Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 96

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 90 Archive 94 Archive 95 Archive 96 Archive 97 Archive 98 Archive 100


Hi from deWP: Studying potential bias in DYK

Over in the German-language Wikipedia we recently had a discussion about potential bias in the selection of DYK nominations and in what is subsequently shown as DYK items on the Main Page. Please find below my suggestion of 8 July 2013 on how to conduct some research into the second of the two aspects (outcome), see the project page translated into English. Please let me know what you think, cheers --Pipifaxa 07:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipifaxa (talkcontribs)

find the original project page in German in one section of this page-- Pipifaxa (talkcontribs) 07:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the English Wikipedia has the same problems with the bias that the german Wikipedia is alluding to have problems with. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting comment, thanks, btw, it was not my intention to suggest any kind of sameness. Yet, what makes you think the way you do in this regard? cheers, (Pipifaxa 13:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC))

Wrong hook in prep 2

The wrong hook for Honey Creek State Park was promoted. I was the creator so I won't change it. SL93 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been taken care of and has been moved to a queue. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Prep 3

Two comments:

  • the lead hook needs a comma after the place name, but (pictured) is in the way.
  • the second hook (Ivanhorod) mentions an iconic photo without showing it, - missing a chance. (It#s also not the preferred hook.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how why it needs a comma. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"... that St John the Evangelist's Church, Corby Glen (pictured) has early" - it says that Corby Glen is pictured and has early ..., but you want to say that of the church. Without (pictured), it should be "... that St John the Evangelist's Church, Corby Glen, has early", - I don't know how to repair. If you ask me, the best solution would be to have the second hook pictured ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a comma after (pictured) and someone can change the hook if it they think that it would sound better. I also moved the second hook to the top of prep area 4 with a picture. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm glad that was moved. I think that having two hooks with "execution of Jews" and "Armenian Genocide" in the same set was a bit too much. I moved the "(pictured)"; if people prefer it the other way, feel free to undo. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Did I do something wrong and cause Ivanorod to disappear? If so, it was an accident. I was trying to tweak articles and punctuation Awien (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • You didn't. I moved it to prep area 4. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • OK, thks, caught up now. Now to tweak . . .Awien (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Disengaging from certain reviews

I'd like my fellow DYK participants to know that in the future I'm not going to involve myself with the approval or improvement of DYK nominations from Dr. Blofeld, and that I may extend my non-participation to other nominations produced by the "Rosblofnari" group. This is due to a growing concern I have had about the quality of this group's articles and is precipitated by some recent negative interactions with Dr. Blofeld (notably on my talk page, but also in certain nomination templates), including his declaration to me that "If I see you so much as breathe in one of our DYK nominations again I'm going to withdraw it the moment you start commenting". I am further concerned by a recommendation by Dr. Blofeld that the group members should aim to maximize the "efficiency" of their DYK production by limiting the lengths of the articles they nominate at DYK and the amount of time they spend on researching each article.

Accordingly, I will not be responding to other users' requests for help with review of any of these nominations. I will, however, look into these noms/articles if I am reviewing approved noms before sending them to a prep area or to the queues, so you may see my comments on these noms from time to time. --Orlady (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's good that editors have those rights as volunteers. I never reviewed their articles, but I can say that I won't promote them anymore if this goes through. I partly understood what Blofeld was getting at although the vast majority of what he said was wrong. In response to my comment about quality articles, Blofeld tried to defend the benefits of quality articles, but this new project of his makes it clear, that at least now, he only cares about making a point. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Sl93, again you've misinterpreted the situation. Rosblofnari has existed since April, it isn't new. I most certainly wouldn't make changes to prove a point. I've proposed changes based on experienced of what works and what doesn't at DYK and that none of us want to have to spend days fixing issues with a single article just for the sake of a DYK credit. You told me I was "wrong" yet admitted that you yourself have been experiencing the same stalling which I find highly hypocritical. You know I'm right, but for some reason you want to continue to bow down to Orlady and defend her as if it improves your status on here or something.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't misinterpret anything, but you sure did. I said "project" not "Wikiproject". I was referring to your rebellion against DYK in order to prove a point. I defend any editor who acts in good faith while you are assuming bad faith. SL93 (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Well..."flabbergasted" comes to mind, but I guess it shouldn't. I didn't know they had a "group" that they're actually calling a WikiProject, but have wondered about the sheer volume of DYKs. I had started to back off from reviewing them about a year ago for a much milder reason. I had questioned a reference, and I got blowback for challenging it. know...why spin your wheels on that kind of thing. To the best of my memory, that was before the campaign on this page to honor Dr. Blofeld's contributons with a mention on the main page. I momentarily forgot about that when I posted at This Here One, and you see the reaction. And in spite of the denial, Dr.B did delete the article sentence in question and removed the photo in question. It's just easier to review others. But I'm still agape at what was posted on your talk page. DYK isn't THAT big of a deal to get that whacked. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I also was unaware of this "group" that they're calling a WikiProject until less than 24 hours ago. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Orlady. You not only bullied us into submission on the Mink industry in Denmark in particular, checking every source and blowing it up into a massive problem despite a lot of effort to correct the problem, but you've also targeted us on the Eagle Peak (Wyoming) article, say that we've bloated it just for the sake of DYK. You admitted on your talk page you dislike the fact that I have a high DYK count and a "sort of cult status" on wikipedia and DYK as you put it which makes you less inclined to help us than oppose us and you wouldn't have brought this up here if you were really constructive and amicable. I told you to stay away from our nominations because there is a difference between constructive criticism and excessive badgering, making little effort to really solve what you are apparently concerned with, and you've admitted as such that you have issues with us personally. You claim that you have all of these life commitments yet you had the time to check every source and stalk me, otherwise you'd not have known about my latest proposal. Yes, DYK needs critical editors who can help identify inaccuracies, poor sourcing etc, but you represent the extreme end of it which crosses over the line into deliberately stalling articles and being excessively picky. As identified on your talk page I could find multiple issues in your own DYKs but I don't hound you about them because I'm just not that sort of person.
Frankly we're sick of reviewers like you moaning about the quality and bloat of expansions, portraying articles with minor problems as disastrous. So from now on we're going to produce new articles which are basic but meet requirements. This will give us more control over content and sourcing which we hope will improve the quality of text and sourcing in the eyes of DYK reviewers, even if the articles are not detailed. I've concluded that DYK generally prefers simple sound quality/sourcing than comprehensive/detailed articles. We're going to work on GA article separately and not put them through DYK. Obviously you've posted here to try to lure reviewers to take a leaf out of your book and impede progress and the number of DYKs we produce which you strangely seem to exhibit some sort of jealousy and contempt for which I find rather pathetic. Above all, our Rosblofnari group work together in good faith to produce an interesting variety of articles for every entity in the world. We work together in a good, collaborative spirit and try to rub that off on others and try to help other editors out with their proposals and however much you do profess to improve DYK quality your attitude at least to us is not what I'd expect of an atmosphere in which everybody helps each other out. I'm very disappointed in you Orlady, given that I had a lot of respect for you and always assumed good faith, which was why it took me so long to speak up about it, but when you insulted us claiming we only cared about DYK count not quality that was the last straw. And it's not as if we're the only victims of your bullying, the copy editing thread further up the page somebody notes how you degraded a contributor by comparing his work to an 8th grader. As somebody said about Orlady "Comments like "Excuse me for assuming competence on your part" and "if I wrote like that in my 8th grade English class, I would have had red marks all over my paper" by User:Orlady on that DYK review are profoundly unhelpful and inappropriate for a collaborative project. (On a separate topic, the prose really is not so disastrous at all - no comment on the now-possibly-fixed close paraphrasing issues.) Possibly Orlady didn't intend them that way... who knows." My sentiments exactly.
Can I just remind you all here that none of us have to contribute to wikipedia much less to DYK. I've long wanted to focus on GA articles myself, but at present DYK seems the only mechanism in which we can work together to produce a series of organized articles together and try to tackle systematic bias and "open up the world". I created my project to better organize our work and keep tabs on everything. If you don't respect us and see our many contributions to DYK as a good thing then that's your problem, but none of us are being paid to produce what we do so you should be grateful rather than hostile towards our efforts. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This whole thing seems like a huge case of WP:GAMING; as an otherwise uninvolved editor, the WikiProject makes me rather uncomfortable and strikes as a more extreme version of a problem we have at WP:NPP - people trying to get a "high score" with little regard for anything else. I would bring this whole thing to WP:AN or WP:DRN, since Blofield seems to be doing the wikipedia equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and going "NANANA YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO". I might actually do it myself when I'm a little more awake.
I do agree with Orlady, mass-producing poor new articles (that have only been researched for 20 to 30 minutes?) for the express purpose of garnering DYK credits is rather gross behavior on the parts of everyone involved with that WikiProject.--TKK bark ! 13:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
From the person that gave us the ground-breaking brilliance of this near-FA rated magnum opus, I take it you're joking, right? - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
for the express purpose of garnering DYK credits. Species articles, especially for obscure species, are frequently short. I also have no intention of nominating that (or any of the other Cotinis species articles, for that matter) to DYK. You've missed the point entirely. --TKK bark ! 19:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I've not missed the point at all: Cotinis subviolacea isn't "short": it's such an utter joke it's ridiculous! It's worthy of half a dozen tags being slapped on it, but I'm afraid this rather silly little posse would probably get panties so bunched up they'd go running to ANI complaining about being pointy - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That you only think that I exist on wikipedia to get a high DYK score is beyond laughable and indicates that you clearly have little experience of my work or me as an editor. Come back here after reading the entirety of User:Dr. Blofeld/DYK and my featured and good articles on my user page and if you still really think that all those articles were written for a cheap credit rather than a love and care for decent content and addressing systematic bias then you have no place existing on wikipedia. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for thinking this♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld
I don't have to read your essays when I can scroll through your WikiProject page and read guidelines that suggest that you have a desire to flood DYK with mediocre-at-best articles. There's a distinct difference between nominated a handful articles and nominating dozens. Also, WP:DWIP.
Don't tell me I should be ashamed of my opinions on anything, because I am not, and no amount of you telling me that I "have no place existing on wikipedia" will make me leave. --TKK bark ! 19:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You're barely out of nappies, you wouldn't know how to identify or write a good article if becoming an adult depended upon it. I can guarantee that the very worst of our DYK articles will be of higher quality than this particular masterpiece put it that way. Why is it the editors who do the least amount of quality work on wikipedia always feel it is their place to denounce the quality and editing of others. If you think a DYK credit is that valuable you know very little about editing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Really, is bringing my age and an article I made five years ago into this is the best you can do? As far as good articles, see Whippet and Bedlington Terrier, both articles that I rewrote, singlehandedly, nearly from scratch to GA status. You are being disgustingly rude and if this is how you are going to interact with editors outside your little posse, then I'm sorely disappointed. --TKK bark ! 21:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps if you refrained from labelling the work of the most productive editor on the website as "mediocre at best" and just shut your mouth about issues which don't concern you (you're not even a DYK contributor) and got on with editing articles on dog breeds things would be sweeter for you. If you insist on turning up here and telling me that I only contribute to wikipedia as a gamer who only cares about DYK count, count yourself lucky I didn't say anything harsher as in my book that's one of the most insulting, rudest comments anybody could say about me on wikipedia given what I've done here...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Tikuko, I would not call Bedlington Terrier a GA. You seemingly ignored my review which was extremely rude of you. People like you who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! -- CassiantoTalk 20:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what should be said here, but if the source of this disagreement is the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Mink industry in Denmark, then I'm afraid to say that I think the nominators have only themselves to blame, because it's clear from that discussion that at least two well-credentialled reviewers found multiple problems with the article, including close paraphrasing, factual errors, meaningless sentences and poor organization to name just a few. Nominators remain responsible for ensuring the quality of their submissions and it's hardly appropriate to be trying to pass the blame on to reviewers for identifying the outstanding issues when they fail to do so. Get your article right in the first place and you have nothing to fear from reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

