. There is a contradiction between claims that DYK is not doing enough to watch out for xxx and claims that DYK should be expanding to promote yyy. Sharktopus ^talk 15:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• No, this is not the purpose of DYK. Do ITN, OTD, or TFA do this? They don't. Continuing work on articles is nice, but DYK's job is not to do every single nice thing that is possible in the entire project. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Rjanag. Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's not the purpose of DYK but it's a cool idea. Maybe not getting it to GA standard but maybe informing the relevant project that it's gone on the front page? Or is that too complex? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not all articles have a relevant project. For something like tracking articles for a given project that have been on DYK, the best way to do this would be to add something to the WikiProject banners that go on talk pages (I assume there's a "meta" template for those; someone would have to first edit that to add some sort of |dyk= parameter, and then we would have to edit our bot to fill that in when giving credits). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a directorate?

What would be the disadvantages and advantages of having one? If the community decided the latter outweigh the former, presumably it should be elected; how big? What roles? For example, should the directors number four (my guess) and be admins (almost certainly). Should their role be:

(a) to keep all aspects of DYK running well, including nominations, reviewing, archiving, promotion/rejection, transfer to prep rooms, queuing, exposure, and archiving?

(b) to liaise as necessary with other editors who run the main page and its forums to ensure that the needs of the main page remain the primary driving force?

(c) to encourage article improvement after DYK main-page exposure?

(d) to advise if ever necessary on programs in which DYK might participate that benefit the project, whether prompted by WP editors, the WMF, or Foundation chapters?

[I relocated this point from above so I can respond to it. Hope you don't mind. Tony (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)] In relation to the last, however, I'll respond to that now - we don't have the manpower for a directorate such as the one you are suggesting. That's why I suggested an enhanced process for admins loading updates into the queue as an alternative. It's the most we can hope for IMO, but even that has been queried by Yomangani as possibly too demanding. Gatoclass (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Gato, I had in mind status and responsibility more than a significantly increased workload for directors. A directorate might bring the potential of DYK together into a cohesive whole more easily. Tony (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've informally asked around about this and it appears that most administrators are too scared or bewildered to touch DYK. I think that putting together an official proposal for a directorate which clearly outlined the responsibilities of administrators moving hooks and gave a shared responsibility amongst them would help solve the manpower issue quite rapidly. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm wary of the "directorate" idea, though frankly I don't think it's sufficiently defined to form a solid view. Tony posits that the role should be one of "status and responsibility more than a significantly increased workload." What does that mean? The (b)-(d) points above don't seem particularly compelling. Point (a) goes to the core of what DYK admins do, and I'm not sure what the role of a proposed directorate would be in performing/supervising those tasks. Over the past three years, many admins have been heavily involved in DYK at various times. The ones who have remained consistently active in doing the point (a) tasks over the long haul have been Gato, MatSci, and Rjanag. More recently, others like cmadler (if not an admin, should be) have been more active. People come and go as their time and interest levels permit. I do believe there is a leadership role that can be played, and is played, by the long-established DYK admins. For this reason, folks tend to give greater weight to the views expressed by Gato, MatSci and Rjanag -- which I find appropriate. But in the end, decisions are made by consensus with all voices being heard and counted -- which I also find appropriate. My skepticism about a "directorate" is that it seems to run counter to the democratic/consenus orientation of Wikipedia. If a "directorate" were to be proposed, there are many details that would need to be fleshed out before it could be considered. Are there other examples of "directorates" within Wikipedia? If so, can someone provide a link to the by-laws (or whatever they may be called) governing those directorates? What powers and responsibilities would a directorate have? Would they have the power to change DYK policies? Would they act only as a group and by consensus of the group (as in the case of a corporate board of directors) or would directors have power to act individually? How would they be chosen? How could they be removed? For how long would they serve? The latter points may be best addressed further down the road, but there needs to be a clearer picture of the core purpose/powers/responsibilities of the proposed directorate. Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I just don't see how a directorate would work at DYK. Directorates work fine where there is unlimited time to ponder and work to improve articles, as with FAC and GAN, but for a process where you are fielding dozens of articles a day, there simply isn't time for prolonged discussions. I think at best we can do what I proposed earlier, which is to have, in effect, a more detailed checklist for individual admins to sign off on as the hook goes to the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree with that. I'm just not sure how else to solve the problem of fear, and I think it is a very real problem. We need more manpower! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Problems with a directorate idea -- DYK covers a lot more articles and goes faster than GA. Isn't that too much of a workload for four volunteers? Who would be willing to do it, if the main role of a director is to take blame for failures? If Panyd, Gatoclass, cmadler, Rjanag, MaterialScientist, Khazar, etc. wanted to put on a hat that said "director", I would be fine with that. If we get people with plans to remake DYK "running" for election, with their friends popping by to vote for them, I would not be fine with something like that. Sharktopus ^talk 15:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would support some of the admins above putting on the director hat. I was more thinking that we outlined a specification and people could then register interest for a trial period; maybe with 4-5 administrators sharing the role of 'director'. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the current crop of admins who are doing the job. I just think the system is multilayered if it's going to work responsibly and be accountable (e.g., proper archiving, please), and the process needs to solidify around a directorate that will gain respect in WP. FAC and FLC have solid, very successful directorates: they've kept complex mechanisms running properly, they make their systems accountable, they respond to queries where they haven't been solved otherwise, and they represent the process in the project at large. Don't forget that these processes resemble DYK in many ways, including main-page exposure, adherence to rules, nominators/reviewers, promotions/rejections. Tony (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at Tony's list above a, b, c, and d. Item a is about directors who use the mop, as admins do. That would be great. Item b is about directors who liaise with others about Main Page issues. People claiming to speak for the needs of the Main Page speak with many voices. We just went through months of complaint that DYK hooks were too boring for the Main Page, but we also get complaints that DYK hooks are too sensational. We got yelled at yesterday for a hook that did not include a metric conversion and we got yelled at today for a hook that did include a metric conversion. Let the instructions say our directors listen and respond, but not that our directors promise to please every spokesperson talking about the Main Page –that's undoable.
• Items c and d are proposals wrt starting new programs at DYK. Item c demands that directors plot a trajectory for post-DYK articles. Item d asks that directors advise on unspecified new programs that might be suggested for DYK. These seem unnecessary demands to put on directors. If new programs are suggested, including the recent one about post-DYK articles, directors will or won't express an opinion like anybody else. Would we fire a director who was doing a great job with the mop because xe didn't advise yes or no one every single DYK-modification somebody dropped by this talk page to propose? Let's keep it simple. Sharktopus ^talk 18:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just seeing as people appear to be going here anyway, I wrote a draft of the directorate proposal here, based on Tony's suggestions. If people could please edit it with their thoughts that would be awesome. Deleting things is fine, as is adding them. Getting something built by consensus would be brilliant. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Strikes me as premature. Cbl62 (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely for a) (there was already an informal directorate for this anyway) and maybe b), although as I've been arguing the time has come, the walrus said, to have some sort of overall Main Page directorate or, if you will, czar, and that would work only in that context. c) and d), as noted, are separate projects. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Could someone link to whatever rules, mission statement, guidelines, by-laws (whatever terminology is used) for the other "directorates" that have been referenced above at GA and FA? It would be helpful to see what has been done elsewhere to see what might or might not be appropriate in the DYK context. Cbl62 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• I see no merit in this suggestion. The only purpose it would serve would be to add a layer of bureaucracy and perhaps make 4 (or another equally random number) admins feel like they had a higher status. a) and b) are done already - successfully or unsuccessfully, there is no reason to believe the competency standards would change as a result of having DYK overlords - and c) and d) recast the role of DYK. Let's be careful this discussion doesn't go the way of the checklist RFC. Yomangani^talk 22:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Again I go back to my fear and bewilderment point. I mean, how many new admins have you seen here? Or casual administrators for the matter? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• But how does a directorate help with that problem? Cbl62 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• I don't understand why you think appointing a Directorate would solve that problem. Responsibility for running DYK would inevitably coalesce around the Directorate. Yomangani^talk 23:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think clearly laying out the responsibilities involved for potential adminsitrators would help. I could be wrong but I honestly believe that. Does anyone have other ideas? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• That sounds like an excellent idea. The question posed here is very different. Yomangani^talk 23:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we twist it into being that? That was sort of my aim. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes (I'm sure there is probably a dingbat for an arrow pointing down, but just imagine it)Yomangani^talk 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To the first question (late into this, again): I think if as many people as possible would carry out the four functions described, DYK would be better off than with a few selected ones with a title. This includes the ones aspiring to the title, smile, just do it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I originally pushed the idea of a directorate, or panel of capable and experienced admins, there is no evidence that such a panel exists among the regulars at DYK, so I no longer think my idea workable. An acountable panel would have to, at minimum, understand sourcing and the gravity of copyvio and sourcing breaches here, and I don't think we currently have membership to make up such a panel and assure mainpage integrity of DYK articles. I don't know what the solution is, but since DYK doesn't seem able to get its house in order, the prognosis seems dim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's much easier to find Wikipedians who pretend to be copyright lawyers, than Wikipedians who really are. Art LaPella (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Being informed that all of us are unworthy is such an effective motivator! --Orlady (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't like the idea of a directorate, largely because the need for administrator attention at DYK is so frequent. It's impractical to expect any small group of administrators to commit to the necessary level of activity. The informal arrangements of the past, wherein a large number of administrators each "work" various aspects of DYK regularly but on an intermittent basis, have generally functioned well and do not need to be replaced with a formal arrangement. --Orlady (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a statement of the responsibilities of the DYK admins?