FTR, Dr. Blofeld is also concerned about Template:Did you know nominations/Eagle Peak (Wyoming). --Orlady (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and most of the issues with that article were caused by DYKs own petty rules...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I don't think you've ever said a kind word about me, so what you say is quite frankly irrelevant, you've always been a disgruntled, odious fellow who few people like. None of us are disputing that the article had issues or that anybody was wrong to identify them, but the point is that Rosie tried hard to address the changes and Orlady continued to stall the nomination and make a mountain out of a molehill. You know my opinion of DYK and people like yourself, and the only reason I contribute is for content and collaborating with a bunch of good editors, not for getting a cheap DYK credit, or winning the approval of self-important "well-credentialled" dinosaurs like yourself. I am fully aware that my DYK collaborative work doesn't represent my best quality work, but if you think that we don't care about accuracy you're most mistaken. But there is a difference between constructive criticism and endless badgering over content. Certain reviewers on here seem to like picking holes in articles rather than helping solve whatever they seem problematic themselves. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Really surprised to see this here, and hence commenting. In my view, we are lucky to have someone like Dr. Blofeld who bothers with the DYK's. I don't think receiving "DYK credits" is the point here, the point is to expand new articles and his "group" is doing a fabulous job of that. --smarojit HD 17:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear you think I'm a "dinosaur", but if by that you mean I insist on reasonable standards, guilty as charged. Regarding your professed lack of interest in DYK credits, I might remind you that you are under no obligation to submit your articles here - you can still have the satisfaction of contributing them to wikipedia without ever venturing to this corner of the project. But if you are going to participate here, then you are going to have to accept review of your submissions just like everyone else. Thank you too for the reminder that we are so fortunate to have your services, but perhaps you could also take a moment to reflect on the fact that you are likewise a beneficiary of DYK contributors like Orlady who selflessly devote considerable amounts of their time and energy to the running of DYK and to reviewing of others' submissions, and without whom there wouldn't be a DYK project for you to participate in at all. I'm also happy to hear, BTW, of "the quality of [your] writing", but would prefer to see a little more evidence of that in your DYK submissions, some recent examples of which have not been so impressive. As for the "hostility" toward you, quite frankly I can't recall ever having a dispute with you at all, at least before this last post of yours, let alone holding a "grudge", so unless you can provide me with some evidence for that, I must assume you are mistaken. Gatoclass (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You've not taken too kindly to me Gatoclass since I once spoke out and agreed with Sandy Georgia and Tony that DYK is in need of reform. I remember that you didn't like what I said and you fully defended DYK. Since, I've noticed that you seem to display contempt towards me and whenever you get the opportunity you speak lowly of my work and how wonderful people like you and Orlady are for running DYK. DYK rejects quality articles like Marrakesh in favour of the more basic obscure articles, less to review, easier to process. DYK is not about quality, never has been, but showcasing recent expansions and what wikipedia editors are working on. Articles I've put more time and research into for DYK usually cause the most problems. I think that says a lot about the process and that reviewers seem to care more about technical issues than actual body of content. If you can't see the difference between constructive DYK reviewing (like Bluemoonset who works damn hard to sort issues out by contacting people and doing his best to help them go through) and certain other reviewers like Orlady with our recent articles who seems to relish stalling them and preventing them from going through then I'm sorry that you truly don't understand the perspective of contributors to DYK who find an excessive, badgering reviewer not constructive and deters them from wanting to contribute to it. A few of my friends on here don't contribute to DYK because they found the reviewing environment hostile.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I've never held grudges against anyone merely for advocating reform here, and could hardly do so since I have initiated many reforms and attempted reforms myself. So again, you would have to show me some actual evidence of where we had a dispute.
The rest of your post is mostly generalizations which can be of little benefit to discuss, I prefer to stick to specifics. The "Mink industry in Denmark" nom clearly had numerous errors which needed attention, and regardless of how you might feel about Orlady or her reviewing style, the responsibility is still on the nominators to fix the issues identified. Other than that, this is probably not the best venue to continue a discussion of this type, if you have more to say you might want to take it to my talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm utterly staggered by the utter lack of good faith shown here to a respected editor like Dr. Blofeld and by people who really should know better. Orlady, you're taking a rather shabby stance here. I'm hugely glad DYK is an area I don't have to go anywhere near: such a petty and toxic environment is not a place I'd want to spend any time in. - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm staggered too. Gobsmacked, even. The 20 to 30 minutes of research and editing bit blew my socks off. And calling Gatoclass a dinosaur... Manxruler (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

20-30 minutes work per editor, there's 3 in our group and often 4 or even 5 people contribute. On average that's at least an 1hr 30 minutes work into each article. That's somehow gross laziness and makes you gobsmacked?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

90 minutes total, researching and editing; yes, that does leave me gobsmacked. That's not a basis for a proper article at all. Manxruler (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles on ships maybe. I've written GAs in about 2 hours.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Research and all, of course? Manxruler (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That is around how much time I spend on short articles and Blofeld's DYK articles are much longer than that. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Pre or post guidelines to "...keep DYKs as simple and minimum/efficient as possible"? I still find it shocking to actually plan on making such a minimal effort. Manxruler (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Not really. Articles we put the most effort and work into are not welcome usually, and articles with minimum work which are technically sound are generally approved. It's simply a reflection of the DYK system on which articles are preferred. Do you think that Ivan Sidorenko isn't a "proper article". Because that sort of length would be the minimum we'd go for. I could write up an article of about that length in about half hour. It is a decent start for DYK at minimum anyway.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow, it's been a long time since I looked at that. So you could write that up in half an hour, research and all? Those are quite some skills you have there. Manxruler (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, look through User:Dr. Blofeld/DYK. There's a quite a few like that. Admittedly we sometimes rush and try to cover too much, but the content is generally OK and the choice of articles are usually quite an exciting mix. If you really look through the lot, you might understand better why I find is difficult to accept comments which infer that I somehow don't put enough work or effort into wikipedia... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I've never denied that you have had quite a number of DYKs over the years, several of which I've found interesting to read, what I'm saying is that if you're serious in spending that short amount of time on each article, then that's one recipe for poor quality. It's not just about articles being such and such a number of characters that worry me, it's the research bit. That's bound to suffer. Also, like Tikuko said, nice job digging up five year old articles. Manxruler (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Grenada National Museum. That sort of length. Short but sweet.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the sound of this one bit. Tony (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If this whole lark isn't about producing the maximum number of DYKs that will sail through reviews with the fewest questions asked, I honestly don't know what it is. We all know it's possible to create good articles without ever submitting it to DYK, and if they are genuinely not seeking either a DYK credit or having their article on the MP, they should put their money where their mouths are (and bypass the "odious dinosaur reviewers" at DYK) instead of blasting others for detecting their own cut corners. And we must seriously ask ourselves if it is desirable for a cabal that has this as a mission statement, that then criticises fellow DYK editors and reviewers for at least trying to do a decent job. I mean DYK has now long had a reputation for sloppy work here that isn't bad enough for some – with the vitriol we see above in this section alone. It sends the clear message that we want sloppy reviewers, and fewer of the sort that asks questions and want to ensure there are fewer articles on the MP that cause the project embarrassment. This is more of the sort of stuff that will hasten DYK's exit from the MP. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Perhaps if you refrained from labelling the work of the most productive editor on the website (citation needed)"... SL93 (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I am deeply unimpressed by both the posts to Orlady (it isn't reasonable to try to see off potential reviewers) and by the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rosblofnari#New DYK guidelines for maximiding efficiency. When I review, I like to be helpful but maintain decent standards and I believe that is in the best interests of the DYK project and the submitter (whether or not they would prefer a rubber stamp, and I am not saying that is what the Rosblofnari group seek, I am just speaking in general). I support rejecting articles that are far from comprehensive as I noted in relation to some of the "crime in ..." articles recently. An article doesn't need to be a GA but it shouldn't have obvious holes either. Knowing of these guidelines exist hardens my resolve to check any nomination I review for adequate coverage of the topic. EdChem (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ladies and gentlemen, no fighting... this is the war room.
  • Now, all jokes aside: There is, per the supplementary guidelines, an expectation that an article will appear reasonably complete. This is not a criteria that all articles have to be C-class or higher, but it is an expectation that one will put a reasonable amount of effort in finding sources. That an article takes half an hour to write is not extremely odd (Gagak Item, in its DYK form, took about that much time including research). However, to deliberately aim for the least amount of work possible is not in the DYK spirit, and it certainly doesn't help promote DYK as a viable main page section.
Secondly, this "Wikiproject" should pay attention to close paraphrasing issues. In my last collaboration with the editors in question, William P. Didusch Center for Urologic History, I found while reading and expanding that they seemed to have been copying from sources then paraphrasing (sometimes well, sometimes not) to avoid copyvio issues. Little signs were there: slanted rather than straight quotes, a couple of odd terms which were in the sources but could have been expressed otherwise, and whatnot. As Nikkimaria has removed several of this group's articles in the past month for close paraphrasing concerns, I think this is still happening. It should not be: read first, comprehend, then write in your own words.
Third, Orlady is entirely within her right to withdraw from reviewing articles by any editor she chooses, as are all other DYK reviewers. I would not necessarily have suggested posting that here, but to make a conscious decision is well within one's rights. To be honest I've been trying to avoid this group's nominations as well owing to likely close paraphrasing issues and sometimes confrontational behaviour; there are a few other editors whom I have avoided for similar reasons, though most are not contributing any more.
Can we please just stop the arguing and go back to writing? I am not questioning the value of Rosblofnari's work (I agree they are some of the most productive editors on this site in terms of quantity), but the way in which they approach article writing may need reconsideration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to prolong this discussion unnecessarily either, but I think a couple of points need to be made. Firstly, it seems clear that a number of our most experienced reviewers have had growing concerns over the quality of some recent submissions from the "Rosblofnari" team. Hopefully the team will take these concerns on board and reconsider their methodology, because while a desire to increase the quantity of contributions is commendable as far as it goes, it won't be a service to the project if it's coming at the cost of basic accuracy and reliability. Secondly, I am concerned at the number of reviewers who have expressed a disinclination to continue reviewing the submissions of the group - you are correct Crisco to say that Orlady or any other user has the right to do so, but if anything seems clear from this discussion it's that these submissions are going to need closer monitoring, not less, and I certainly don't want to be left as the only non-QPQ reviewer covering them. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • True... true... though a bit of "hard love" (i.e. not allowing reviews to go on forever after close paraphrasing is found) may be necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've lost me as a contributor to DYK, I'm not going to let my name be dragged through the dirt any longer and associated with what the majority appear to consider to be crap that is produced here. Working for DYK is as the janitor is to the corporate fat cat. I'm proud of the range of articles we've produced for DYK and regardless of what anybody says here they're generally pretty decent and interesting articles. Nothing will take that away from us. But I've long wanted to focus on the sort of work which matches my ability as a writer, which is more rewarding for me, but the fact that not a single long-standing DYK contributor could defend us here and each of you seem to speak of us as a pain to DYK and that you only associate us with negative attributes is sufficient persuasion for me that we are wasting our time nominating articles for DYK. DYK is badly in need of replacing with a more exciting way of encouraging content and why the hooks? Name me a writer who truly cares about the majority of the boring hooks and trivia going through every day. DYK has always been about showcasing what editors are working on, not the best of wikipedia. There is an argument to be made that the main page should only be reserved to the best quality work and I happen to agree with it. The way DYK functions at present which encourages mass production rather than quality will continue to cause all sorts of problems. Good luck with continuing to run this and I hope you somehow attract better contributors than myself to it. Thankyou Orlady for reminding me of what is important to me on wikipedia. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"they are some of the most productive editors on this site in terms of quantity"... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
So, in essence, you're assigning blame to the DYK system because it forced you to go for quantity over quantity. Right. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not blaming the DYK system itself for anything, DYK wouldn't run if it wass't for people. I'm thanking you for persuading me to do something I've long felt is the right thing to do. But I have a lot of experience with DYK and I've found that articles which had the most effort and research gone into them usually end up being stalled, while the more basic articles tend to go through quicker, so yes, I'm arguing that the current way in which editors review DYKs encourages the mass production of short, basic articles with no technical issues at the expense of articles of real quality because they're easier to approve and process. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Well it isn't always the case, we've had some long articles go through within a few days and some short ones stalled for over a month. But generally in my own experience those articles with more content and sources tend to be a larger target for issues than smaller articles. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has put a lot of work into an article and found a lot of problems at DYK review.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, which sheds some light on the strange reaction to my review of Template:Did you know nominations/Drug barons of Colombia, where some potential BLP issues were in evidence, and the principal authors didn't seem to think it was their responsibility to review text that was in the article before they expanded it and proposed it for a DYK on the mainpage, to assure that text complied with core policies (like BLP). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The reaction was prompted by the fact that you once spoke ill of me as an editor and a lot of people turned up saying that you were out of order and I didn't want a conflict breaking out between us again for both our sakes, not that I thought your review wasn't valid. With the Drug barons article, yes, information gathered from existing articles to help write it did seem to cause a few problems and also introduced a few sources which we later removed. Anyway Sandy, you'll be glad to know that I've walked out on DYK now, so that sort of thing need not happen again.. But it's an example of an important article which is probably not suitable for DYK... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is probably for the best, given your obvious disdain for this project, together with your growing hostility to the review process and apparent reluctance to perform due diligence on your submissions. Reviewers waste an inordinate amount of time on problematic nominations, so I can't pretend to be sorry over the prospect of dealing with fewer of them. Thank you for your past contributions to this project, and good luck with your future wikicareer. Gatoclass (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't forget that in return I've also reviewed hundreds of articles myself!...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine though. Articles will still get reviewed. SL93 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
When the next ten or twenty finally tire of excessive badgering over reviews and having their work likened to a child, at some point things might not seem so "fine", and I'm willing to bet at some point you yourself will get frustrated with DYK.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
We will see what happens, but you can't predict the future. SL93 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed my name from the DYK leaderboard. Nvvchar is the new "cult" figure and leader of DYK. Our work is important, no matter what holes you pick in it, but DYK really isn't important and articles don't have to go through DYK. If my collaborators still wish to bother with DYK and nominate articles we write together then kudos to them with all the hardship they face, but I want no credit or association with articles as DYKs personally. It's all about content Orlady, that you inferred otherwise at least to me personally is one of the most insulting comments I've ever read on here and really you should have apologized for saying it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 06:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, thank you for starting this thread and pointing out the existence of this extraordinary pump-out-crap page. Dr Blofeld, you say: "Frankly we're sick of reviewers like you moaning about the quality and bloat of expansions, portraying articles with minor problems as disastrous. So from now on we're going to produce new articles which are basic but meet requirements." There needs to be more moaning and more notice taken of it. Tony (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Pump out crap page? I was thinking the same thing about your mouth Tony if you can't see beyond your own snotty-nosed outlook. No there shouldn't Tony. If people are going to consistently moan about quality then I think DYK should be scrapped entirely and replaced with a completely different system which values quality over simplicity with less, higher quality articles go through for longer, not in a hook but article snippet format, with a more welcoming environment than a more hostile environment which you support. Your quest to implement a militarian-type order with DYK is just not compatible with the system that currently functions and your understanding of the situation indicates that you have little experience of how DYK really works and how editors work. That'll reduce the amount of decent contributors and be more likely to only keep those who really care about their DYK count. If you really want to raise standards an article of the month scheme should be introduced which rewards editors for producing the highest quality articles. Bleedin yelling at editors who work in good faith and making them feel like bog standard human beings and contributors is quite frankly a disgusting approach and reflects much about you as a person Tony if you think that sort of approach is constructive. I've supported you on many occasions in the past Tony, but you've really got your wires crossed if you think that belligerent reviewing is somehow the way forward. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that you all disengage from this discussion. From what I can see as a non-participating user both Orlady and Blofeld is right at times and wrong at times and I think you are both strong minded users who obviously refuses to see each others point of views and just goes on with the insults towards each other. Might I suggest that Blofeld perhaps takes a break from adding new DYK noms and Orlady takes a break from reviewing DYK noms. When Wikipedia becomes so important to a user that it feels it is entitled to throw insults at another user for whatever reason it is time to take a Wiki-break. regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


I'm no longer going to have anything to do with DYK, I wish everybody the best of luck, and whatever anybody thinks of me here, I've never once strongly criticized anybody's contributions here or intentionally disrupted anybody out of spite and have done little but encourage productivity here. Please remember that none of us have to contribute to DYK and we work for free. None of the contributors to DYK owe us anything so take it easy guys. Problems with one article is never important enough to deter people from contributing here permanently and I fear that we'll lose many more contributors here. Please try to do your part in making DYK a more friendly place and assume good faith in the work of editors. Adios.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I was sad to see the discussion above. As for me, I have definitely valued many of the articles produced by Blofeld and the group (without taking any sides about the disputed articles) and I thought having a small group project appearead like a good idea and a good way to make Wikipedia more social. It's a sad feature of Wikipedia that so many volunteers often will feel at some point that their effort is not appreciated. (And I see a feature, because I think it often happens without nobody actually wants it to happen, and both side of a dispute can have some of the same feelings of not being appreciated for their work). Best wishes, Iselilja (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Iselilja for being the only DYK contributor to speak up who values our work and our spirit of collaboration.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I was part of the group and miss it, the collaboration spirit and you especially. See you on GA, says GA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I missed the conversation and brewha above but I will chime in that I will miss Dr. Blofeld and his group at DYK. I have reviewed several of their noms and while, yes, some of them have had issues that needed to be addressed before promotion I think that is a due consequence of the sheer volume of noms being produced from that crew. I know that with my own noms and in reviewing the noms of other experienced editors over the course of my 6 year (on and off) involvement with DYK that no one submits perfect articles 100% of the time. If every 7th nom submitted by an editor has an issue, a problematic review will pop up for most editors once every couple of months but for a group of editors that submit several dozen noms a month, of course the occurrence of issues will pop up more frequently just because of scaling.
This is a perspective that both the Blofeld group and other DYK editors should keep in mind. I don't think anyone is deliberately targeting the group's noms for overly critical and pedantic reviewing and I certainly don't think the group produces subpar work that consistently has issues. The vast majority of the group's work is not problematic and is undoubtedly beneficial to both DYK and the encyclopedia as whole. But due to the sheer volume of output, and human nature in general, there will be noms that have significant issues that will need to be addressed before they reach the main page. This is a workable problem (maybe the group should just withdraw the problematic noms if answering the concerns takes too much time away from working on other articles) and one that shouldn't end in a group of valuable contributors abandoning DYK. AgneCheese/Wine 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A pity to see the record DYK creator leave. I wish you all the best with whatever you do in future on Wikipedia. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I wish you the best, Doc. You are someone who takes pride in his work, and you have been a remarkably hard worker in making Wikipedia better (310 DYKs in the first six months of 2013 blows my mind!). On the other hand, some of your recent comments about good people like Orlady and Gatoclass are not among your better moments. Hopefully, a short break from DYK will revitalize you and allow you to return soon as a constructive contributor. A summer stroll away from the confines of the "evil volcano" can do a person a world of good! Cheers. Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not my best moment but it means I'm now free of DYK!! You may believe they're good people, but that doesn't make the sort of things Orlady has said about Grade 8 red marks and us only caring about a DYK credit acceptable or that Gato and the others ganged up against me here somehow their finest moment either. And quite frankly if on both sides people refrained from insulting each other then things like this wouldn't happen. How I act is always a mirror of what is dished out. The real issue comes down to lack of good faith and the good spirit of collaboration. Agnes summarizes the situation very well I believe, but it is wikipedia community tendency to ignore the positive and focus on the negative, however much the positive outweighs the bad. I don't like being around negative people period. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You've produced some interesting articles about clothing and the like, and I hope that will continue outside of DYK. I'm sorry you decided to take it that way, and opted to bail out. But I guess the ultimate choice is yours. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for enhancement of DYK/Removed

I'm thinking this page would be lot more useful if we included info on the user who approved the submission so we could track which users were making approval errors, and perhaps also the hook promoters as well. If we did this it would be best IMO to put the info into a table with search buttons so patterns could be more easily distinguished. I will probably do this over the next few days if there are no objections, but I'm happy to hear suggestions on what info the table could be used to include. Gatoclass (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I also anticipate resistance / unpopularity, unfortunately. We need to ensure that addressing errors is seen as skill development and quality control rather than criticism / blaming for inevitable and avoidable errors. EdChem (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A Polish Nobleman in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

I asked for this to be featured as a leading hook, with the picture (it's a Rembrandt piece, with a thumbnail that is pretty distinctive). Since my request was ignored by the admin who passed it, I am now asking here for this entry to be withdrawn from Prep 4 and added to another one, as the leading one. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

PS. Also, I think that the passed leading hook for Ivanhorod should be pulled. The problem is the opening "that the now-iconic photograph (pictured)" - yet the "now-iconic" text comes from uncited picture's caption. Nothing in text suggests that the picture is notable in itself. The minor problem of linking to Polish resistance movement in World War II rather than to specific organization (Armia Krajowa) is also worth mentioning, although that by itself is not a major issue here, just a tidbit to possibly fix. I guess that the hook can be fixed by removing the "now-iconic", but the reviewer should be cautioned to be more careful. PPS. Looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Ivanhorod, I see that an ALT1 without the controversial phrase was passed, but admin ignored this and used the non-approved hook, uh... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Ivanhorod: rather than pull, use the ALT1 hook that was preferred anyway by both author and reviewer (me), - actually: I will do that now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. There is no guarantee that every hook with a picture will have that picture in a hook when promoted. Also, I was just promoting what was already approved. It was the responsibility of the reviewer to notice that. SL93 (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the original review never said that there was any controversial phrase. Anyway, no one who submits an image is entitled to that image in a lead hook. The only important thing is clearing the backlog. SL93 (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Both the reviewer and the nominator cannot approve the reviewer's own hook. SL93 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I know that no one is entitled to a picture, but in this case the picture is mentioned in the hook and important. I didn't "create" the ALT1, but only tweaked the original hook, - there is no information in ALT1 that was not in the approved original, therefore it doesn't need an extra reviewer. Please re-install that version, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is the responsibility of the person who promotes a hook to make sure that there aren't any issues with the review and approval, and also to check to be sure which of the hooks have been approved, since not all of them may have. This definitely includes checking the selected hook to be sure its assertions—especially something like "now-iconic"—were backed up by inline source citations. In this case, had the original hook been supported, I might well have preferred it to Gerda's ALT; reading Poeticbent's comment, I would have said he was happy with both versions, not necessarily preferring the ALT, and Gerda's approval merely expresses a preference for the ALT, but does not say it's the only one approved, which I would take to mean that both were included in the tick—the promoter is not required to take the reviewer's choice if more than one hook is approved. Finally, regarding the lead hook request, there is absolutely no guarantee that a nominated image will be chosen for the lead slot. This particular image doesn't speak nearly so well as some Rembrandts we have featured in lead slots, and I would be reluctant to have it moved to a lead position now that it has been promoted as a non-lead. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
In response to Gerda, it it still your hook. In response to BlueMoonset, it doesn't say anywhere that a promoter is responsible. If that was the case, a reviewer would not be needed. SL93 (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Ask BlueMoonset, and be careful with strong phases such as "not true". If a new fact is inserted by an alternative, it needs a new reviewer, not if the facts stay the same. I tried to correct the mistake made when the wrong hook was promoted as simple as possible, - sorry for that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) ps: note that I only changed once the original hook caused problems, - I respected the decision of the promoter to use it before that came up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, no one has an obligation to approve your suggested hook when you already added a tick. SL93 (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You shouldn't have added a tick (an approval of your own hook) to begin with. Also, unlike what BlueMoonset said, DYK rules say no such thing about promoters needing to complete a second review. SL93 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. I approved both the original hook and my simpler wording which didn't change the facts. That simpler wording (ALT1) is not "my hook". I would have become "my hook" if I had added something, and THEN another reviewer would have been needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) SL93, each step of the process is meant to be a check to be sure that problematic hooks and articles don't make it through to the front page. Even the most experienced reviewer can miss something important: the promoter to prep is the backstop to the reviewer, and can send nominations back for further work. (There are a lot of inexperienced reviewers out there; it's even more crucial to look over those before promoting.) The admin who moves a prep to a queue is also a check point. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide says no such thing. SL93 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Sharknado for an example. SL93 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a simple example? I have no time to study that, would have to go to the article and the history of four alternatives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry about this, but I don't think that I can try to explain myself without losing my composure. It isn't because of you, but because Piotrus was complaining about an image and because BlueMoonset is still saying to follow something that is not within the guide on updating preps. He would first need to get consensus to add that to the directions. I don't have to ask the editor anything because I do not believe that he is any better than myself, or what is currently written. SL93 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't want you to lose your composure ;) - I have an easy example, Template:Did you know nominations/Cyberiada (opera), reviewer (not me) saying "I wrote it but it just tweaks the previous, so I don't think needs a 2nd review", but BlueMoonset (correctly) saying that in rewriting, a date was added that was not supported by a source and needed extra review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I have received a response from a frequent DYK contributor. I will not say who as the editor might not appreciate that. His response was that a quick check has been an apparently unwritten rule for a while. I propose that this be added to Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas if that is the case. However, promoters should not be expected to do a deep review. For example, promoters would rightfully not want to review nominations by Blofeld. SL93 (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(You seem to have missed that there is no Dr. Blofeld anymore, nor will there be DYK nominations by the person behind the former name.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't miss that, but he still left earlier nominations behind when he left. SL93 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that last sentence, period. (But yes, I've looked through eight different pages and didn't find anything about people promoting hooks to the prep areas having to check the articles promoted). I think, and I hope others will agree, that a promoter (either prep or queue) should check (at the very least): basic grammatical structure, length, tags (if any), and that the hook fact is supported. These are absolute basics. Close paraphrasing should also be checked, but with a random sample. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I was just taking it from "but it has been an (apparently unwritten) rule for quite a while". I didn't mean anything by it. SL93 (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I see that you're referring to the part about Blofeld's nominations. That is exactly why I said "His response was" in the third sentence. I didn't see how it wasn't obvious that "I propose that this be added to Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas if that is the case." and everything after that was what I said. SL93 (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

My point of all this is that someone cannot lecture a promoter about not checking such things without even stating that it is an unwritten rule. BlueMoonset's edit summary said "keep checking", but there is nothing to check as it is an unwritten rule. SL93 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm leaving to get books to research subjects for Wikipedia articles. The encyclopedia part is the most important thing anyway, not whether a picture is added to a lead hook or not. SL93 (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as a frequent DYK contributor: 1) nom should never add green check marks to his/her own hook 2) a reviewer should always verify that all facts in the hook are backed up by the refs; in this case this didn't happen (no problem - we all make errors - just a reminder to whoever the reviewer was here that they goofed, please be careful) 3) I'd expect any subsequent reviewer to read comments to see if they raise any red flags; I wouldn't expect them to do any deeper review 4) I would also expect that if a nom (like me) asks for an image to be used in the hook that the hook would either be kept a while for that (if there's a queue of such hooks) or (if the image is not appropriate) an explanation would be made why it is. In this case, I - a frequent DYK contributor - made a request to use the picture (I very rarely do so). That this was ignored I personally consider a bit offensive - as in, the promoter didn't bother to read my comments, or didn't think they are worth replying :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Even frequent DYK contributors do not receive extra benefits, but I do agree that a consensus could probably be formed about "if a nom (like me) asks for an image to be used in the hook that the hook would either be kept a while for that (if there's a queue of such hooks)". SL93 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I just thought that editors would rather not wait a long time for their hooks to be promoted, just because of a picture. SL93 (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
My personal thoughts on User:Piotrus's points: #1: If the change to the hook is merely grammatical, that is, it presents exactly the same information in a manner that is easier to read, then there is no problem with the reviewer still approving the nomination. #2: Of course a reviewer should always verify the facts are backed up, it's in our rules. #3:Subsequent reviewers should carry out a full review if they are going to approve, or reject the hook; how do they know nothing has changed since the initial review? #4: Nominator requests are merely requests; there are lots of hooks, and lots have pictures. In my opinion, any hook that is nominated with a picture is requesting the use of that picture. Requesting that the picture is used is tautological, and I don't take it into consideration at all. The most interesting hook, or hook with the most interesting picture is what I select (along with a few other factors about not repeating similar images to the last couple of runs etc.) Harrias talk 18:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I resent the attitude of User:Piotrus in this thread. He's an experienced Wikipedian with whom I happened to have worked for years proving the utmost value and reliability of the material I add to this encyclopedia. Piotrus should have asked me to supply additional third-party reliable sources instead of bitching about choices which are not his to make. The photograph is iconic, no question about it. I added more proof, as soon as I run into this conversation. Our top DYK volunteers deserve full credit for their editorial work. I respect their decisions, and have never asked anybody for the lead placement myself, because new entries should speak for themselves. Poeticbent talk 18:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, User:Poeticbent, I must have missed your name as the nom in the DYK page; othewise I'd have notified you. I thought I did notify the nominator, obviously I was wrong. (That said, I still would've listed the issue here, in case you couldn't reply before the featurette). And, uh, I still don't see a citation for an iconic - the quote is about an old man crying at an exhibition. What am I missing here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Look again. The reference with quote from Professor Daniel Goldhagen about the "iconic" photograph from Ivanhorod is already there. I think we all need to give ourselves more credit then we do. Poeticbent talk 21:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I took it upon myself to try to overlook all the expressions of entitlement, hurt feelings, and other pettiness in this discussion, and evaluate the hook and image on their merits. I decided that it's a fine example of the kind of content we need in the image slot (a fine image and a hook that becomes much more interesting when it is associated with an image), so I swapped it into an image slot in the prep area. --Orlady (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Good move, thank Orlady. By the same token, would you please reinstate the phrase which (on similar premise) makes another hook that much more significant? It is supported by reliable third party source quoted with an inline citation: "the now-iconic photograph" removed in Prep 4. Right now the hook is located at Template:Did you know/Queue/6. Thanks. Poeticbent talk 00:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK Prep Guidelines