Panyd thinks some statement of what is expected of the admins working here would help with recruitment. I tend to agree with her. Anybody else? Yomangani^talk 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandy was just complaining of instruction creep so that's a consideration. But it wouldn't hurt to give it a try I suppose. First of all though, we'd have to work out exactly what the admins' duties are, as that is a topic currently up for discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• It would be easy enough to add a subsection to WP:DYK rules#The DYK process describing the various duties done by various sorts of editors here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Temple Owls (Queue 3)

Mr Killings has a forename, Dwayne. We do not refer to people simply by a surname on first mention. The suggestion that he "directed" the team is also contestable: he is listed as one of three assistants to the coach, Fran Dunphy. Anyone would think that rules of presentation and statements of fact are being stretched to make a cheap pun based on potential misinterpretation of a name. Still, nothing funnier than death, is there. Kevin McE (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Followup at main page errors; why isn't there a template to notify article talk, since this happens so often and the errors are left standing at the DYK template on article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that DYK is halfway there on accountability (a record is kept of noms), has anyone notified all of the participants in this mainpage mess? QPQ reviewing doesn't work, but editors and reviewers are more likely to become better writers and reviewers if they are notified of their misses. Since they are such a frequent issue at DYK, there should be a followup template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Speratus

The double nom for Paul Speratus and Es ist das Heil uns kommen her was not even approved a while ago and is now in queue 6. Please add the title of the hymn as he wrote it, linked and highlighted, and leave the English as a translation (which it isn't, saying "all" unstead of "us") or rather a common version. I explained here but things moved too fast. ALT4: ... that Paul Speratus was in prison, sentenced to death by fire, when he wrote the hymn Es ist das Heil uns kommen her (Salvation now has come for all)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Trying harder: what's now in the queue is not true and (perhaps worse in WP, smile) not supported by the sources. Paul Speratus wrote Es ist das Heil uns kommen her, Catherine Winkworth wrote Salvation hath come down to us, an unknown poet wrote Salvation now has come for all. Please, admin, change! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pinged an admin. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please confirm that the hymn name is in italics. Usually, song titles are not italicized, but are placed between quotation marks, like in the current version. Materialscientist (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On First Lutheran hymnal, now on the Main page, the eights songs are italic, this is one of them. A 1524 influential hymn is not exactly what is called a song today. I think it works both ways but should be consistent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed. I also couldn't find the guidelines for the hymn title and leave this to others :). Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Another question has arose

I nominated an article that I started for DYK Ants of Kansas. I was told by someone who is experienced in species articles that it still counts as a list. If it still counts as a list, but has enough content for DYK, is it allowed? Joe Chill (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevant rule is Length: lists are allowed as long as they have 1500 characters of prose.

Yours looks like it does, although some people might think the Ants of Kansas#Kansas ants section looks like a list in prose format. Personally I think it's ok. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I use the handy dandy page size tool - 1,533 characters. If someone says that the Kansas ants section is a list in prose, I will try to ease their concern. Joe Chill (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

imported and translated - bottom line

OK, I read the discussion above, I want to cut to the chase here. If I import and translate (probably machine assisted) an article from another subdomain wikipedia, the article is eligible of DYK as a new article, right? Questions of sourcing and copyvio are no dfferent than for an English work, although they might be harder to identify; but the bottom line is a translation is fine. I intend to import some articles so there will be no attribution issue at all - the entire non-English edit history will be present as well as the import log entry.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct. cmadler (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Eligible for DYK is a low bar to set for your editing; the bigger concerns are 1) are you importing plagiarism or copyvio because you didn't check the sources, 2) are sources accurately represented, 3) are you concerned about importing text from a non-reliable source (that anyone can edit), 4) do you know if you're importing POV, 5) are you fluent in the language you're importing from, 6) if you're not, how do you know if the sources used in the other Wiki are reliable, and 7) are you concerned about all of the potential WP:V (policy) violations of writing articles when you haven't read the sources? That DYK may allow this shouldn't really be an experienced editor's question; is it in line with our core pillar of WP:V, not to mention COPYVIO, is more relevant. Anyone reviewing a DYK hook or article from a foreign language can ask for a translation of the original source per WP:NONENG, and they well should, to check for copyvio and correct representation of sources. By the way, I speak fluent Spanish and I have *never* even encountered a machine translation of anything that was even remotely accurate, so even if there is no other WP:V or COPYVIO breach, how do you know the translation is good? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

PS, I've just discovered the "index" function on the talk page archives here (hurray !!!!). Do an index search on "translat" and you may agree with me that the lax attitude displayed on the current talk page here has not always been the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding machine assisted, I have often found that Google will render German or French in an intelligible manner that can be used as a base point. I would never go the other way as I would be sure to create unintelligible output; but I am knowledgeable enough in German and French grammar to be able to untwist what the machine spits out and get the same meaning in English. Obviously, the result needs complete rewriting; but it's often a lot quicker than translating direct from the source without a guide would be. For example (though irrelevant to DYK), I imported a portion of Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany and all of United Grand Lodges of Germany from de.wp and used Google to assist me in my translation. I wouldn't try the same with es.wp as I don't know more than two dozen words of Spanish and don't know enough about the grammar to be able to untangle what I get. The sources there are poor to start with. Checking for copyvios is relatively easy, since the German text that was translated is in the en.wp edit history as I imported the whole history. I find the machine translation is a guide in the same way that an alternative translation can be; but I would always check back against the source.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandy is correct. Past discussions have raised issues with blindly using machine translations of articles from foreign wikis. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 37#Translations as "new" content from 2008 and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 16#Translations from 2007. Cbl62 (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(Just in case you wish to know my experience :). Google translations always require copyediting, but save time. Language is easy to fix, most problems came from errors in facts and references. I have regularly had those problems with FAs/GAs from German and Russian wikis, which are among the strongest for factual/referencing standards. Other wikis often don't even source the texts, even at FA level. German wiki is often Ok, but their prose standards are somewhat different from en.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Review checklist templates

Much of the discussion above is about how most of us agreed an explicit review checklist should be used but we don't all agree on what its format should be. Right now most noms have Tony1's template, {{DYKrev}}, shown below:

Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

• Length, format, content rules –
• Source –
• Interest –
• Image suitability, if applicable –
• ALT hooks, if proposed –

Article

• Length –
• Vintage –
• Sourcing (V, RS, BLP) –
• Neutrality –
• Plagiarism/close paraphrasing –
• copyvio (files) –
• Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting –

Comments/discussion:

After some discussion (mostly with Gatoclass—see #Another template and User talk:Rjanag#Review template—although I've had input from a few others as well) I've made {{DYK hook checklist}} and {{DYK article checklist}}. (The rationale for breaking it into two checklists was to allow for separate reviews of individual hooks--in the case of many ALT hooks-- and/or separate reviews of individual articles--in the case of multi-noms).

As I have said many times before, the exact list of checks in this template is not set in stone, and I'm open to suggestions about checks that should be added, checks that should be removed, or checks that should be merged. Likewise, whether or not to link the various checks to corresponding rules/guidelines is also open to discussion; right now, the documentation pages for {{DYK hook checklist}} and {{DYK article checklist}} include explanations of what each field refers to, if any are unclear. The reason I'm posting this now is mainly for discussion about whether the format of this is desirable. Feel free to play with it in your sandboxes; below is an example of what it would look like (with a fake nomination; this nomination is fake and this review is fake, so please don't get worked up over the content of it).

*... that '''[[ice]]''' is made of '''[[water]]'''?
created by some user
<!--
credits
-->

{{DYK hook checklist
|format={{subst:DYKY}}
|citation={{subst:DYKY}}
|neutrality={{subst:DYKX}}
|interest={{subst:DYKY}}
}}
:*Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. ~~~~

{{DYK article checklist
|length={{subst:DYKY}}
|newness={{subst:DYKY}}
|adequatecitations={{subst:DYKY}}
|formattedcitations={{subst:DYKY}}
|reliablesources={{subst:DYKY}}
|neutrality={{subst:DYKY}}
|plagiarism={{subst:DYKY}}
|article=Water
}}
{{DYK article checklist
|length={{subst:DYKX}}
|newness={{subst:DYKY}}
|adequatecitations=
|formattedcitations=
|reliablesources=
|neutrality={{subst:DYKY}}
|plagiarism={{subst:DYKY}}
|article=Ice
}}
:*The article [[Ice]] is still a stub. ~~~~

• ... that ice is made of water?

created by some user

Hook review

Format	Citation	Neutrality	Interest
✔ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag	✘ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag

• Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Article review for Water

Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
✔ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag

Article review for Ice

Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
✘ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag				✔ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag

• The article Ice is still a stub. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason I used {{subst:DYKY}} and {{subst:DYKX}} rather than just signatures is that it allows us to differentiate between things that have been checked and marked ok, things that have been checked and marked bad, and things that have not been checked at all (just using signatures alone doesn't provide any easy way to tell the difference between bad things and unchecked things, although people should be able to tell by looking at comments below the table). If people don't like this setup, it's possible to go back to using just signatures (an earlier version of this template, visible at User:Rjanag#Samples, did just that). If people don't like the titles of those little DYKY and DYKX templates, that is also very easy to change, so please don't get hung up on those minor details.