In re to the above Polish Nobleman issue, SL93 is absolutely correct about one thing. If it is the promoter's responsibility to double-check the approved review, then it should be so stated in the guidelines. This discussion has happened multiple times before here. Rather than wait for someone else to do it, or another discussion hither and yon, I added it as N14 on the above-mentioned DYK/Prep areas page. Edit it, improve it, but it's necessary for it to be there. — Maile (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A link to your addition would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse in principle, although the wording and scope could be approved. This is the sort of accountability here that I have long advocated for, and something that could help resolve a number of the recurring issues seen at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the link up there. I don't have a problem with any editor wording it better, should any care to. It just needs to be stated for the record. — Maile (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that this needs to be updated

Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide says that "The image must be protected before it goes live". Images haven't been being protected. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, never mind - Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Harvard ref usage

Passing along a helpful tool for the use of Harvard references in articles. User:Ucucha/HarvErrors explains it. If you have that installed, any article that has malformed Harvard referencing will show the errors in red, big enough you can't miss them. Copy this on your .js user page, exactly like this:


Then save. Might I also suggest that if you find articles that have errors like this, the fix is usually something really simple - the inline citation must be able to find its source you have pointed it to. If you have something in the citation that is not in the source, or something in the citation is off like a missing pipe, it throws up an error. — Maile (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it's a very useful script. I've been using it for over a year now, and it helps me write better articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Pointless hooks

Serious rewording is required, among the sea of garish blue; in some cases, either (1) searching of the articles involved to locate a fact that isn't boring; or (2) removing the article from the list is in order.

... that St John the Evangelist's Church, Corby Glen (pictured), has early 15th-century wall paintings which Nikolaus Pevsner described as "very extensive"?

Why not make it punchier and shorter by removing whoever he is—it's a needless cluttering:

... that St John the Evangelist's Church, Corby Glen (pictured), has "very extensive" early 15th-century wall paintings?

In any case, Pevsner exposes his poverty of critical language in using "very" ... cf the just as invalid "mildly extensive" or "partially extensive"? You might think it's reasonable to bin the quote marks and turn it into adult language:

... that St John the Evangelist's Church, Corby Glen (pictured), has extensive early 15th-century wall paintings?

That's more like it.

... that the Australian Voluntary Hospital was a military hospital in England, staffed by Australian expatriate nurses and medical practitioners, that served on the Western Front between 1914 and 1916?

I suppose the obvious question is why a military hospital wouldn't have nurses and medical practitioners under its roof. And why an "Australian" one wouldn't have Australians inside. Doctors would be neater, yes? But which bit is interesting or surprising, as required by the rules?

... that although Palikir was made the capital of the Federated States of Micronesia in 1989, it is not the largest settlement on the island of Pohnpei?

This is just plain weird. You know, my home town isn't the largest settlement on that island either. Nor is New York City.

... that there were over 2,500 Armenian churches in Turkey before the Armenian Genocide, and fewer than 40 are functioning today?


... that Swedish journalist Elisabet Höglund is a former road bicycle racer?

Um ... who cares?

... that in the film Chupkatha, singer Silajit Majumder made his debut as a film music composer?

Very marginal.

... that the song "Synthetic Substitution" by Melvin Bliss, despite being sampled in over 94 songs, originally started life as a throwaway B-Side?

Grumble: I suppose it passes, just.

... that scholars are not sure who is portrayed in Rembrandt's tronie-style painting A Polish Nobleman?

Scholars also aren't sure of a lot of things. Like what brand of deodorant I use. Why are negative statements suddenly appearing as hooks?

... that the pilot for Devious Maids was aired on Lifetime after ABC declined to pick it up?

Again, negative; is there an interest factor in a show being picked up by one network after another declined??? I'd have thought it wasn't too uncommon. Tony (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we should follow your thinking ALL hooks are pointless or dull. I mean come on, give yourself a break.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This is nitpicking. You are not the final authority on what is interesting or not. SL93 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
If that's your attitude and it's shared by other DYK regulars, there is no hope for this forum. Tony (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright. Believe that. I don't really care. SL93 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
But SL93, I do care about DYK. Tony (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I do care about DYK, but I don't care about your belief because the future cannot be predicted. SL93 (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the Australian hospital one is actually the most interesting of this batch - that the authorities used Aussie doctors and nurses to treat Australian patients, rather than let British or French doctors do it, is really weird when you stop to consider it. Of course, this begs the question of how the building managed simultaneously to be located "in England" and "on the Western Front", as stated in the hook, but that's a different matter. (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No, Babba: I didn't quote the ones I think are good. Sometimes every hook in a prep area will be pretty good. The hospital one: I didn't look at any of the articles, and I'm hoping that the wording can be rationalised (perhaps with a new factoid from the article, perhaps not) in a way that conveys this interest rather than appears to state the obvious. This is one of the more interesting challenges of DYKing. Tony (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
But you could stop for a moment and consider the fact that someone has obviously found these hooks good enough to be featured on the main page of Wikipedia. Just a suggestion. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that a number of the points made by Tony are nitpicking, but there is nothing wrong with that; we should strive for the highest level of quality possible. I think Tony will accept that he is not the final authority on "interesting-ness" but that does not mean we should ignore his help, as bluntly phrased as it may be. I'm just having a quick browse through between work projects at the moment, but if these points are still outstanding later, I'll try and have a further look at trying to resolve them as best possible. Harrias talk 16:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, and maybe a few points I've made could be argued against—but might all the same prompt nominators to search for the best hook material. One general point I got out of looking at these hooks is that some are stuffed full of information, and that this might make the task of making the hook punchy and easily digestible harder. The Australian hospital one is a point in case: can a few items be stripped out of it to expose the essence of the hook "message"? Tony (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunatly nitpicking is nitpicking... it isnt something positive even though it could potentially lead to something positive. Nitpicking is in most cases percieved as rudeness and " I am better than you" mentality. I do not think Tony would have reacted kindly to similar remarks had it been the opposit. Just being real. I am trying to just politly point out that if there are problems with a few hooks bring it up at the hooks talk pages or similar. This is my final comment on this thread.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not polite at all. And worse, it's detracts from the kind of attitude that DYK needs to evolve, to improve, to fulfil its mission. That is, it needs to react more positively to critiquing. To return to the hooks: the point of the Palikir one is really hard to detect because of the setting up of "the FS of Micronesia" against "the island of Pohnpei" ... we have to think hard to unravel it: "that although Palikir was made the capital of the Federated States of Micronesia in 1989, it is not the largest settlement on the island of Pohnpei?" Could it be simplified, perhaps? "that Palikir was chosen as capital of the Federated States of Micronesia over the largest settlement, X?" (Was there upset, complaining? I'd work that in in a few words if it was the case.) Tony (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC) And a quick look at the article gives the cue:

"that Palikir, formerly a tiny village, was made the capital of the Federated States of Micronesia over the largest settlement and previous capital, Koloni?" Tony (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And there's an apostrophe blooper that needs fixing in the article. Thanks. Tony (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, the attention of a reader is attracted by information that is surprising and unexpected and unlikely. The skills needed for identifying such information might be possessed by a statistician or an actuary or a bookmaker.
Wavelength (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
As usual, Tony is pushing his personal POV on what makes for good hooks. I guess it's Friday. It must be very rewarding being able to know without a shred of doubt what the English-speaking portion of the world's population finds interesting. And, having determined clearly what the majority likes, it must also be nice to be so easily able ignore what the minority might find interesting. Manxruler (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
We see that the leopards haven't changed their spots, which is sad. I'd hoped for slight movement in the DYK culture over the past few months. Tony (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Tony, why not write a new essay on "how to write a great hook"? Once people get used to it, why not incorporate it into the instructions? I see now that this was attempted at Wikipedia:How to write the perfect "Did you know" hook. How about rewriting and updating it? It's pretty damn old. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Instructions are at Wikipedia:Did you know/Hook.
Wavelength (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

FTR, Tony is entitled to identify what he thinks are substandard hooks just like any other user - just as long as he does it in good faith and not merely as a means of attacking DYK. Let's not forget that as a general rule, the more people vetting the queue, the better the quality of the end product. Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

FTR, Tony could think about his tone when he presents his good faith suggestions about the hook. Overall I have seen that the user tends to indirectly write "you all are idiots and I am right" but ofcourse not meaning so but it comes across very aggressive. He could do well to be reminded of that at times.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
His tone seems fine to me, and I share his concerns. I will say, however, that most DYK hooks are pretty good. I think what happens (and I am totally guessing here) is that there are days (involving multiple queues) where the hooks are quite weak, and that might have caught Tony's eye. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


I have a suggestion, wouldn't it be a good thing to have a talk page Category for all articles that has appeared at the DYK section. Something like Category:Articles that appeared in the Did you know section, for the talk page of each article. Because if an article appear at DYK it means it has a certain standard that some users might be interested in. Just a suggestion. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. It could be built into {{dyktalk}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I remember trying to look for such a category when I first participated in DYK and I also remember being surprised that it didn't exist. SL93 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
May I then suggest that we do this immediatly so it just not dies out as yet another suggestion. I think that would be really good and important. My only concern is how we should add this Category to articles that has already appeared at DYK. And as I am not the best editor when it comes to this I would like for anyone else to create this Category and let me know when it is done. Would be appreciated so we can get started with adding this category from now on. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
So... like Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles? A hidden, talk page category, with over 62,000 members, that is built into {{dyktalk}}, and was made in 2008. Chris857 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is it hidden? What is the point in that? Then I suggest making that into what I suggested earlier..more public.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, is there a way to add the "Contents" box at the top of it, like the one on Category:Hidden categories — Maile (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
As expected every suggestion made here just dies out and users forget about it just as fast as they have responded.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

They just go straight through despite review suggestions

It's like a faulty toilet that slowly gushes water down the drain. I see that two hooks I've critiqued above have gone through into queue 5 unchanged:

... that the Australian Voluntary Hospital was a military hospital in England, staffed by Australian expatriate nurses and medical practitioners, that served on the Western Front between 1914 and 1916? ... that although Palikir was made the capital of the Federated States of Micronesia in 1989, it is not the largest settlement on the island of Pohnpei?

Now, someone tell me how a hospital "serves" on the Western Front? Isn't it people who do that? And I went to considerable trouble to suggest a much better hook for Palikir—ignored without comment. Who was the promoting admin?

And I note a disturbing xenophobic pattern of screeching back at anyone who comes here criticising (and suggesting improvements). It's a strategy of personalising: please see the pretty nasty, aggressive comments about me above. But I have a shield, so it doesn't put me off; my concern is that other editors might suffer the same blasts of indignation. Tony (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

And what a joke this forum is: the apostrophe howler in Palikir still hasn't been fixed, despite my bothering to post here about it. Tony (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The feathers and tar will be ready for you shortly. In the context of the Australian Voluntary Hospital, "hospital" is a military unit, and not a building. We often say that military units serve or fight in battles, campaigns and wars. It is what we call a collective noun. Similarly (and this probably accounts for the confusion above) "Australian Voluntary Hospital" was not, as you seem to have assumed, a description of the unit, but its formal, official name. Hence the capitalisation. It is what we call a proper noun. Face-grin.svg Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Tony, I don't think people would "screech back" at you so much if you didn't have a habit of getting your facts wrong when complaining about hooks. The above is a case in point. Do you think you could do a bit more research before complaining in future? It would save a lot of trouble and avoid some of that screechiness you understandably dislike. Prioryman (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, which facts are they? Tony (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, only an admin can promote a prep area into the queue, and there are instructions for doing so. Could we add to those instructions a reminder to check WT:DYK for discussions of issues with hook in that set? Better yet, could there be a way of noting at the top of a prep area that someone objects to its promotion? That way, when (say) Tony posts a long note on two prep areas, he could edit those two areas to note an unresolved query so that the promoting admin comes and checks on the issues before going forward with putting the set into the queue. Is this a viable approach? EdChem (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that would be practical. Discussion of an item should be on its own page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, what I was thinking is something like this:
  1. When the set is prepared, a note is left at the top of the prep area that it is ready for promotion
  2. If someone raises an issue here, they also change the note to say that there is an open discussion
  3. When the person who raised the issue is satisfied s/he may change the note back to ready for promotion; failing that, once consensus is reached it may be returned to 'ready for promotion'
  4. In the absence of responses to the issues raised or in circumstances of urgency, the promoting admin may consider and respond to the issue and then immediately promote the set to the queue.
I agree it is more cumbersome but I can see how issues raised here once hooks make the prep areas can otherwise be missed / lost. EdChem (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps what we need is a permanent "Hook queries" or "Hook errors" on this page where such issues can be posted, with an instruction to promoters to check it before they promote. Prioryman (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have trimmed the "Australian Voluntary Hospital" hook of extraneous information. I agree the "Palikir" hook is rather weak but I can see some problems in Tony's suggested alts, so I have left it unchanged. If there's a wayward apostrophe in the article somewhere, it would be far faster for you to fix that Tony than to continue to complain about it here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony, looks like the apostrophe blooper is fixed. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing, Rosie. Gato, rather than fix it directly I brought it up here to remind the forum that articles aren't been checked properly for obvious issues before being moved to the queue. Tony (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I have also now given a tweak to the Palikir and journalist hooks you mentioned. Gatoclass (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony: as far as I can tell, you made your suggestions at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Pointless hooks. The nomination pages for those hooks are at Template:Did you know nominations/Palikir and Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Voluntary Hospital, where as far as I can tell you never commented. It's entirely possible that the people promoting these hooks never saw your suggestions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Thx again to Gato. Tony (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Tony's comment about the hook for St John the Evangelist's Church, Corby Glen. I am making his suggested change. If others strongly disagree, please speak up. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Once again Tony, it is not your suggestions or thinking that is wrong. It is how you present it, your comments at the top looks like you are accusing everyone (except yourself ofcoruse) of being total idiots. I mean if you want to have constructive discussions in the future I suggest a less aggressive attitude when writing. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I ask again