The major difference between this setup and Tony's is that these templates do not encourage lengthy comments within the checklist itself (the idea is that the checklist is a quick visual aid to see the status of the hook, and things that warranted an ✘ have it explained in the discussion below the template); I've found that Tony's template is somewhat confusing in that, say, I leave a comment about a problem in one line, sometimes people respond to me directly beneath that (making the review checklist get stretched longer and longer) and sometimes people respond below the entire template. The other main difference is that I tried to compact the checklist and make it take up less space. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Template discussion

I think I'm seeing mojibake boxes instead of whatever character is supposed to be displayed. As a result, the only difference between the DYKY and DYKN is color, specifically red/green, which is the most common form of color-blindness. I suggest that either images should be used to ensure proper display regardless of what character sets editors have loaded, or more common characters (perhaps as simple as "Y" and "N") should be used. Other than that, I like the concept. cmadler (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I was worried about that; right now it's using the first character in Tick (check mark) and the second-to-last character in X mark; perhaps browser support for these is not as widespread as I thought. Do any of the alternative characters in those pages show up for you?

If those don't work, bold Y and N would also work. I think that would be better than images, which might increase page load time for T:TDYK (although that has been discussed many times and I don't think we ever narrowed down exactly what things had a big effect and what things didn't). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So in sum, I think the options are:

• Some other tick and X characters that show up for everyone (do ✓ and ✗ show up for you?);
• Y and N;
• Y and N

rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the Y and N. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, more templates (in the form of {{subst:DYKX}} and {{subst:DYKY}})? Does anyone else feel a bit overloaded with all the code? Why wouldn't it be possible to just write |length={no, x, n, yes, y, etc.} so that they will generate what is necessary. It's not really necessary to know who exactly reviewed each point if everyone is signing their name at the end anyway, right? I can hardly keep up with all the curly brackets, and I registered my account four years ago. Do you really think that editors new to DYK are going to stick around and try to learn it? Or is it more likely that they will take one look at it and run screaming? NW (Talk) 22:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to design a version that just took |length={no, x, n, yes, y, etc.} and added both the check/X mark and the signature based on that. Unfortunately it wasn't possible (see User talk:Rjanag#Technical stuff). If people want both checks/Xs and signatures, this is pretty much the simplest ways to do it in this sort of table format. The other options are to just have signatures without checks and Xs (in which case people could just use tildes rather than {{subst:DYKX}} and stuff like that), or to have just checks and Xs without signatures (I agree with you 100% that signatures shouldn't be necessary, but I don't know if everyone else feels the same way). Both of those are also options I have tried (again, see User talk:Rjanag#Technical stuff) but until I know what people really want out of this checklist, and how they expect it to be used, I won't know what is the best design for it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the mojibake, I edit primarily on two different computers. All the characters display fine using this one; I'll check on the other (where I initially saw mojibake) tomorrow morning and let you know what I see. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Back on computer #1, and of the three pairs in Rjanag's comment at 20:01, 5 August 2011, the first pair show as mojibake, but the second and third are fine. cmadler (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I like it because I think it's less confusing when scrolling down the page. The current adopted system of underlined shoulder headings looks too similar to the main headings to me and I find it a right pain in the proverbial when I'm looking for the right place to click 'edit'. This one at least differentiates. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Logic: I still think if I say Y (or whatever) to Plagiarism, there IS plagiarism. Or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss these issues (e.g., what the names of the various criteria should be) after the more basic issues are settled. To be frank, this issue is trivial and easily solvable, and right now what I am looking for is input about the format of the template (particularly the issue NuclearWarfare mentioned above about signatures). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The concept is good, and obviously I have given my opinion about signatures (include a separate box for reviewer(s) maybe?). "Adequate citations" and "reliable sources" should probably be merged in the interests of space, and perhaps even "Formatted citations" too. NW (Talk) 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of the {{subst:DYKX}} and {{subst:DYKY}} templates being too much... for what it's worth, the documentation samples (at {{DYK article checklist}} and {{DYK hook checklist}}) include <!-- {{subst:DYKY}} or {{subst:DYKX}} -->, so users wouldn't have to remember all that--they can just paste in the sample and use the text that's already there. Likewise, if there is consensus to use this template, it can be preloaded in the page so it's automatically there and users don't have to personally type in {{subst:DYKX}}. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the boxes and the coloured ticks and crosses. I really don't like the unintuitive and hard-to-remember 14-character syntax, which is just as hard as those for the old system of coloured icons. If you have to scroll up and copy a syntax from above the edit-box, it's a hassle. Can't the template provide all but the final letter (y, n) for reviewers to type in, so that a box remains blank without a final letter, or produces the tick or cross with a y or n added, plus the signature via four tildes? And if it's not possible to reverse a previous reviewer's tick or cross, it should be an accepted part of the use of this template that this can be done via written-out objections below. DYK reviewing should be as easy as possible. The signature really must be there or we're back to the old "review all or none of the nom" that has been the recipe for poor reviewing practices (namely, the "good to go", when we know very well the basic policies and DYK rules haven't been checked out—better to admit that partial reviews are appropriate for QPQ and other reviewers). Tony (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"DYK reviewing should be as easy as possible." Support! "The signature really must be there." Oppose. If someone wants to do a fast approval, the kind you despise, that one will do 9 or so signatures (almost as) fast and brainless as so far. I doubt that a mandatory template will prevent that. For those who do a review with brain the template is not needed. It is a good tool (!) if a reviewer does only a partial review, to show the next one what was checked and what not. (I said all this before.) I am not shy to go into lengthy discussions for a review, for example I defended Mykola Leontovych which is now a GA. I was asked (below) to give examples: one I passed: Template talk:Did you know/Highland Cottage, one I received: Talk:Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir#Decent review framed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

An example of both review ways in parallel: Template talk:Did you know/Es ist das Heil uns kommen her, BWV 9. You can see where I prefer the free style: It's coming as a dialogue, whereas the template has a "teacher/student", "pass/fail" attitude which I want to apply only if necessary, rarely that is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC) It wasn't nec here but I did it table style anyway: Template talk:Did you know/Julia Voss --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to want to revert to all of the worst things about DYK non-reviewing, which brought the forum close to being dismantled by the community. Tony (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But remember how close we are to being dismantled anyway: I count 27 approvals left on the nominations page, 17 of which are done your way. Art LaPella (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Tony on this one - it's useful to see who has checked what via the sigs. I also agree with Tony about the syntax - I've suggested an alternative on Rjanag's talk page which would just involve adding a "y" or "n" to a field to pass or fail it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the preloaded template can include, e.g., <!-- {{subst:DYKyes}} or {{subst:DYKno}} --> in every field, so there wouldn't be a need to cut-and-paste. As for the issue of just adding a y or n and getting the template to produce both the doodad and the sig, I already explained a couple times (in a couple places) that it does not seem to be possible; I spent hours trying it and asked several people, with no luck. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not just the double curly brackets enclosing just subst:DYK? Then you add "y" or "n"? Tony (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A variation of this was already suggested at User talk:Rjanag#Review template (2). It's just as complicated (if not more) as what I already have in place, and has other shortcomings as well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tony1's template has been making me crazy (if for no other reason than that all those bold headings make it very hard to scan the suggestions page), so almost any of these versions would be an improvement.
  Like Gerda Arendt, I would like to be able to sign off some reviews without separately filling each cell in a template. For example, if an article is completely based on offline foreign-language sources, I likely will search for online validation during my review, but I will "AGF" most aspects of the review. In those cases, I fully expect to leave most parts of the template blank and sign a blanket approval statement below the template -- and if an obsessively bureaucratic person insists that I'm doing a deficient job of reviewing, I will tempted to make some evil remarks.
  I think that each box that's filled in needs both a signature (to say who made the judgment) and a symbol indicating what judgment the reviewer has made (because there's often more to communicate than just "yes" or "no", and symbols can help with that). Apparently that means Rjanag's version 1. Judgments that I imagine wanting symbols for are "OK" (or "yes", or a checkmark), "no" (or "X"), "AGF", "NA," and "?". --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The template no longer bolds the headings. The community has demanded a checklist, with good reason. Tony (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect, it does still bold the headings; mere minutes after you claimed it didn't, you were going around pasting in more templates with bolded headings. This is just one more instance of your insistence on completely ignoring feedback on this page. This page is full of complaints about the format of the checklist you keep adding and you clearly have no regard for the opinions of anyone at this page, or for the effort I'm making in trying to solicit feedback and actually make a checklist that works the way the DYK community wants it to work. I know you're an editor with some standing around WP, but this behavior of yours is getting very tiring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case, it might be better to just continue using the same icons we have been using, along with regular signatures, and fill out each field with, i.e., |length={{subst:DYKtick}} ~~~; maybe people will find that more familiar than what I showed below.

I don't see a need for an "NA" parameter unless the checklist is expanded to include a lot of unnecessary things. In the versions I sampled below, every parameter is (I think) one that should be reviewed every time (for instance, even if all sources are foreign-language, it's still possible to check whether they seem reliable--are they books, journal articles, news stories, blogs, personal websites?). I intentionally avoided including parameters that wouldn't be needed every time, like image suitability. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of skipping the review checklist for some noms: I'm just going off the results of this RfC in which there appeared to be support for a requirement that people explicitly go through the checklist every time, even in these cases. I'll leave it up to others to argue over whether this RfC is valid and stuff like that; I'm not really interested in that, I'm just trying to take what people claim they wanted and actually make it happen. (I'm not sure how much people actually wanted this and how much people were just pile-on-supporting to get their piece of a nice juicy argument, but that's neither here nor there...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Rjanag. And if the review process involves long syntaxes, I think I'll ignore them. Tony (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Samples

I'll try to make this a bit clearer. Here are what the three options are; I'm also including fake discussions below to try to give a feel for how they would actually be used. (Particularly, you can see that even without signatures it's clear who checked what--not necessarily clear at a quick glance, but clear if you read the discussion.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Version 1: signatures and doodads

*... that '''[[ice]]''' is made of [[water]]?
created by some user
<!--
credits
-->

{{DYK hook checklist
|format={{subst:DYKY}}
|citation={{subst:DYKY}}
|neutrality={{subst:DYKX}}
|interest={{subst:DYKY}}
}}
:*Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. ~~~~

{{DYK article checklist
|length={{subst:DYKN}}
|newness={{subst:DYKY}}
|adequatecitations=<!-- {{subst:DYKY}} or {{subst:DYKN}} -->
|formattedcitations=<!-- {{subst:DYKY}} or {{subst:DYKN}} -->
|reliablesources=<!-- {{subst:DYKY}} or {{subst:DYKN}} -->
|neutrality={{subst:DYKY}}
|plagiarism={{subst:DYKY}}
|article=
}}
:*Article history looks ok and I didn't spot any editorial issues (checked for neutrality and text issues), but as of now the article isn't long enough. ~~~~
::*The nominator has added some text, the article's long enough now, checked it off. Still haven't checked the other stuff. [[User:Some other user|]] ([[User talk:Some other user|talk]]) ~~~~~

• ... that ice is made of water?

created by some user

Hook review

Format	Citation	Neutrality	Interest
✔ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag	✘ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag

• Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Article review

Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
✔ Some other user	✔ Rjanag				✔ Rjanag	✔ Rjanag

• Article history looks ok and I didn't spot any editorial issues (checked for neutrality and text issues), but as of now the article isn't long enough. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• The nominator has added some text, the article's long enough now, checked it off. Still haven't checked the other stuff. Some other user (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Version 2: signatures only

*... that '''[[ice]]''' is made of [[water]]?
created by some user
<!--
credits
-->

{{DYK hook checklist
|format=~~~
|citation=~~~
|neutrality=
|interest=~~~
}}
:*Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. ~~~~

{{DYK article checklist
|length=[[User:Some other user|]]
|newness=~~~
|adequatecitations=
|formattedcitations=
|reliablesources=
|neutrality=~~~
|plagiarism=~~~
|article=
}}
:*Article history looks ok and I didn't spot any editorial issues (checked for neutrality and text issues), but as of now the article isn't long enough. ~~~~
::*The nominator has added some text, the article's long enough now, checked it off. Still haven't checked the other stuff. [[User:Some other user|]] ([[User talk:Some other user|talk]]) ~~~~~

• ... that ice is made of water?

created by some user

Hook review

Format	Citation	Neutrality	Interest
rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)		rʨanaɢ (talk)

• Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Article review

Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
Some other user (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)				rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)

• Article history looks ok and I didn't spot any editorial issues (checked for neutrality and text issues), but as of now the article isn't long enough. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• The nominator has added some text, the article's long enough now, checked it off. Still haven't checked the other stuff. Some other user (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Version 3: doodads only

*... that '''[[ice]]''' is made of [[water]]?
created by some user
<!--
credits
-->

{{DYK hook checklist
|format=y
|citation=y
|neutrality=n
|interest=y
}}
:*Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me, so checking off everything but "neutrality". ~~~~

{{DYK article checklist
|length=y
|newness=y
|adequatecitations=
|formattedcitations=
|reliablesources=
|neutrality=y
|plagiarism=y
|article=
}}
:*Article history looks ok and I didn't spot any editorial issues (checked for neutrality and text issues), but as of now the article isn't long enough. ~~~~
::*The nominator has added some text, the article's long enough now, checked it off. Still haven't checked the other stuff. [[User:Some other user|]] ([[User talk:Some other user|talk]]) ~~~~~

• ... that ice is made of water?

created by some user

Hook review

Format	Citation	Neutrality	Interest
Y	Y	N	Y

• Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Article review

Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
Y	Y				Y	Y

• Article history looks ok and I didn't spot any editorial issues (checked for neutrality and text issues), but as of now the article isn't long enough. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• The nominator has added some text, the article's long enough now, checked it off. Still haven't checked the other stuff. Some other user (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Are species articles not very popular on DYK?

I'm asking because I have noticed that species articles on DYK seem to not get very many views while on the main page for DYK. My question is - what type of interesting hooks do you think that I can use for species articles that can grab an average reader's attention? I thought that the hooks on articles I worked on and nominated for DYK were really interesting especially in 2010 with ".. that when in danger of predation, the harvestman Leiobunum rotundum can self-amputate its legs, but they will not regenerate?" and "... that the beetle Dermestes maculatus attacks and eats live turkeys?". A spider that self amputates its legs to escape predators even though they will be gone for good! A beetle that eats LIVE turkeys! Pretty cool in my opinion, but their views while on DYK weren't impressive. Joe Chill (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Getting a lot of hits is very enjoyable, but creating a good article that improves Wikipedia is really what DYK is supposed to promote. Those hooks you mention would certainly have motivated me to click on them! I've had numbers of hits that pleased me on biology hooks, not just for penis-fencing flatworms and zombie ladybirds but recently for Timema stick insect species that haven't had sex for a million years. Yet there have been articles I was proud of creating that got incredibly low numbers of hits. The score measures something, but it doesn't measure everything. Sharktopus ^talk 02:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am proud of my DYK articles no matter how small or big they are. I am also proud of my stub articles because I know that I accomplished creating an article that is notable and didn't already exist on such a huge encyclopedia. I guess you're right that a lot of hits is just an extra bonus. Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely DYK's remit is new articles, not good articles? Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant good as in well-written, not GA, though I'm never sure what people mean when they say 'good' (I suspect you meant good, not GA and would have said GA if you had meant that). I sometimes wish GA had a different name. But while some newly created articles are no more than stubs that just meet the criteria, some people do try and produce really nice, long, comprehensive and well-written articles straight off. I found Oscar Clayton a delight to read. The other thing is that if you expand a stub fivefold, that tends to produce a better article than what was there before (well, hopefully). I've always thought that expanding existing articles should be encouraged more, as long as that is done correctly of course (see what Sandy wrote elsewhere about padding that sometimes happens). And people should be encouraged to take good DYK articles further, and those that create stubby article and then don't do anything more with them after DYK should be encouraged to work on them more and discouraged from building up too much of a backlog of stubs that they are leaving to others to expand, though giving others some time (e.g. a year) to pick up a stub and run with it is reasonable. After that time, though, the initial creator really needs to bite the bullet and go back and work on it. I have a back-catalogue (if you like) of stubs, and I'm slowly starting to work through them, trying to improve them. I suspect nearly every editor here has stubs in their early history that they created and never went back to (click the 'articles created' link on anyone's contribs to see what I mean). It's how most people start off with article creation here on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's natural that biology articles, some history articles, articles about churches, and even some political articles, will draw less clicks. On the other hand, as has been said, the clickthrough numbers aren't a total measure of the value of a hook or article. If the main page was filled solely with articles related to royalty or celebrity marriages, recent sports events and favourite flavours of political controversy, then I might well have wandered off in disgust long ago, and maybe a few others would take the same view. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer Joe Chill's question, bioology articles often get low hist everywhere - look at the TFA statistics. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are only interested in the hits, anything related to sexuality will draw clicks. For Batara Kala, for example, we used one of his origin myths (conceived by a fish swallowing Shiva's sperm) and received nearly 11,000 hits. However, you would probably want to vary it a bit. Unique quotes, like calling someone a "damn fool", seem to work well too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictures usually help a lot. Interesting ones. I tend to find myself only creating and nominating articles for DYK these days if and only if I find a picture of them somewhere. Though in general, I find that having a picture encourages me to expand an article more, whether it's intended for DYK or not. Then there's the time factor, DYK's coinciding with the best times on the western hemisphere will usually get more hits.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've actually looked over the top 30 or 40 most viewed while at DYK articles once and wrote about it somewhere else. Surprisingly it's not sports, celebs (not many of those anyway) or sex that sells views. It's "war and morbidity", followed by "cute animals doing cute thins" followed by "food". Sex actually doesn't do all that well - probably because there's a buttload of competition out there on the internets.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Insects aren't cute - too bad. Joe Chill (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