Hi, I have to ask again what should we do about the DYK category that is hidden. What is the point of having hidden categories when for example I am interested in reading other previous DYK mentioned articles. I asked a similar question yesterday got a few responses and then as usual the thread went dead. Come on guys!--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Recent additions? Every article that was ever on DYK is there.
Category:Passed DYK nominations also has thousands of DYKs (starting in summer 2011). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
My concern is that no category is visible on the DYK articles talk pages. What is the point of having these categories if they are hard to find. A visible cateogyr on the talk pages would be preferable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if this were not DYK, I'd say just go over and post at Template talk:DYK talk and ask that coding on Template:DYK talk be added so that when a hook makes it to the Main page, it automatically adds Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles in the category section at the bottom of the article itself. But since things like that need consensus here, I'd say you word it as you choose and put it to a vote. Or, if you feel gutsy, just put in a {{edit protected}} request on the template talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The DYK talk template already places the talk pages for DYK articles in that category. It's a hidden category because categories related to Wikipedia administration and maintenance are generally hidden. Registered users can see hidden categories. Why do you think it should be un-hidden, BabbaQ? --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Babba: Wikipedia:Recent additions, which I already pointed out above, is prominently linked in the banner on the talk pages of DYK articles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
All I have to say is if it is hard for me who is interested in DYK to find this "hidden category" then it is hard for anyone. Why it should be un-hidden you ask.. then I ask why should it be hidden?--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:Recent additions is not a category. We're talking about two different pages. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
You can also go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and tick the box to show hidden categories, then you will see the category on all articles and talk pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
@BabbaQ:, Wikipedia:Recent additions is linked in large bold letters ("Archive", at the bottom of the DYK section) on the sixth most visited page on the entire internet. How much more visible do you want it to be? Mogism (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Something wrong

just below "Articles created/expanded on June 24" - the name & top of a nom is missing, or part of the one above mislocated, or something. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That's Template:Did you know nominations/Tino di Geraldo. Somebody promoted it, and only part of the template got reformatted. — Maile (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
As usual, it's from someone failing to follow instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering what happened. SL93 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nominations needing DYK reviewers

While we have 200 current nominations, 58 of which are approved, we do have five empty queues, and a great many older hooks that are still (or again) in need of reviewing. Thank you as always for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

July 25

Good morning,
in three days it will be the 25 of July, which is the seventieth anniversary of the fall of Italian fascism and Mussolini. I wrote an article about it, and in the related nomination comment I asked if would have been possible for it to be published on that same day. The article in the meantime has been approved, but I am still puzzled about the process: in fact, it is written on the Special occasion holding area lead that one should not nominate articles there. What is then this area for, and how can one signal an article for publication on a special day? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Its just the way you did. Normal submission and approval process. After approval, the nomination is moved to the special area. Only take care to highlight your request more prominently. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Then I think that the the guy who approved it forgot to move it there...should I do it? Alex2006 (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


I have noticed that several articles that has been mentioned at the DYK section has reached the threshold of 5000 views but is not mentioned at the DYKstats page. I have fixed those that I have found but as most articles mentioned at DYK does not reach the views needed wouldn't it be nice to have some better way of keeping track of those few articles that does so they can be mentioned at DYKstats?.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no system in place for doing this, and I don't see the need (as page views mean very little, as there are so many other things other than hook quality that affect page views--time of day and day of the week a hook was run relative to the geographical area in which it is most of interest, presence or absence of relevant current events, whether or not it had a picture, where the hook was in the queue, whether it was part of a 6- or 8-hour update, whether it spanned two days or one, whether it was pulled prematurely). But if you think this information would be useful as data for something, and have an idea how to implement a better way to keep track of views for all DYK hooks (preferably a way that is automated, because I doubt any human will be able to maintain interest in a task like this for more than a few months) you are welcome to try. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I do monitor articles related to Germany, for 3 years, still find it interesting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
But that's just a tiny subset of all the DYK views. Also I don't think collecting this data would be particularly useful unless someone also collected metadata (all the information I mentioned above--some of which could be extracted using automated tools, but much of which would require a person to sift through things; another one I just thought of is the presence of other click-attracting links in the hook)--if all that metadata were also available, someone could potentially run regressions and identify which factors contribute to hooks getting more views. Without that information, I don't see much use for collecting all the DYK views (other than personal gratification), but if someone finds a way to do it I don't see any harm either. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

War War I Centenary

I thought I should post a reminder as we're now approaching the start of the year prior to the centenary. As discussed earlier in the year, there is a nomination page Wikipedia:World War I Centenary/DYK that is intended to work in the exact same way as April Fools nominations - i.e. they are nominated as normal on the nominations page in the main DYK section and then once approved they get moved over to there.

The start date for articles to qualify is the 28th of this month, and the hooks have to be about World War I in some manner or form and otherwise meet the DYK requirements (5x expansion, referencing etc) with the exception of the 5 day rule (although a qualifying article does have to be created on or after the 28th July - so not five days prior to that). I'm also going to post this over at the MilHist Project and see if it can get a mention in the signpost. Miyagawa (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything verified or just the hook?

At User talk:Tigerboy1966, an editor is giving me a lecture because I want everything at Template:Did you know nominations/Lethal Force to be verified. I'm just basing my reviews on what I've seen more experienced reviewers doing. SL93 (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Our rules don't require every single fact in the article to be verified -- only the hook fact. The rules do also require that the article be reasonably well-supplied with footnotes, which creates an expectation of solid sourcing throughout, but not a requirement that all facts be verified.
To my mind, this means that we don't need to delve into every detail in an article, and we shouldn't sweat it if we see details that are plausibly correct but aren't meticulously sourced. Some of my reviews do, however, dig into lack of sourcing for content that's not part of the hook fact. This may happen for a variety of reasons -- for example, when I see article content that doesn't make sense to me (leading me to think that there's an error in interpretation, or that the article needs to be revised for clarity), or when I check sources (either for the hook fact or to spot-check for issues like close paraphrasing) and find that the sources contradict statements in the article. When I see problems with sourcing for content that's not part of the hook fact, I dig deeper because I don't think that DYK should feature articles that have obvious problems.
Some of the horse-related facts that you questioned seem to be based on sport-related statistics. Those sources (and there are similar issues for other sports) don't always make sense to the uninitiated, but specialists can interpret things that aren't obvious to the rest of us. Sometimes we need to AGF the interpretations made by specialists in articles about sports, same as we might AGF a translation of a foreign-language source. I haven't delved into it, but the amount of sourcing and the types of sources cited in that Lethal Force article look OK to me. --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The main page says different - Articles for DYK should conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright." SL93 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't just statistics. It did not say that he "ran four times as a two-year-old without winning and how the horse began racing, it did not say that he was "one of the leading sprinters in the world", it was not said that Adam Kirby rode him for the first time, and a quote is not cited. SL93 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The four losing races as a two-year-old and the first race with Adam Kirby riding him are included in this race record. The "leading sprinter" fact is supported by this source in the article body. (Facts in the lead section generally aren't footnoted, since the lead is merely supposed to summarize the body.) I don't see any unattributed quotations in the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
"I'm really, really pleased. We've always had a lot of respect for this horse and, to be fair to him, he's always ran his race without ever winning", while Cox commented "I'm thrilled for everyone. It's just amazing - this is what it's all about. Adam is such a brilliant rider, but it's fantastic for the whole team at home. When he sent him on, it was explosive." SL93 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a problem. The quotations are cited to footnote 16. I found them there.[1] --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
One of the world's leading sprinters cannot be inferred from the body. SL93 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The article body says "Following the race, Lethal Force was rated the best sprinter in the world following the retirement Black Caviar" and the statement is sourced. --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright, but there were other things that the creator fixed which were indeed not referenced. Also, if only the hook needs to be verified, I suggest removing it from the DYK main page. SL93 (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, so there were other errors that were fixed. That's good. At this point, the article deserves to be given a passing review in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but only when the quote is fixed. SL93 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The quotations are appropriately cited. --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright. I passed it. SL93 (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

First, the DYK rules do say that articles must conform with core policies, but second, how can reviewers ascertain that expansion or length rules are met if the text has been expanded based on non-reliable sources? In one instance, a DYK ran on the mainpage that didn't even meet notability, because not a single reliable source existed. When text is padded up based on blogs and other non-reliable sources, expansion and length are not met; without at least some look at the sourcing, reviewers cannot be saying that DYK rules are met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Then it needs to be clarified instead of being catch all. SL93 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Orlady, I saw the dispute heating up on Tigerboy's talk page and just went over that article (I'm a member of WikiProject Equine and WikiProject Horse racing) As someone who has never saw that article before, it clearly passes DYK as I understand it (BTW I have over 30 DYKs with QPQs and created over 176 articles, plus have multiple GAs and FAs, just FYI). Tigerboy1966 is a very experienced wikipedia user with far more DYKs and new articles than I have! I reviewed the hook and it's clearly sourced, to reliable sources (newspapers and race reports from respected horse racing data sources, and for a new DYK, it's actually quite well-sourced. SL93 seems to be holding this article to something that isn't even WP:V standard, as when I have reviewed some sources he had issues with, like you just did, they clearly verified what they were supposed to verify (albiet with a lot of abbreviations and jargon typical of horse racing reports). at this point, I don't know if I'm now involved and can't pass it, but it is ready to pass, IMHO. Perhaps you can approve it? Montanabw(talk) 17:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw, there were things that were not in any references which the creator had no problem fixing. SL93 (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny stuff

According to his tweet, Clive Thompson wants a 4,000 word article about Sharknado - On July 11, "I am hoping to wake up tomorrow and spend breakfast reading over a 4,000-word Wikipedia entry on Sharknado." On July 17, "Okay, we're up to about 600 words now: Sharknado … Not enough, people. Not enough." Just thought that I would share. SL93 (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • (He does know that even a featured article on the film would likely top out at 2,500 words, give or take, right?) It's interesting that he's paying attention, I must admit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Increase to eight hooks?

Amount of nominations is around 200 right now. Amount of verified hooks is around 60. If we can't go back to three sets per day, how about eight per set under current trend? --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an increase to eight per set will do much. If we're going to make a change, it should be back to three sets a day. The backlog is quite healthy—well up from the 120s—and it may well be time to start reducing it a bit with 21 hooks a day rather than 14. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Also 8 hooks would demand increase in ITNs or OTDs to balance the layout. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just about to start a new section suggesting we go back to 3 updates a day given the backlog. Good to see it already being proposed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It should probably start after the 4 currently queued sets in the prep area, which may have been done with certain appearance times in mind.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of timed appearances in the prep areas, and there aren't any special occasion hooks noted, so there doesn't appear to be any reason to wait. I doubt anything will need to be moved once the switch has been made; we can take another look then and adjust if necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The evidence would be in people's mindsets. Yes some explicitly timed hooks come from waiting areas. I don't schedule that often, but when I do, I think about which ones would be best US Primetime and which might be best Europe primetime, even though the hooks are suppose to be balanced, some US hooks are more US than others. Honestly, however one of my big hooks is in the prep area now. It got pulled a week ago and with four Lichtenstein articles in it and so many of my Lichtenstein multi-hooks have made the stat archives, it is a surefire 10K view hook if it stays up for 12 hours. Since it got pulled and everyone waited 5 days to reschedule it, I was hoping it would still make the 12 hour display period.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talkcontribs) 20:36, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has enough time to find a suitable hook for a prep area. If we go back to three updates a day, six or seven hooks per set? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

George, there were five full queues before the recent promotion of one of them. We seem to be keeping up, and we have done before with three updates. The switch to two sets a day was never supposed to be permanent. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, sports fans, I've reset User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to an 8-hour cycle. Since we're in between updates, this shouldn't cause any near-term disruption. However, if there are hooks slated for a particular date, their position in the queues may need to be adjusted. --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
After no objection to my comments yesterday, I though we were going to wait until the pre-queued hooks ran.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Tony, I think I expressed my objections to waiting. Nothing you said after that seemed to require a reply. George, we should keep at seven hooks per set; it's better for main page balance. Orlady, thanks for taking care of it. I've just moved the 25 July 1943 hook from Prep 3 to Prep 1; it's the only special occasion hook there, and it will now run in early to mid-afternoon in Europe that day with Queue 3. (I'm not sure whether the sets are going to run fifteen minutes long or short as the bot works to get the rotation back to include midnight UTC, so it'll be either 75 minutes earlier or later than what currently shown when it runs.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:DYK statement should be removed or changed