...so *some* species articles - of interesting, gross, or cute animals - do indeed get lots of hits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thing that sells is stuff from other cultures, if it is not the same as what is common in western cultures. Cat rice had lots of hits, mainly because the name is ambiguous (it would probably be read as "rice made from a cat", even though it really means "rice that is portioned for a cat"). Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The full binomial names certainly don't add click-appeal Jebus989^✰ 13:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Building preps

Hi everyone. I was wondering if somebody could help with the building of preps. I have done a few recently, but some approved hooks I've had to skip because I reviewed them or because they were my nominations. I will do some more reviewing, but I'd appreciate if someone other than myself built one or two preps (including the ones I am not allowed to pass) Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a go at lunchtime (4 hours), unless I can't get back online; it will be a good opportunity to learn the new process. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Hassocks. I have to go to bed now, but there seems to be about a queue's worth of approved hooks in the older articles. Any help would be appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I filled up Prep 3, but am about to lose internet myself. More help still needed! and many thanks to Crisco for stepping up. Sharktopus ^talk 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I've got the new method figured out (not too difficult, really), I hope to go back to doing this more regularly. Sadly my browser was crash-prone today! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both Sharktopus and Hassocks. I have done quite a bit more reviewing today, so hopefully we won't have to deal with the queues running out. Help with preps is still appreciated, naturally. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Slalom (Queue 2)

"The first" means the first: "the very first" is redundant hype. Kevin McE (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed to first, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Prep 3 issue

Sorry to raise this here, but I appear to have had no choice, because the hook was promoted almost instantly after the first review, giving me no chance to comment. The current hook for an article I wrote and nominated, referring to a Willamette River railroad bridge, or Did you know/Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge 5.1, is inaccurate or at least misleading. (It was shortened from all of my suggestions, all under 200.) Portland, Oregon has eleven "Willamette River bridges" and three alone are railroad bridges. The hook needs to include "of BNSF Railway" or "of BNSF", because without that the name given in the current hook is an incorrect name. See my comments at nom (made 12 days ago) for more. The newly created hook is 170 characters, so I see no good reason for leaving out "of BNSF Railway", which would make it 190 (or 182 without Railway). I know the current shortage in the queue is rushing things, but I checked the nom just 6 hours ago and it had yet to receive its first review; now, it's already in Prep with a significantly changed hook! (Note: I'll only be online for about the next 20 minutes, if any questions arise). Thanks to anyone who takes this up. SJ Morg (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody can edit a hook in prep but since you are distressed and about to go offline, I have removed your hook from Prep 3 and will replace it onto the nominations page for more discussion. Sharktopus ^talk 20:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. SJ Morg (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced it on the noms page (or at least I tried to; putting a hook back was so much easier in the old days) and suggested a new alt hook that I think will address the issue. --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Awaiting an OK from the author. I will happily move it to Prep (but not Prep 3, which I just refilled) once that happens. Thanks so much, Orlady, for your helpful intervention. Sharktopus ^talk 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Special care when including information from the Arab/Israeli field

On the 4th of August the following appeared in Wiki's DYK section.

• ... that the Arabic translation of Mein Kampf has been a bestseller in parts of the Middle East?
  

If anyone had checked the Mein Kampf in the Arabic language talk page at that time, they would have noted that the "bestseller in parts of the Middle East" was a controversial claim. Could editors please exercise special care when including information from the Arab/Israeli field, as information is notoriously unreliable in times of war/conflict. Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Main page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also troubling that the article history shows that (after major battles over POV) on August 4, the day it main-paged, the nominator popped in an extra three paragraphs of anti-Arab POV [4]. Sharktopus ^talk 15:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we've had problems like that at DYK before with anti-Arab POV being added while the article is on the main page. I thought some measures or rules were put in place to prevent this happening again? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "measures". Wikipedia already has a guideline against general protection or semi-protection of articles on the main page, and it's not DYK's responsibility to review all edits to all articles as they are on the main page. We already have a policy not to promote articles that are "unstable" due to being in the middle of an edit war. In this case, it looks like the discussion about the "bestseller" thing only began on August 4 (the day the article was featured, and thus long after it had been reviewed and approved) and, likewise, the objectionsable content (although I'm not sure what makes that "anti-Arab POV") was added while the article was on the main page, after the review was completed. DYK didn't do anything wrong here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions where being asked about the validity of information in the Mein Kampf in the Arabic language article almost as soon as it was created- (see here). By 24th of July the article's talk page already contained a comment (made by myself) expressing doubts about the statement: " …it achieved best-seller status throughout the Arab world" (admittedly not identical to the DYK claim but similar enough to ring some distant alarm bells I would have thought). Aside from factual reliability and controversy issues- If Wiki has a policy, not to promote articles that are "unstable" due to being in the middle of an edit war, why was this article even considered for DYK inclusion (on the day that the DYK went to press an editor was hauled before Wiki arbitration based on edits made to the article before that date). I think this warrants my original plea ie- "Could editors please exercise special care when including information from the Arab/Israeli field, as information is notoriously unreliable in times of war/conflict." Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Rjanag, my rather vague wording was because I can't remember the exact details of the previous incident, and have no hope of finding it in the immense archives of this talkpage. I wasn't suggesting that DYK handled this incident wrongly, nor that there are (or should be) code-based or procedure-based restrictions in place to prevent this happening. What I vaguely recall of the last incident where POV content was introduced just as the article went to the Main Page, was that there was discussion of the possibility of banning one or more of the editors involved from DYK, or "measures" of that nature. However, as I say, I don't remember the details. Anyone? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine topics and the local politicians should be excluded from DYK. Whoever approves these hooks spends very little time reviewing the articles relative to core policies especially NPOV/BLP, accepting almost any political rag or opinion piece uncritically as RS. I bet that if had I submitted only the positive (top) part of Eurabia it would have been accepted. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You know DYK is dying, right?

The queue will probably go empty by morning U.S. time. There are few articles being approved, and most of those few don't explicitly comply with the RfC. Based on that slow rate, here are the realistic options: 1. Pay lip service to the RfC, and change the Main Page once a day. 2. Enforce the RfC, and change the Main Page once a week. 3. Muddle through, and change the Main Page manually, whenever possible. Art LaPella (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is that one very hard-working admin (Panyd) who was not only updating queues but also doing many preps, is offline. Plural people need to step up to fill her shoes. I am in transit and really can't right now. You don't have to be an admin to make up Preps, and a lot of preps are empty. You do have to be an admin to move items from Prep to Queue. Right now, we have one full Queue and the rest empty. There is a full Prep that could be moved up to Queue. There are a bunch of empty Preps that need to be filled. Another problem is that the number of picture-hooks approved is very small. 03:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the problem not enough noms, not enough reviewing or not enough moving to and fro?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that DYK is dying. I've spent the last two hours dealing with noms and preps; I don't have a broom, so I can't deal with queues. At the very least we have enough queues and preps for a few days now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We have 140 noms and 31 passed noms, the number of noms is down but it's far from the worst I've seen, I've seen T:TDYK with no more than 60-80 total noms, and that was when we had no queues at all and just the single prep area, right now we also have at least three prepared updates as well. However, it's clear that recent changes - especially, I think, the rush to employ Tony's checklist - has had a significant deterrent effect on nominations. More than likely the tougher criteria some reviewers are trying to employ has irritated some contributors too - I myself might think twice about nominating an article in the current environment. I think things will eventually settle down again over time however. But if necessary, we can throttle back the number of updates to two or even one per day until noms start picking up again. Gatoclass (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Alas, but for days since the new nomination template was introduced, the counts on the Queue page include a lot of noms that have already been pushed to the queues or rejected. For example, the count for July 25 shows 22 noms, but only 4 of those are still actually waiting on the suggestions page. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I take heart from what you say about past experience—I haven't been around here very long. But I think going below three preps a day would set a dangerous precedent and in turn discourage people from nominating articles (and from reviewing them promptly and clearly). Let's instead see what we can do to encourage people, both to write/rewrite (I've been working on the same DYK-inappropriate article for a while; I'm trying to decide whether to bother to do a DYK-possible one next) to submit to DYK (see above section on cutting through the . . . stuff) and to do the reviewing (see various above sections, especially the two-way street one). Let's get the momentum building again; then it will be feasible (and less rude) to say "This nom shouold wait till it has a more interesting hook," for example. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that the critics have driven a stake through the heart of DYK. The problem is not a shortage of administrators, but shortages of submissions and reviews. The new nomination template does seem be discouraging submissions, although I find it actually makes it easier to submit nominations. I imagine that the brutality of some recent DYK reviews probably is discouraging nominations -- when nominations are getting criticized and possibly even rejected for allegedly "obvious" problems in the article such as too many wikilinks, why bother to nominate? --Orlady (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They forgot the garlic. I agree with both you and Yngvadottir: we need to deal with major problems first and foremost. Copyvio, close paraphrasing, too short articles, attack pages, and whatnot. Boring hooks could wait a bit. Wikification should never be a breaker, unless an article is not wikified at all. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying the new scrutiny is necessarily a bad thing, but there is no way I'm touching the queues in the current environment—frankly, I don't have time and can't be bothered to read through half a dozen articles that are at least 1500 characters long each, then and conduct a review worthy of an FAC before I can can even consider moving anything into the queue. Then if I get it right, people complain loudly that DYK is shite, and if I miss some slight error in the article, people complain even louder that DYK is shite and call for my head on a stake. Sorry, I'd like to help, but that's not my idea of fun! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hence why I try to be a duck. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Update - have moved along three preps to Q's and asked at commons for images to be protected (they're usually pretty quick with these). Am off to bed now as late here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the new structure with nominations on their own sub-pages, but am doubtful about the more formal checklist, which is a bit forbidding to a potential reviewer. If 99.6% of articles accepted under the old system had no serious technical problems, and moving up to 99.7% means doubling the review effort or halving the number of nominations, it is not worth it. No checklist will ever catch selective bias, where important aspects of the subject are not mentioned and trivial aspects are given undue weight. My guess is that many articles have this or other serious defects that only an expert would catch. Maybe we are doubling the review effort so we can move from 70.6% up to 70.7% on the quality scale. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Orlady has hit the nail on the head: all the new requirements have made it significantly more difficult to contribute, and that's largely due to the critics' complaints. When articles that qualify under the rules get rejected simply because their hooks are "too boring" or for other minutia that are unrelated to the rules, that's a big downside. Moreover, I don't have much time anymore to do DYKs — I have enough time to write, but I generally don't have enough time to write and then do one or more reviews on top of it. Until policy absolutely requires me to do it, I will not use the new template: the rules don't require it, and it makes this too much like GA or FAC, which (contrary to a few people's opinions) is not the purpose of DYK. Nyttend (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

off-topic discussion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
More likely from 1% to 2%. I've seen very, very few DYKs on the main page without significant problems, many of them quite glaring. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. DYK is a sample of new pages. They have faults. We should try to catch and correct the worst problems, but should not try to make the articles "perfect". If a non-editor sees a clumsy first attempt and thinks "I could do better than that" and then goes ahead and tries, DYK has achieved one objective. If everything is "perfect" we may discourage new editors. Perhaps worse, we may give readers the impression that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information. I am in favor of "good enough", relying on the built-in correction mechanisms to quickly fix the worst problems. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not talking about "perfect", I'm talking about glaring errors in basic spelling and grammar. Most DYKs are little more than stubs; it's surely not too much to ask a reviewer to actually read the whole shebang? Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Some DYK articles are little more than stubs; some are quite long. And regardless of their length, we tend to get 20 or so a day. I'll be generous and pretend that there are as many as 3 other people in this project who are as amazing and wonderful at article writing and competent at article reviewing as you are (although we all know that can't possibly be true); how long do you think you could keep up reading 5 of these a day? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I could read five of those DYK stubs in five minutes; why can't you? Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Good to know it's so easy for you. Anyone is welcome to review articles currently on T:TDYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC) And so far as DYK is concerned there are no "built-in correction mechanisms"; FA has FAR, GA has GAR; what does DYK have? Malleus Fatuorum Main page exposure. Yomanganitalk 23:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 57.6% to 57.7%? I fix spelling and grammar errors when I notice them, and assume most reviewers do. It is more work to check that every sentence accurately reflects what the sources say. I check the hook, the main points, anything that seems questionable, but not always every assertion. If an article on a wood-boring beetle says it is most active in the summer, citing a book about beetles, I am willing to accept the assertion without going to the library to check the book. It seems plausible. At the library I might find that the article is a clone of a chapter in the book. Perhaps the book is out of copyright but is inaccurate. Modern research may have found that the beetle is in fact hyperactive in winter to keep warm, and dozes all summer. I don't know. The built-in correction mechanism for all Wikipedia articles is that sooner or later someone who does know will read the article, spot the problems and either complain or fix them. Yes, main page exposure will speed up the process. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Exactly. Besides that, minor errors may in fact assist in the recruiting of new editors as they may want to fix what errors they see. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC) So why not be honest about DYK? Why not rebrand it as "Here are some really crap articles that you may wish to improve"? Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I did suggest changing the boilerplate (slightly less brutally). Yomanganitalk 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) But that correction mechanism is just the normal Wikipedia march towards grey goo, nothing to do with DYK. I've seen countless DYKs on the main page with the most obvious grammar and spelling errors, even today. Inviting new contributors is one thing, but persuading them that it's OK to write crap, because someone else may or may not come along to fix it is a world I simply don't understand. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) This all boils down to a difference of opinion. You think (apparently) that spelling and grammar errors make an article a worthless waste of space and an embarrassment to the project. I, and I venture to guess most people here, don't think it's a huge deal. Sure, I correct errors when I see them, but I don't think that every article with a few copyediting errors here and there is worthless crap. If you think so, the Internet is probably not the best place to be spending your time. (Then again, the Internet is a great place to troll and pick juicy fights with people, so I can see why you keep coming back.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) What I can see is that you can't tell your arse from your elbow. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Why are you even allowed to edit here with all of your personal attacks? I pointed multiple people to WP:DICK and I got an ANI report filed against me. Why are you still here? Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Perhaps because, unlike you, I put the quality of the product before the happiness of the contributors. Once upon a time it was called honesty. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC) DNFTT. Could anyone eager to stroke the pathetically wet noodle of MF's ego please post their responses to his lame PA on his own personal talk page. Sharktopus talk 03:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I see statements above in this thread that strongly suggest DYK culture has not fundamentally changed, at least among the regular core of editors: this is very disappointing. I'm starting to see the benefit of completely reconceiving DYK so that it includes a significant proportion of GAs, and even FAs and FLs, as Sandy, Malleus, and others would clearly prefer. The community has made it clear that it does not want crap on the main page, and what is particularly worrying are statements above indicating that people just don't see the crap, don't see that proper reviewing is the way to achieve this, and equate speed of throughput with success. Even more galling, Yomangani says main-page exposure is the mechanism for improving obvious errors in new articles: it's an astonishing assumption. The community has responded by insisting on a reviewing checklist. One has been produced that complies with the text of the RfC, even if the format could be improved. But the basic fact of a template is inescapable, and I will continue to paste it in unless there is another RfC that reverses the decision of the "Checklist" RfC—incorporating a checklist is the only proper thing to do. Specific concern: "one very hard-working admin (Panyd) who was not only updating queues but also doing many preps, is offline": well, I did propose the establishment of a directorate to coordinate these issues, but the idea was spurned. Orlady said, "The new nomination template does seem be discouraging submissions, although I find it actually makes it easier to submit nominations. I imagine that the brutality of some recent DYK reviews probably is discouraging nominations – when nominations are getting criticized and possibly even rejected for allegedly "obvious" problems in the article such as too many wikilinks, why bother to nominate?" In response, I'm not supporting DYK unless nominator input during the nomination process (and thus the induction and training of newish editors) is central to the process. The choice is clear: professionalise DYK, ensure that its induction and quality-assurance roles are on a better footing, or get it off the main page, as Dr. Blofeld suggested, and give other forums the chance to expose their professional work. Bleating about exposing DYKs for longer (even a whole 24 hours—perish the thought—like OTD, TFA, TFL, and POTD) is the opposite push to keep DYK mostly amateurish. Tony (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

on-topic discussion

...a 1,500 character article thrown off in a couple of days is unlikely to give balanced and thorough coverage of the subject. If we want to limit main page links to quality content, a more formal DYK review checklist is not going to have much effect. The checklist just formalizes what reviewers should be looking at anyway. The real problem is that a review by someone like me who knows nothing about a subject and relies entirely on online sources may miss serious defects in an article. The only way to significantly improve DYK quality is to allow more time to develop more complete and balanced articles and to improve the articles based on considered expert review. It takes time to get quality.