Ignoring any issues related to the article Lethal Force, I have been told that only the hook needs to be verified. The DYK page says "Articles for DYK should conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright." Orlady and Montanabw said different, that only the hook needs to be verified. Sandy Georgia said that it should only relate to unreliable sources. The sentence either needs to be reworded or removed. I would have no problem having every fact be verified because the rule has been on the DYK main page for years. Please stop the lecturing or change the sentence. SL93 (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I was lectured for not following an unwritten rule when promoting and now I am being lectured for following a written rule when reviewing. SL93 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:DYK#gen4 ("within policy") covers this. If an article doesn't meet WP:V you can tag it as such and point out on the nomination that the article doesn't meet a policy. However, you should note that WP:V doesn't require inline citations in all contexts (inline citations always preferred, but there are only a few cases where they're mandated). In a case where a particular fact was originally sourced to an end-of-article reference but you or someone else comes in and thinks it needs an inline footnote, then the editor should just add the inline footnote. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That says nothing about tagging it. I am really getting frustrated because with this, I apparently need to follow a mix of written and unwritten rules. SL93 (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagging is not a DYK procedure, it's just something I mentioned. If an article has problems that are beyond what you can fix quickly (either because the changes are controversial or the problems are rampant) then you tag the problem, that is just basic Wikipedia know-how. Tagging or not tagging is really not relevant to the present discussion. The rule I was pointing out refers to whether the article meets policy, not whether the article has been tagged as meeting or not meeting policy. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
[EC] Not all rules can be spelled out in precise detail. Some "rules" need to be understood as principles, not merely as punchlists.
The core policies do apply. Regarding verifiability, reviewers should not accept nominations that have identifiable problems with verifiability. However, reviewers aren't expected to go over the article with a fine-tooth comb to verify that every fact in the article is fully supported by correct citations to reliable sources. That's a level of review that is conducted for Featured Article nominations, not for DYK. Additionally, DYK reviewers are expected to check for issues with BLP and copyright. --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that what both you and Rjanag said was in enough detail for what is needed. It doesn't need to be precise. They aren't expected to, but they should be allowed to. SL93 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Orlady. It's not necessary to go through every statement to check WP:V, but it is helpful to scan the sources to make sure there are no blogs, etc and that reliable sources are used. If not, we can't know the article meets either core policies or expansion and length rules. I would add, though, that it is important to look at BLP statements and MEDRS compliance ... we shouldn't be putting anything on the main page that has a BLP vio, or faulty medical info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

25 July again

Sorry to disturb again,:-)
but I just noticed that the queues for July 25th are now full, and my article DYK 25 Luglio, although in the special occasion area, as not been considered for DYK publication...Is there a special reason for that? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to be in Prep 3. Its template just doesn't seem to have been coded to remove it from the Special Holding area. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Like to request a second look

Template:Did you know nominations/Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide was recently promoted. The article appears to be a POV fork inappropriate for inclusion in DYK. 1. The main content (the list) is completely unsourced, 2. There is no real discussion of the subject of the article (other than a claim that newspaper coverage was highest during the genocide and then dipped afterward--but nothing like Press Coverage of Iraq war or other news coverage articles). 3. The sample of titles are skewed to one POV. Let's look at 1922 where the only title included is "The Terrible Turk". Why is that title selected when other "press coverage" includes from 1922 about the Armenian genocide: "Citizens are safe in Constantinople" (Jan 1922- NY Times), "MORE TURK MASSACRES REPORTED IN NEAR EAST" (Feb 1922- Washington Post), "ARMENIANS NOT MASSACRED: Hughes and Davis Report Story of Constantinople outrage False" (I am disgusted by this early denial, but, April 1922- NY Times), "Quo Vadis?" (April 1922- NY Times). And others. I'd appreciate if some second experienced DYKer checked the article again to make sure they don't think it is simply a POV list. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I promoted it because it didn't seem POV to me. I thought that it just looked like a plain list of press coverage. If the coverage is considered POV, I still doubt that it was meant. Both the creator and the nominator should probably be notified of this discussion. I know that if I was being discussed as inserting my personal viewpoint into articles, I would like to try defending myself. SL93 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I put a notice on the talk page of both. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
(EC) I have pulled the article for further debate. Speaking personally though, I think the hook is sensationalist, and quite frankly I have never seen an article consisting of a list of newspaper articles and I have to question its encyclopaedic value, contemporary newspaper reports are often totally wrong and who decides which reports are added to the list and which are excluded? So yes, I think this one has issues. Gatoclass (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There is also an issue of "newness" on this one. It was created July 1 as a one-sentence lead and a listing of newspaper articles, subsequently expanded until its nom in July 18. DYK says noms older than 5 days can be accepted, but I posted the history stats on the nom template for reference. — Maile (talk) (see was moved from userspace on July 12)— Maile (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if a special case could be made. It was a 5x expansion when it was expanded from the 391 characters that it was on July 12. The current prose size is 2,674 characters, but an exact 5x expansion would have been 1,955 characters. SL93 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is that this July 13 edit should not be included because only wikimarkup was added. SL93 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

July 14 was not an expansion. Only wikimarkup was removed. SL93 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it was moved to mainspace on July 16. SL93 (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the history shows it was moved from user space on July 12. The July 16 move was a move within mainspace to a more article title. — Maile (talk)
  • Perhaps I'm being pedantic but shouldn't there be an inline citation to the hook (the bit about the babies as this is a particularly extreme claim)? It looks as if it is the 1915 press report in the Daily Star of October 22, but that is 'baby' rather than 'babies'. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Unrelated, this is what I like about Wikipedia. I have never heard the word pedantic used, so I looked it up and learned a new word in the process. Related, I'm not sure if the hook can be properly verified now because of the bigger issues. SL93 (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
So, in Wikipedia-Speak, does pedantic mean POINTy? — Maile (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're mentioning that. I don't see anyone trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It was a joke. That obviously just fell flat. At Wikitionary the word pedantic says, "..overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning." Which is what I interpret when people say "that's kind of POINTy", and whoever they're posting for is overly concerned with stuff like that just to illustrate their point. — Maile (talk)
Oh, Ok. I just interpret it as being an asshole. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. — Maile (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's partly my fault. I'm not used to jokes on Wikipedia. The last joke that I saw was my own that I received a barnstar of good humor 2010. SL93 (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim violence in India

Does anyone else want to take a look at this fairly controversial nomination for Anti-Muslim violence in India? Do others agree that ALT2 meets our standards and could run on the front page? Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought the whole article is needed to meet some standard and not just the hook. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I would still like to take another look, but I haven't been able to find much time to devote to this project over the last three weeks or so. Last time I looked I couldn't see too many problems but what I really want to do is compare the article with an existing article, which I think is called "Religious violence in India" or something, to make sure that there isn't too much overlap because if there is the content could not be considered new and the article would therefore not be eligible for DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Fuck it, withdrawn and now archived, DYK can go hang. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A problem article

I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Magdalene (1914 film) for DYK because I assumed good faith that the creator was completely basing it on what was said on offline references. There were parts that were originally sourced to other Wikipedia articles, but I thought of that as a mistake by a new article creator. Since then, the editor added original research based on the online sources that I added, which makes me doubtful of the offline references. The editor also used an edit summary twice which said that he was fixing grammar, but he was actually ruining the grammar. He changed the correction of priviledges to privileges back to the wrong spelling while referring to fixing the grammar in the edit summary. I am very wary of someone reviewing the article and then using AGFtick on the offline references. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, now I see that he is likely a problematic editor. He said that he was fixing grammar when he substantially changed a big paragraph on another article. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I withdrew it. SL93 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Queue and Prep areas look rather empty

Pls load. -- (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


I had in mind that the deadline for DYK nominations was 7 days, not 5. I wanted to nominate Geoffrey Binnie, which was written 6 days ago. Is there any wriggle-room? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's mainly to stop reviewers being overwhelmed, but if you nominate it I'll review it.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead. WP:DYKSG#D9. -- (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you, both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

25 Luglio

Pls remove this hook from the main page. It's on OTD at the same time! -- (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

done. --Orlady (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Orlady! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

How to add to DYKSTATS

I'm not sure how to properly add Sharknado to WP:DYKSTATS. The number of views for July 22, the day that the article was on the main page, was 28,590. SL93 (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Do it boldly, enter in the July section, see how others look, sort by the views. It's sortable by the other elements (views/hour) also. I will watch;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I started filling it out, but I don't know how to find the views per hour. SL93 (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I found out how. SL93 (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not correct. The value to use cannot be determined today. See Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#Rules. I've reverted. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 07:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
What I do is enter the first day, add the correction the next day. What's wrong with that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a special case of an article which has had a very significant number of views prior to the DYK, so one needs to subtract the average of the views from the surrounding days. I guess if you wanted it up right now, you could subtract the previous day's value of 13332, and then adjust it again tomorrow. And here's where I'm not sure how it works in this special case: I think that, depending on the time it ran, there may be an additional adjustment the day after that. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 07:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Special case accepted, but does the "exact" number really matter? If yes, for what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I wouldn't have any idea of what to do. I knew that Sharknado was a new film so would likely receive a lot of views, but I wasn't expecting this. SL93 (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of page views, does anyone else have problems viewing the stats for anything more recent than 22 July? Manxruler (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I noticed that yesterday when I tried to calculate the DYK page views for Sharknado. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Yes. So it isn't just me, then. The counter seems to have been out of order for several days now. Who should be notified? Manxruler (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
That tool goes down periodically; sometimes the stats become available later, sometimes they are lost forever. User:Henrik is (or at least used to be) the person in charge of it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. We'll see what happens. Hopefully the stats won't be lost. Manxruler (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Queue 1

Item 1, Anatomy: "... that the study of modern human anatomy" should be changed to "... that the modern study of human anatomy". It's not anatomy that has been modernised, just how it's studied. (If I've not done this right, I apologise, but I did try). Awien (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • That was perfect. There's another reading possible (as opposed to Cro-Magnons or Neanderthals) but I think your suggestion reads better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Good! And better! Thanks! Awien (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Repetitious hook?

In the Prep 2 hook for The 20/20 Experience: 2 of 2, is it truly necessary to repeat "The 20/20 Experience" three times? Or is the repetition supposed to be the interesting part of the hook? --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I just mentioned it because those are the article titles. SL93 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how it is repetitive because I can't just change the names. I guess that they can be linked like predecessor and concert tour, but I fail to see why it is necessary. SL93 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, shorter is often better (i.e., more effective) in DYK. When I saw the hook in prep, my first inclination was to trim it to read:
That could even be expanded, for example by adding "to begin in October 2013" at the end. --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with it being changed and someone can change it if they want to, but I wasn't sure if it was needed. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Though your hook suggestion sounds better. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 Done -- I edited the hook in prep. --Orlady (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough University of Michigan Trivia

Some U of M (Personal attack removed) keeps putting U of M puff pieces into DYK, which are totally unwarranted, irrelevant and inconsequential. Who is this person and who can put a stop to his antics? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You can see who nominates what by going to Template talk:Did you know.
With the sole exception of Gibraltar-related topics, people can nominate whatever subjects they like, if they meet the DYK criteria. So who can put a stop to University of Michigan topics on DYK? No-one can.
However, if you want DYK to cover a broader range of topics, so that University of Michigan topics are on DYK proportionally less, you can achieve this by finding and nominating new or expanded articles on other topics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, the link I provided above will also lead you to where you can challenge proposed "hooks" on the grounds of not being a unique and interesting fact (thus not meeting a DYK criterion). This seems to be something that needs to be done more often. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no exception for any topic, Gibraltar included. Prioryman (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hadn't seen this til now. I have had 15 DYKs in the past month about various aspects of the U-M women's sports program. All have been on notable topics. Women's sports are sorely under-represented on Wikipedia in comparison to men's sports. I've traditionally written about men's sports and thought it appropriate to give some balance by covering women's sports as well. Everyone finds different topics interesting. Some like mushrooms and birds. Others like old churches. There's room for all notable areas here. Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Odd hook

The hook "... that on the northern coast of the Calayan, war ship Datu Kalantiaw, hit by the Typhoon Clara, ran aground on 21 September 1981, and only 49 bodies were recovered?" currently in Prep 4, strikes me as odd for several reasons. 1. Typo: "war ship" -> warship. 2. Isn't there a "the" missing before "war ship"? 3. The Datu Kalantiaw link doesn't lead to a ship at all, rather to a mythological character. 4. The whole hook sort of doesn't flow all that well, I feel. The hook seems effected adversely by a desire to place the bold hook early on in the hook. Plus, there are oddities in the article itself, like that the Americans "... imprisoned the Japanese prisoners and moved them to camps in Luzon." Manxruler (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, what's "the Calayan"? Manxruler (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I pulled the hook out of the prep area for further discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Calayan, Cagayan. --Orlady (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

boilerplate hook text

I [propose that we change the boilerplate hook text in {{NewDYKnomination}} from:

... that ....?


...that ...'''[[]]'''... ?

since every hook includes '''[[]]'''. Any thoughts? Where is that stored? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That isn't needed because hooks are composed elsewhere, the extra formatting would just get in the way. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I compose them in the pre-populated page created by that template. Where else are they composed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I also compose there, and often forgot to bold the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I misread your post. I'm a little ambivalent about this proposal - it might just confuse some people. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Could it be taken to imply that the DYK article can't be at the end of the hook? EdChem (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess so, but I was thinking more along the lines of some people simply not understanding what the code was there for or what they were supposed to do with it. It also might confuse those whose article titles are italicized or who submit a multi-nom. Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
If they don't undertsnd the wiki code, then they won't be able to mark up the hook in the desired manner anyway. Your latter examples later sound like edge-cases. How often do they occur? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
There are already ellipses in front of the question-mark in the current boilerplate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer to keep the nomination template as simple as possible. I'd venture a guess that all of us have forgotten the bold or the link at one time or another, but those errors are easy to correct. Larger problems are created when nominators insert code that isn't supposed to be there -- and adding codes to the displayed text on the form might cause more of that sort of error. --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Orlady that simplicity is best. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy: I don't have an opinion about whether or not to change this, but to answer your other question, the preloaded template comes from Template:T:TDYK/preload. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wee Kheng Chiang on the Main page - undisputed or uncrowned?