Many readers (and some nominators) think DYK is just a collection of curious factoids. We could change DYK to be just that. Forget the "new" criterion, replace it with "B Class", or something like that, and concentrate on debating and deciding on the interest level of the factoids. "...that the Higgins wood-boring beetle is most active in the summer?" "...that Jamie Higgins was booted out of three reality shows before he turned 16?" "...that S.S. Higgins was the first copper-hulled trawler to be sunk by U boats in the North Sea?"

But before we fix it, is it broke? Do we have any statistics on reader feedback? Maybe they like seeing random articles in their embryonic state. Maybe it does encourage new editors. Maybe the occasional poor quality article serves as a useful reminder that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just use some common sense. Whenever you see articles about local politicians or controversial topics quickly hatched, it's safe to assume they aren't NPOV unless they've been reviewed by a substantive number of editors. Wikipedia is used for WP:ACTIVISM more often than not these days in certain areas (and perhaps that was always the case, but I wasn't around). Pay a visit to WP:AE if in doubt. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good question about reader feedback. I find the stars at the bottom (article feedback) rather questionable if not downright worthless. Anger management, this version, was rated as 5 five stars across the board by about 8 editors at one point. I'm not sure what triggered the flood of reviews thereafter (I discussed it with one of the editors that seem very involved in the feedback project), but the current stars don't reflect the current article either, because I deleted most of it and added one sourced paragraph. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So I see a DYK article on Mayor Smith describing his birth, education, business and political career and his views on jobs, the environment, immigration, taxation and so on. All the content is sourced from reputable newspapers and magazines, and seems to be accurate and neutral. In fact, the sources have been carefully selected and it is a vicious and one-sided attack. I would never spot that. It could take a few weeks before anyone who did know about the subject spotted it. If we put recent articles into DYK, that is a risk we run. I find the risk acceptable, although sometimes it could be embarrassing. A formal review checklist will not avoid the problem.

On feedback, I was not so much thinking of article scores as of a general reader survey asking about what they like and do not like, what they expect, what they want improved and so on. If most readers enjoy DYK and have no problems with it, don't fix it. If a fair number of readers do have problems with DYK, then it needs fixing. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "DYK is dying": I don't know if the feature is dying or not, but I do know this: the new procedure for reviewing somebody else's nomination is so incredibly complex and daunting that it is definitely going to discourage nominations. I just spent 15 or 20 minutes trying to figure it out and then said, "Forget it - I just won't submit the nomination I was planning to submit; it's not worth all this effort." I'm not a newbie; I have 8000 or so edits, and I have had a dozen DYKs accepted, including some where I had to review somebody else's nomination under the old rules. That was do-able. But I'm not a DYK specialist, and requiring people like me to try to navigate this complex new system is a bad idea. Either we will do a bad or partial job of reviewing, or else we will just say "forget it" - as I did tonight. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Medal of Honor DYK 8/10

"... that US Army Master Sergeant Ernest R. Kouma won the Medal of Honor (pictured) in the Korean War for singlehandedly killing approximately 250 North Korean troops?" One does not "win" the MOH. You receive it. It's neither a contest nor a competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.255.1 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 10 August 2011 UTC

Copied to WP:ERRORS. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wha'?! Wait! Everything is a contest in Wikipedia. You win DYKs that you can strut, that's fo sho. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, despite being cited from the official army records, the body count is one of the least reliable aspects of this encounter. Kouma's tank was fighting a delaying action and was forced to withdraw after the fight with the entire US position abandoned. The body count for actions like this in the Korean war is historically very unreliable, with an order of magnitude differences between the body counts in the same action by the opponents' official histories. [5] [6] [7] Some secondary sources do not mention the body count in this action: [8]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious crediting

I find it amusing that User:mbz1 was credited for Mein Kampf in the Arabic language when the version she wrote [9] bears little resemblance with the version approved [10] (and even that still had some issues). FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Standard procedure is to give credits to the editor who nominated the article and/or any editors who played a major role in creating/expanding it (what qualifies as "major" is basically up to the nominator, who is usually the one who chooses whom to credit). The major exception to this is in the cases of articles that were cut-and-paste copyvio when created, then cleaned up by someone else; AFAIK in those cases credit doesn't go to the creator. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Then that's one more thing that's broken in your standard procedure. If someone writes an article that says "Creationism is the truth", and then someone changes it to "Creationism is not the truth", the first person deserves all the credit according to your standard procedure. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've long held that nominations with substantial POV issues should be summarily rejected, we should not reward users who attempt to misuse DYK to push a political platform, and its an imposition on everyone who feels obliged to try and fix these articles before they appear on the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec, re FuFoFuEd) Well, obviously, people use common sense.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your intended purpose was in opening to this discussion, except (I think) to complain that someone got a DYK bauble (ohmygod, they're, like, such a big deal) for having written a version of an article you didn't like? rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

More like rejected by consensus at WP:RS/N. [11]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not wishing to be a very slow broken record, but replace the word "credit" with "notification" and the problem goes away. Yomangani^talk 09:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

New subcategory of mid-level admin needed?

With all the problems finding admins to curate DYK queues and other Main Page elements, I wonder if it might be time to propose a new subcategory of mid-level admins so that we can get more people working on maintenance. I don't know how fine-grained the permissions are on admin rights, but I would have thought that it would be possible for the developers to create an intermediate level of user between ordinary editor and full admin. It would be useful to be able to give trusted individuals the ability to edit through protection and to protect/unprotect pages and images, but not the other admin rights such as being able to block users, delete edits etc, so that they can carry out the purely janitorial role of Main Page maintenance. You could perhaps formally call them "janitors" or "maintainers" to distinguish them from the fully empowered admins. Because their rights would be limited and they would be required to operate only in certain areas, they should not need to go through the bureaucratic monstrosity that is RFA. What do the rest of you think? Prioryman (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not currently possible on en-wiki and not going to be enabled anytime soon. See WP:PERENNIAL#Hierarchical structures and WP:Limited administrators. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

People who show themselves to be sensible and trustworthy, and need the tools, should be ok to get through the RfA hoop. I am happy to consider discussing and possibly nominating people I feel have a good chance at passing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is with the "sensible" part - why would anyone who's actually sensible want to go through the "RfA hoop" (wide as a needle's eye, flaming hot fire, suspended over a pool of caymans, with caltrops and salt dust spread out on the other side)?Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I please have my nomination withdrawn?

I have been asking for Template talk:Did you know/Ants of Kansas to be closed, but someone just has to keep on replying to me. I guess it was a mistake to say how much I am not pleased with DYK (not related to the DYK nomination) on the nomination page because apparently that means that my main interest on Wikipedia is complaining despite my other contributions. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've closed it (though it is still waiting for an assessment from Wikiproject Complaining) Yomangani^talk 15:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wat Tyler Cluverius, Jr. (Queue 5)

"that before his death in 1952, Wat Tyler Cluverius, Jr. was the last surviving officer of the sinking of the USS Maine?" That strikes me as an excrutiating truism: can the underlined words, which add nothing to the meaning, be deleted, or at least reconfigured: "that Wat Tyler Cluverius, Jr., who died in 1952, was the last surviving officer of the sinking of the USS Maine?" Kevin McE (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! I fixed it just now -- belatedly, since it went to the main page a couple of hours earlier. Thanks. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:DYKproblem

Could someone update Template:DYKproblem so the text that says "your nomination's entry" links to the nomination sub-page rather than to the section of T:TDYK? I can't do it because 1) it's protected, and 2) I'm not exactly sure how to make the change. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I have said a lot of bad things about DYK, but members have convinced me that this is a worthwhile project. It just needs a bit of work which may take time, but it is worthwhile with consensus discussions and members who really know what they are doing. It shouldn't have taken a few members to convince me of that. I will continue nominating articles for DYK especially new members' articles. I have nominated several newbie articles for DYK and articles by members that have been here awhile, but have not stepped into DYK territory. One of the members that has been here a while and has never participated in DYK thought that an article that he started and I nominated wasn't good enough for DYK, but some editors and I showed him that he was wrong once the article was approved. Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Now as to whether DYK is actually a "worthwhile project", I'll have to reserve my judgement ;) Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Can a hook be rejected by never receiving a full review?

I proposed a hook for an article that was created on August 3. I know there are still 18 days before that date would no longer appear on the nomination page, but it brings up one question. If my hook is never approved or denied, will it basically be pocket vetoed or does it remain until a decision is made? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I would hope not. My understanding of the removal rules is when a review has been made and issues pointed out which the nominator/author hadn't fixed or replied to for a certain amount of time.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Under the current rules, no, no hook can be rejected without receiving a view. This has been discussed before (see, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 48#What is DYK for? (long, sry)) but there has not yet been consensus to remove unreviewed nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So in my specific example, a partial review was made. I corrected the problems. And the rest of my article and hook were not reviewed. My hook will then remain in place until it has been reviewed and I have had sufficient time to correct any proglems? Ryan Vesey Review me!