Wee Kheng Chiang is currently on the Main page. The hook claims that he was "described as the "undisputed King of Sarawak"", while the article says that he "was hailed the "uncrowned king of Sarawak"". Which is correct - undisputed or uncrowned? The words are, as far I know, not interchangeable. Manxruler (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to go with the article—"uncrowned"—since this is an offline source. It makes more sense, too. Have you posted this at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, as the top of this page says to with main page issues? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Posted at main page errors. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I didn't. Should've done that. I guess it was seriously late for me when I spotted that. Thanks for going to the main page talk and fixing it. Manxruler (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting it! Good catch. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Always happy to help out. :) Manxruler (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Er yes it is uncrowned, as I have checked after consulting the book again. My bad. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Night of the Scarecrow

My nomination was rejected based on byte size, even though bytes don't matter. I explained that to the editor, and their response was only "If you insist". SL93 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have commented. Usually for an article like this it would not be eligible, but since part of it was removed as a copyvio I think it wouldn't be counted as part of the original article length.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that with Template:Did you know nominations/Duck! The Carbine High Massacre, but it was original research and not counted. I noticed the copyvio, but I was more focused on that the editor was simply basing it on the size of bytes. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
A4 at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines specifically discounts copyvios, so you're right. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
In case other people also have the attitude expressed at that nomination ("DYKcheck says no; long may DYKcheck reign"), please remember: one should always check manually when DYKcheck claims insufficient expansion. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I just did a check. The nom is OK on everything, except SL93 needs to do some checking on the source used. The length and date are fine on that. — Maile (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Resolved It passed. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

While we have 185 current nominations, 43 of which are approved, we do have five empty queues and a couple of empty preps (49 open slots), and a great many older hooks that need reviewing. Thank you as always for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Template talk page too long

Template talk:Did you know, which transcludes every active nomination, is very long, and so slow to load. Can we split it, so that the list of nominations is transcluded on one page, and the "how to" stuff is on another? People wanting the latter should not have to download all of the former. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We could, but the "Instruction" section is not very long and I have my doubts that removing it would make much difference to the page loading time. It loads quickly enough on my PC BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Mine loads fine as well. I think that we would first need proof that it is a problem of the majority. SL93 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Problems that affect a minority are still problems. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
You have that the wrong way wound. Removing the list of nominations would make the instructions much quicker to load. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, you may have a point there. Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Try non-Microsoft browsers. -- (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm using Chrome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Page size is currently 298919 bytes, without images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

An appreciable part of the delay in loading the nominations page is dealing with all the closed nominations in the Older nominations section. If you look at a summary count of outstanding nominations you will find there are (at the time this message was posted) 37 days with outstanding nominations in the "Old nominations" section. Each of those days typically has between 15 and 30 nominations. With most of the dates only a small number of nominations are still visible as completed nominations include a WP:NOINCLUDE instruction to prevent the nomination's text from appearing on the nominations page. The fact that the text is not visible however does not mean it has no effect on loading time. There are typically several hundred closed nominations being transcluded into the nominations page. Each must be accessed from the database and read by the Wikimedia software before it is possible to determine that the transclusion contains no test to be displayed. The process of dealing with a single transclusion is fairly fast, it is the shear number of them needing to be dealt with that caused the slow down. --Allen3 talk 21:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that load times could be a problem (perhaps even a prohibitive one) for editors with slow connections. But on the other hand, the current system (including the way it keeps [invisible] closed nominations on the page) was carefully designed to minimize the amount of edits people have to make when dealing with nominations, and to make the process as simple as possible for people posting nominations, promoting nominations, and archiving nominations. Not having all these invisible closed nominations on the page may involve some substantial changes to the current system. (For example, if we keep basically the same system but manually remove closed nominations from T:TDYK as they get closed, then someone--presumably the promoting editor--would be responsible for deleting the nomination from T:TDYK, and someone--either the promoting editor or the nominator at the time of nomination--would be responsible for putting a link to the nomination wherever we are archiving noms [unless we aren't keeping a separate archive of noms--come to think of it, I don't think we are]. That's one or two extra edits.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not only slow connections (though that is an issue) but also people with low-powered or low-memory machines. If it takes major changes, so be it. For instance, each day's nominations could be on a separate page, and users could then be presented with a calendar-style list to select from. Once things are rearranged, bots should be able to do the necessary grunt work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we fix this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Other considerations

If the process is revamped, perhaps each nomination could be transcluded onto the respective article's talk page? I believe that's already done for GA reviews. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've been thinking of proposing that for some time, "revamped" process or not. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


Can we please edit "Oprah" to say "Oprah Winfrey", as per WP:FULLNAME?--Hell on Wheels (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you post at the main page error section, as instructed at the top of this page, since the Oprah hook is already on the main page (it's the last hook of the set). This requires an admin's help, and more of them monitor there than here. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
No user page, I see - all very mysterious. Could Hell on Wheels be the Phantom of the Oprah? I'll get my coat... Prioryman (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reanimating and resuscitating rodents

Maybe it's just me, but I think that a hook about reanimating and resuscitating rodents is pretty quirky. The Audrey Smith hook is currently in the middle of Prep 2 if anybody agrees that it should be moved into the quirky spot of some set. (I probably shouldn't move it myself, since I reviewed it.) MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 23:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've swapped in one from 4 and moved the Audrey Smith one to prep 1.--Gilderien Chat|Contributions 00:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hahahahahahaha. I didn't see the nom, but the hook is priceless. I only wish we had an image of Dr. Frankenstein bringing a rat to life.— Maile (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see that scientist try her skills on the one I fished out of the Sherman trap I had in the shed. Word to the wise: check them regularly, before mummification sets in. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
"It's alive, I tell you, alive!" Hahahahahahaha. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of DYK review process by Fram

I recently nominated a new article, Footpaths of Gibraltar, at Template:Did you know nominations/Footpaths of Gibraltar. Unfortunately Fram (talk · contribs), who has a lengthy history of opposing Gibraltar-related DYKs, has intervened to post what I can only characterise as a completely specious and POINTy rejection of the article without bothering to assess it against any of the DYK criteria. This is a blatant abuse of process. Could someone else please look at it? And I really think we need to look at how we can prevent Fram from abusing the process again in future. Prioryman (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The problems are with your article and hook, not with the review. Your hook was patently absurd. Note how you mistakenly approved Devil's Gap Footpath for DYK, there claimed that my opposition was not based on any DYK criteria either, and which then got deleted at AfD, but was recreated by you as part of this new article the very same day with the very same text (without any acknowledgment of this though, even though you were not the writer of the original text; you have thus created a copyright violation). The more one looks at this article, the more reasons not to approve it for DYK become apparent; and the more one looks at your involvement with Gibraltar DYKs, the more it becomes apparent that you are the problem here. Please, if you want to claim I'm such a problem, list the Gibraltar DYKs I was involved in, so we can see in how many cases my objections were spurious, and in how many cases they were correct. Fram (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I am frankly disgusted by your continued harassment of editors in this content area. Your original objection to the hook patently ignored the cited source (since when are DYK reviewers allowed to substitute their own opinions for cited facts?). Your claims of copyvio and no acknowledgement are bullshit (Gibmetal77 is credited in the nomination) and I was already discussing the best way of restoring the content history when you stuck your oar in. Prioryman (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I suppose you mean the VOX source (it is rather unclear which source is supposed to support your hook)? It doesn't make the claim your hook made, with good reason; it would, like I said, be patently absurd to make that claim. It doesn't seem to directly support your currently modified hook either. It may be correct for Footpaths of the Upper Rock Nature Reserve, but that is not the article presented at DYK or the claim being made. If you don't want your DYK nominations or reviews being criticized, then it may be advisable that you make better DYK nominations and reviews, and articles where contents and title actually match. Fram (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to be a fork of Fortifications of Gibraltar and a little Upper Rock Nature Reserve thrown in, what exactly in this article cannot be in either of these two articles? This just looks like an end run around the AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Needless to say it's not. Since you've seen fit to nominate it - unnecessarily - for deletion, I've answered your points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footpaths of Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


Queue 2 and prep 4 are identical. Seems like prep 4 was copied over to the queue but wasn't cleared after copying... Is that a way of extending the DYK exposure period or just an oversight? -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you did your check during the middle of a data move. A check of edit histories shows that the contents of Prep 4 were copies to Queue 2 at 03:04, August 2, 2013 (UTC) and Prep 4 was cleared of the moved contents at 03:05, August 2, 2013 (UTC). There is nothing unusual about the contents of a prep area being copied before the area is reset. Likewise, a one or two minute difference in timestamps between the two edits is well within the normal range. --Allen3 talk 11:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Two bites at the cherry?

Hero shrew is in prep area 2, but is already a secondary link in one current ITN item. Is this proper? -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe so - it is only bolded ITN items that are disallowed.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
They are both different species so I don't see why not. SL93 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Anatomy of English Wikipedia Did You Know traffic

You (we...) may find meta:Research:Anatomy_of_English_Wikipedia_Did_You_Know_traffic of interest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

QPQ checker on the nomination template

I noticed this morning, and not for the first time, that the QPQ checker "hangs", in what looks like a Toolserver delay. However, this is a tool of Snottywong. And if you read User:Snottywong page, this editor might also not be doing maintenance in the foreseeable future. Ergo, the editor might not be transferring this to Labs (which also seems to "hang" this morning). If Snottywong does cease to be completely active on Wikipedia, perhaps we need to rethink the QPQ tool on the template. — Maile (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Twelfth Doctor

A friendly notice from your friends at ITN: We're currently considering a Twelfth Doctor-related item. The article could also be DYK material. Maybe we should co-ordinate how we run this one? --LukeSurl t c 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nominating for DYK would be terrific. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Queue 5

Re "Delphine Parrott was Glasgow University's first female professor", a further improvement would be to change "female" to "woman". "Woman" is the term used in the sources, while "female" has police/pejorative overtones. I have already made the change to the article, and there are no objections. Thanks, Awien (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Awien (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your issue is stupid after the fact. As an American, I take offense to your edit summary of "female sounds like an animal or someone wanted by the (American) police". Oh, really? Have you been sitting around watching a lot of American TV shows where you figured this out? In fact, the arrogance in that edit summary is downright irritating. — Maile (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
That is a very interesting comment about American police. The United States isn't even one of the top 10 countries with a corrupt police force. Though that wouldn't make it right to make such comments against those police forces as well. I could be wrong that you mean in terms of corruption, but why else would you say American? SL93 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I’m puzzled as to what you find so offensive and/or arrogant. Adult humans are men and women, and have been in English for about a thousand years. I don’t have television, but it is in newspaper crime reporting that they are referred to as males and females, a usage that seems to have originated in the States. Otherwise, it is animals that are referred to as male and female. The Concise Oxford classifies “female” used as a noun referring to a woman as vulgar, so the article shouldn't refer to Dr Parrott as a female. And her bio calls her “the first woman Professor”. Objective reasons, not anti-American slights. Awien (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it is still a strange comparison to me. To me, a female sounds like what it means, the female of any species which includes people. Humans are smart, but I consider us animals, but I don't ever want a religious debate. I agree that there is no reason for it to say female, when no article would say male (professor, sculptor, whatever). I'm more concerned with sexism on Wikipedia, whether it is meant or not. The Visual Editor is partly an example. SL93 (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :::SL93, it's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with corruption. It's to do with police jargon, nothing more. A linguistic objection, pure and simple. Awien (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I already said "fair enough". SL93 (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not used as a noun here. It's used as an adjective. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I know, but it was in the article whose edit summary maile objected to. Awien (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, pointing out that it's an adjective in this case is a good point. Also, when a baby girl is born, she's "female", certainly not "woman" at that point. And this is the first time I've ever heard of the word female. "It's to do with police jargon, nothing more." I've never in my life heard anyone solely associate the word "female" with police jargon. That thinking is very limited in scope, geographically speaking probably. I can't imagine anyone in America hearing the word female and thinking, "Oh, the police...." — Maile (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Will this argument about nouns, adjectives, and police jargon solve anything? Is there even anything to be solved? "Female" was changed to the correct "woman", so I think that this should just be dropped. SL93 (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The offending hook still has "female professor". Awien (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright, but I think the police jargon argument should stop as it is unrelated. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. To me, "female" sounds more idiomatic and doesn't have any of the negative connotations Awien mentions - but I've changed it anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Ref 2 of the above-mentioned article specifically states, "the University's first female professor. " And the source is Glasgow University itself. — Maile (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
And her professional bio, ref 1, British Society for Immunology, has “the first woman Professor”. Awien (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
And so what you have effectively done here, without anyone agreeing with you, is to override the nomination process. It was correctly done in the first place and passed by an Admin. Woman would not have been incorrect, either. But Female was how it was written. After the fact, you changed the article and got the hook changed. You overrode the process because of your particular preference. It just seems to me that there ought to be more checks in place so this doesn't happen. The place to raise the semantics objection is when the nomination is being reviewed and approved. — Maile (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not only would I have preferred "female" to "woman"—it reads/flows better and is accurate—but I'm disappointed that Gatoclass decided to delete the rather fun bit about her being especially good at vivisecting mice. Now it's a rather boring "first woman" hook, without the kicker that made it a pretty decent quirky hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi all. I know see that two editors have come out in favour of "female", which is making me not so sure that I should have made the change. I'll check back before the next DYK update and see what the consensus here is. I could revert back to "female" or back to the original hook, or if the consensus isn't very clear I'll probably keep it as it is. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I suggest we go in a completely different direction: ... that Delphine Parrott conducted an experiment which demonstrated that removing a mouse's sense of smell prevented it from having a miscarriage when exposed to a strange male? If you agree that this is better, someone else should verify this new hook. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 05:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • After Mandarax's post it seems like we need more discussion to find which hook to use, so I've removed the hook from the queue. It can go in a new queue after we've decided on the wording. I'm not quite sure what the procedure is in this kind of case, though. Do we open Template:Did you know nominations/Delphine Parrott back up or do we just have the discussion here? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I certainly didn't intend to delay the hook. But I do think my suggestion is more interesting, so I guess it's best not to rush it. The discussion should resume on the nomination page, which I'll reopen. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 07:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The usage "woman professor" seems ungrammatical because woman is a noun not an adjective. Female may be used as an adjective and so is better grammar. Compare "man professor" and "male professor", for example. And the idea that the word female is derogatory seems quite wrong too. As for the hook, the subject's skill in surgery upon small animals was quite prominent in her experimental work. We should focus upon this distinctive attribute rather than rote sexism. Andrew Davidson (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • An addendum to my comments above. I may have not handled it the best way at the time. And I'm sure there are editors who could have been a lot better at stating this.
1) Mr. Stradivarius did what seemed right to him (her) at the time. I just think there should have been more dialogue at the time.
2) The "female" v. "woman" has been an ongoing dialogue as far back as I can remember between various projects who either prefer the handle "female" or "woman". As I recall, some editors have suggested completely renaming either categories or projects to fit their personal choice. There are obviously strong feelings about this out there. From my way of thinking, the two words are often interchangeable, and neither is specifically incorrect. It's a matter of choice. But that's just my view.
3) What happened on this hook, from my perspective, seemed like a spilling over from the various factions who want it their way on this issue. In other words, it was the pushing of a POV via hook. And it became, IMO, a hijacking of the DYK process to push that POV. There should have been dialogue before it happened. This also happened on a Sunday afternoon when possibly the traffic on this talk page was mostly non-existant, and it was easier to pull off. I don't know if DYK has specific guidelines for such a thing, but it should.
I apologize if my previous edit seemed testy and unprofessional to anyone, but I saw a miscarriage of DYK process in the works. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
If your apology is directed to me, Maile, I accept it.
But I do assure you that I had absolutely no intention of hijacking the DYK process or forwarding any agenda by underhanded means. I was completely unaware of the debates you refer to, and simply requested a change to a usage I regard as deplorable.
What brought me to the prep area in the first place is that as things stand at present, far too many hooks make it onto the Main Page riddled with spelling mistakes, punctuation mistakes, mistranslations, poor syntax, and so on, since they are often lifted from hastily-written articles that haven’t even been adequately proof-read yet. That doesn't reflect well on WP.
Awien (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Understood. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Queue 1 error