It's hard to say anything specific without seeing your example. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to make sure it didn't look like I was pushing my hook. The example is Template talk:Did you know/HMS Phoenix (N96). Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This won't be rejected without a complete review. You could try bugging the guy who did the partial review to see if he can finish it (that's done sometimes), or just wait until someone else comes around to finish it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Sorry, I've been focusing on the older nominations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on signatures in the review template

Discussion at #Review checklist templates (and related discussion at #The review checklist, redux) seems to have come to a halt without any firm conclusions. As best as I can tell, editors are divided about whether signatures are necessary in the review checklist or not. To speed things up, I'd like to just do a quick poll to see what people think about this issue; for examples of what I'm talking about, see #Samples above. If you have an opinion, please sign your name in the Support or Oppose section, or leave a comment.

Also, please note that this poll is only to get feedback about the matter of whether signatures should be included. If you have other issues with it (for instance, with the specific items that are included in the template, or with the names of those items), those issues can be addressed after this.

Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary of advantages and disadvantages

• A checklist with both ticks/crosses and signatures makes for more transparency, as users can see who has checked the individual fields. Disadvantages are that the checklist is more cluttered and difficult to read at a glance, and that the list requires the individual fields to be filled out with {{DYKyes}} or {{DYKno}}) instead of a simple "y" or "n".

• Regarding the checklist with only ticks and crosses, its state will be much easier for reviewers who are looking for uncompleted checklists to assess quickly, and this checklist will require only a "y" or "no" in each field to complete it instead of {{DYKyes}} or {{DYKno}}). The disadvantage is that it won't be apparent who is responsible for filling in the checklist fields unless the reviewers leave notes or else the history is checked.

Support checklist with ticks/crosses and signatures

1. At minimum one signature, for accountability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   With respect, I don't think that's a !vote in favour of signatures in the checklist. I think it's a given that reviewers will be signing off on their reviews below the checklist, but that's not what this poll is about. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   I will give a little clarification. If one does the entire review on one's own, a signature at the bottom would be enough. If one does only a portion of the review, one should note that somewhere (either by signing what was reviewed or noting at the bottom). Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, thanks or the clarification. I think that sounds most like what I had in mind with version 3. Anyway we'll see what others think about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

2. As per Crisco 1492; items should be signed when the review is partial, but one signature is sufficient when the review covers all aspects. cmadler (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
3. I support, under the conditions stipulated by Crisco and cmadler. SJ Morg (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
4. Agree with Crisco and cmadler, good idea. Sharktopus ^talk 12:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   I hate to say this, but what you guys are !voting on is not actually one of the options. You can't have both a signatures and doodads checklist and a doodads only checklist, it's a choice between one or the other. A sig of course can always be added below the checklist, but for the checklist itself it must be either one or the other type as it's not possible to have a checklist which can output both types of fields, and only one checklist can be added to the nomination template. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   No reason not to offer the choice of either. If an editor does the whole review, they can use the doodads-only checklist and then sign the review. If an editor does only part of the review, they can use the signatures-and-doodads checklist and sign the appropriate parts. cmadler (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   Well if somebody wants to use the no-sig checklist for their own reviews, there is nothing to stop them doing that at any time, although I doubt many people will bother. The point of this poll is to determine which checklist should be added to the nomination template as the standard checklist. Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   It is technically possible to have two different templates people could choose between, although I think that would make things unnecessarily complicated (we have people asking why DYK has both preps and queues, I bet we'd also get people asking why there are so many different versions of the checklist). It's also possible for the template to be somewhat flexible in that it could not by itself output doodads but people could just directly type in, e.g., "{{subst:DYKtick}} ~~~" or just "{{subst:DYKtick}}". Although, like I said above, these votes actually sound to me similar to the idea I had with version 3 (doodads only), in that people can sign off below the template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Support checklist with ticks and crosses only

Comments

I don't care what format you choose for the checklist, just as long as:

(1) it is a checklist, as required by the RfC, that includes all aspects listed in the RfC, including the "regular" DYK aspects as specified in the last line of the RfC text;

(2) it involves a signature if a whole review is done, and where a part review is done, signatures for the aspects required by the RfC;

(3) you work out how much of a review needs to be done to satisfy QPQ;

(4) reviewers are not required to go searching for a cumbersome string of characters to paste in icons; and

(5) the instructions include directions related to these issues.

If obvious errors in formatting and prose are let through, these will be the subject of complaints, on this page and elsewhere; this is why it would be far preferable to include this in the checklist. The community will not be happy if crap continues to dribble onto the main page.

These are the only circumstances in which I, personally, would support the continuation of DYK. When Crisco, above, says, "I have tried to keep the queues from faltering, but it's rather hard to fill a queue with no noms."—well, don't change shifts so often, then. Every change robs a good hook/DYK from further exposure. Tony (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

With or without signature, checklist doesn't work

I can't find the blooming subpage, so I'll replay the entire DYK section here. Multiple people looked at this; the hook appears to have been written by someone for whom English is not a native language. The checklist doesn't work; accountability from a real person before something goes on the mainpage is still missing (I've been too busy for days to check for copyvios, but I doubt that they're not still there, considering one only has to look at the most recent reviews to find issues still). PS: AGF on foreign language sources, when translations are frequently plagiarized? For goodness sakes ... we're talking about Wikipedia's mainpage. Is there no burden on the nominator to prove the text is mainpage worthy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What the heck is this about? This poll is not about Tony's checklist, it's about two alternatives proposed by Rjanag. Please don't confuse the issue by dragging Tony's checklist into the discussion, we can debate that after we've settled on the best version of Rjanag's. Gatoclass (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, please note that the discussion that Sandy is upset about is still on the nominations page. The discussion has not been concluded. Nothing has happened. --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, several points for you. They're going to be a bit snippy but I can't say it isn't about time:

1. That nomination doesn't have a subpage because it was posted before the subpage system was started. I think this is the fourth time I've had to explain this simple concept to you, and I think already told you last time that I didn't want to explain it to you again.
2. Like Gatoclass asked above, what is your complaint even referring to? Are you trying to say the hook needs editing? Use your words. We can't tear apart DYK and remake it in the wonderful image that you want if you can't even be bothered to explain what you want.
3. No offense, but you're a broken record. You've already told me over and over that you think the checklist is a waste of time, but unfortunately right now many people here want one. But hey, if you don't want it, you are welcome to get SHOUTED at by this guy who wants to block anyone who doesn't like the checklist. Personally I don't care either way, I'm just trying to make a better one for them if they decide to use it. See, unlike you, I actually care about trying to do something constructive here, rather than just dropping by every day to tell us all how hopeless we are.
4. I already said above that I opened this poll for feedback on a specific issue and that issue was not which things should be included in a review or how a review can be conducted; those issues can be discussed later or elsewhere. If you can't be bothered to read the text of a conversation you're jumping into and you can't be bothered to make even the most basic attempt to understand simple concepts that have been explained to you over and over again (see point 1 above) I don't understand where you find all the time to tell everyone how much they suck and I don't understand why you keep dropping by here.

To everyone else: sorry for the snippiness, but I hope you can understand I am fed up with this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty fed up with you, Rjanag. You're the one who has been behaving disgracefully. If you can't abide by the requirements of an RfC, butt out. Tony (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion you opened at #Warning: Deliberate Breaching of RfC Consensus showed a clear consensus that I didn't "breach" (or, should I said, "BREACH") the RfC and didn't do anything wrong in removing your templates. Now, since you clearly have nothing to contribute to the discussion in this section, you butt out. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Vojihna ... that the military commander Vojihna, after successful conquests, was one of the first of Serbian nobility that received the court title caesar by Serbian Empire Dušan the Mighty (r. 1331-1355)? Created by Zoupan (talk). Self nom at 17:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed: Hook Length, format, content rules: 246 ch. ALT1 is down to 228. Needs further trimming. Source: Doesn't seem to be anywhere in here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Interest: On the low side. I suppose it can pass, but trimming it might give ideas on how to make it punchier. Tony (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Image suitability: None. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) ALT hooks, if proposed: ... that after his military conquests, commander Vojihna was one of the first of Serbian nobility to receive the court title caesar from Serbian Empire Dušan the Mighty (1331–55)?Tony (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC) ALT2: ... that Vojihna was one of the first of Serbian nobles to receive the court title caesar from Serbian Empire Dušan the Mighty? Article Length: Tony (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Vintage: Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): Ref tag for "In 1359, Helena abdicated and took monastic vows, under the name Elisabeth."?Tony (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC) This should probably use the cite family of templates. Also, don't cite every single sentence. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Neutrality: Looks OK. Tony (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Plagiarism/close paraphrasing: AGF on foreign language sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Copyvio: Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting: I ran the dash script; you're encouraged to use it. Suggestion: images 240px (at least the map, which could be 260px, frankly). Could you fix "that" ("who") in the opening sentence, please? Could merge stub-paragraph start of "Origin". There are other stub-paras, too: merge now and split later if necessary? Tony (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Referencing should be cleaned up. Hook fact needs to be stated directly in the article and cited. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Comments/discussion: He was an emperor, not an empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.153.25 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)