The Smim Payu hook has the phrase "led an naval attack"; the "an" should definitely be an "a". If an admin can fix this before it hits the main page, it would be a good thing. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 talk 17:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Queue 1

Burmese in Queue 1 needs to be disambiguated to Burma (if the country link is needed at all). Schwede66 18:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Done: disambiguated by Alex Shih. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/East Branch Fishing Creek

Can someone please go ahead and promote this, it's been approved (just without the official template) since 7/29. Thanks, King Jakob C2 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Link possible

Architect Carl Moritz is in Queue 3. The hook mentions the theatre in Düren, proposed as pictured. Without the picture, mentioning Düren makes no sense. Please replace it by a link, [[Stadttheater Düren|Düren]]. I promise to expand that stub until it appears ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've linked it, thanks for the note. Looking forward to the expansion of Stadttheater Düren. Alex ShihTalk 06:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK nominations

I tried to have patience like usual, but patience should not be needed in a situation where two editors who made comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Simmons Hardware Company Warehouse could have reviewed the article. This is the only nomination, out of a long row of nominations through multiple days, that does not have any type of review. I would really like to know if this is a scary topic to review or something for future reference. The creator and myself both expressed concerns on his talk page that Template:Did you know nominations/The Wreckage (Ocean Park, Washington) should not have been used as a QPQ review. The review wasn't even a complete review, and the reviewer didn't even bother to approve one or both of the alt hooks. SL93 (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I withdrew my nomination. SL93 (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I'm sorry you're leaving DYK. I'm also sorry you're withdrawing this nomination. I was looking at it Your version Aug 5 time 12:10. Visually speaking, it looked like it should look for NRHP.
  • I think This subsequent edit by Victuallers, with the edit summary "priorities" seems to be that this British editor thinks NRHP should not be the priority visually speaking. I think it should. I realize DYK is a learning curve, but sometimes you have to go with your inner pilot. Not everybody's advice to you is good. What Victuallers did flipped it on its head and made it less desirable from an NRHP point of view. He kind of ruined it for me.
  • I haven't really delved into this article or the hook you did, because you've withdrawn. But just eyeballing it, seems to me that you had it right before Victuallers decided on another priority for the article. That's just how I see it from having worked on numerous NRHP articles.
  • I wish someone else here would weigh in on your version vs. the Victuallers version, and whether or not your version is a viable nomination. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, folks, This Victuallers just took this a direction I've never seen happen right in the middle of a nomination. Right now, I can see this 100% from SL93's point of view and why that editor threw in the towel. I assume Victualler's intent is improvement of the article. But without a real close on the nomination, this is somewhat bizarre to me. The article that the whole review is referring to is now named Simmons Hardware Company. What the link on the template points to is Simmons Hardware Company Warehouse, but there are only 2 items in the history. The original move by SL93 earlier today, and Victuallers complete rewriting of the article. Just setting the record here straight, because whatever anybody thinks is being reviewed on that template, it isn't what exists now. Has this ever happened before? Strange stuff, if you ask me. — Maile (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In a nutshell, I wasn't expecting this when I requested a review. SL93 (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I will say that, despite the grand irregularities of what has happened, having separate articles for the company and the NRHP-listed building in Sioux City is probably a good thing. But really, the company article should have been started separately, instead of hijacking the warehouse article. Chris857 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what the purpose of this thread is, or even what the OP is trying to express (the original message does not really give any context or explain what's going on). Is there a concern with editor conduct, or is this just a content-related debate spilling out of the nomination (where it belongs) and into here? rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The first part of this thread is SL93 expressing frustration about the process, and my comments on this particular nomination progress. SL93 as nominator requested on the template that the nomination be withdrawn. The rest of the thread is about how Victuallers had edited the article, transforming it into an article that did not exist when the nomination template was created. I have posted at the bottom of the template that someone needs to close it out. Because of how Victuallers has rewritten the article, and the way he went about it, much that appears on that nomination template is not even relevant to the existing article. — Maile (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Another problem is moving content from the original article to his newly created article without attribution. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
So there's an edit war or something? How is this relevant to WT:DYK? If there is a content dispute, sort it out at the article talk page or the DYK nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Why would you think that this is an edit war? It isn't just a content dispute, it is also an editor conduct dispute. The nomination has a withdraw request so there is no need to keep this going anyway. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If this isn't fit for the DYK talk page, then we should just allow any editor to hijack a nominated article and make it about a different topic, while claiming to be a reviewer. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You don't own any article, and there is no rule saying that other editors can't edit them. So I don't see what the issue is here; you haven't explained the situation other than saying that some editor made changes you didn't like. Disagreement over changes to an article is a content issue, not a user conduct issue, and I still fail to see how it is relevant to WT:DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
1. I started a discussion that is unrelated to what happened later.
2. Victuallers came along as a reviewer, but he made the article about a different topic, while then proceeding to create an article about the original topic.
3. The nomination is now invalid, but the topic still exists because of his creation.
4. He took the DYK credit completely away from me.
5. A review does not include making the nominated article become a different topic, saying that the article could possibly be failed because of what he did as a reviewer, and then proceeding to recreate the original topic. SL93 (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If you believe that I am trying to own an article, then you not only insulted me, but you have problematic comprehension. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
None of those points were expressed in the original message when you opened this thread, so how was anyone supposed to know what issue you were talking about? Try to exercise some basic communication skills. (And regardless, if you guys just can't agree about how to fork an article, this is still clearly a content dispute.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
[EC] This whole situation is "very irregular". At this point, the "Company" article is about the company and the "Warehouse" article is about the warehouse. However, most of the page history is associated with the "Company" article, although most of the page history properly belongs to the "Warehouse" article. An administrator could repair this (at least to some extent) by doing a complicated history merge. Unfortunately, it's much too late at night here for me to even think about doing that right now. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Per Orlady, I have completed a history merge so that the "Warehouse" article is properly credited. Alex ShihTalk 08:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Rjanag, with all due respect to you, SL93 does not have a problem with "basic communications skills". With the nomination now closed, this issue is also closed. But the situation evolved as the postings here went along. I understand that was confusing to you. It's been really confusing for us all, not just you. Postings here could not keep up with the changing confusion created by what Victuallers was doing to the article(s), and was not communicating as he did it. The basic issue is that editing by Victuallers invalidated the nomination by changing the article and splitting it. SL93 as nominator posted a "withdrawn" notice on the template, but it was not being closed out. This has not been about ownership, but it has certainly been a trip through confusion at DYK. — Maile (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

None of that changes the bottom line that any editor can edit one of these articles. If Victuallers came across an article that needed to be fixed and fixed it, I don't see why that is a problem. Maybe s/he could have started a discussion first, but making an editorial change is not in of itself a user conduct problem. Are you guys suggesting that DYK articles should be locked down as soon as they're nominated? That's preposterous. As far as I can tell from the descriptions you guys have given here (and I don't want to go trawling through the other talk pages and article history just because no one seems capable of posting a coherent summary of the problem--the two diffs you posted look like almost the exact same article [2][3], so unless you think I'm a mind reader you need to better explain what the problem is), nothing you've described is a user conduct issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what happened here either, but if a new article was split into two new articles then presumably SL93 as a substantial contributor to both would now be eligible for two DYK credits instead of one. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Rjanag, the article didn't need to be fixed. I also could care less about if you understand. SL93 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is in an effort to end this confrontational nonsense - Editors can edit whatever article they want and this issue is closed, so there is no reason to continue it. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Down to about 130 nominations

We have no verified hooks at this moment, and we currently are below 130 nominations. Shall we go back down to either two sets per day or reduce to 18 hooks per day under three-set system? --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We currently have about 36 hours worth of updates in the pipeline, but yes, it's looking as if we are going to run short of noms soon. I suggest we wait 24 hours or so and then go back to two sets per day, when the noms build up again we should probably consider going to three six-hook sets per day, though by that time we may be getting GA submissions as well, in which case we won't need to reduce the number of hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I have now reset to a 12-hour cycle. Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Russian submarine K-18 Karelia

The article was pulled from the prep area by Gatoclass because he thinks that it is a substandard hook. The article was nominated for DYK on July 6, I mentioned close paraphrasing problems on July 9, the close paraphrasing was fixed by another editor on July 16 which is the same day that I approved the nomination, and now it has been pulled from the prep area because of the hook on August 6. Can editors please try to resolve this issue? By resolving the issue, I don't mean by dragging the nomination out days longer. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


Referring back to HarvRefs on this talk page, I had been going through the nomination templates and correcting the HarvRefs errors myself on individual nominations. Now I'm just noting the mal-formed HarvRefs on the nomination templates. There are two types of errors most common:

  • If the inline citation coding does not match the target
  • If there is a target but no inline citation was ever created to point to it

These things are very easy to correct, but an editor can only see these errors if they have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, loaded on their user Java script page.


Besides the User Ucucha above, Harvard citation documentation is also a good reference on formatting Harvrefs. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd like to say that PumpkinSky showed me this a month or so ago, and it really is incredibly useful. I would encourage all DYK and GA reviewers to have it installed at all times.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, the link I provided for Harvref documentation is a good companion reference for how to format Harvrefs with variations such as multiple authors. — Maile (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
This advice is good to have, but I'm dismayed to see this emphasis on consistency and correctness in citation formats in DYK articles. This has never been a criterion for DYK approval in my years of activity here. Did I miss a discussion on changing the rules? --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you. This has nothing to do with DYK specifically. SL93 (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I beg you, do not place notices about this in the DYK pages! These are not related to the DYK process in any way - they concern a minor, picayune and invisible bit of formatting of the article source. Certainly a DYK should not be held up because of this, and even the slightest possibility that such a comment might do so argues strongly for moving this elsewhere.

The question then becomes who is this thread aimed at? Are we trying to fix articles, or inform editors of a useful new tool? Reading the thread above (and previous), it appears this is about informing editors of a new and useful tool. Is that correct? If so, then the obvious location would seem to be that editor's talk page, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK nominations, including Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Chile, have added this as part of a review. SL93 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Generación del 13 is another example. The issue on these pages is not malformatting of reference citations, but rather that the article has Harvref footnotes that don't lead to a reference citation, possibly due to malformatting. That's an important issue. My concern is that the comments in the DYK noms make it appear that proper reference format is being treated as a DYK criterion. --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Orlady's last statement is precisely my concern. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the "supplementary rules"

I draw your attention to the first statement of the Supplementary guidelines page:

These are the supplementary rules (formerly called additional rules or unwritten rules) of Did You Know, that is, they are supplementary to Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules and Template talk:Did you know#Instructions. These rules provide detailed explanations for commonly asked questions regarding the basic rules.

This is very confusing:

  1. The name of the page is "Supplementary guidelines", but the article refers to itself as "supplementary rules". Rules and guidelines are very different things… "do not drive through a red light" is a rule (or in case being discussed, part of a protocol) and entirely different in spirit than the guideline that states "you should try to keep your car near the middle of the lane". One of these you must do, the other is never mandatory. Changing lanes, for instance, requires you to ignore this guideline, which is why it cannot be a rule.
  2. Further confusion appears within the parens, which state that these were formerly additional rules. Additional and supplementary are not the same thing. A supplement, in this context, adds additional material to existing information, in the spirit of a footnote, whereas additional rules would (tend to) imply entirely new material. I mention this because…
  3. The following sentence notes that "These rules provide detailed explanations for commonly asked questions regarding the basic rules" (emphasis mine), which clearly states this document is clarifying the existing rules, not introducing new ones. As such, it contradicts the parens, and perhaps even the opening statement.

When one reads the page, you find that the contents are just as confused as the lead. Some of the items are indeed expanding upon the existing rules as outlined on the main rules page. Other entries do not have any corresponding material on the main page at all. Then there's the numbering scheme, which creates a feeling of formality, as if these really are the rules, and it's the other page (the official one) that's the simplified version. I realize that the current state of the article is the result of a long evolution, and the purpose of the statements, and even the page as a whole, has changed over time. That is precisely my reason for brining this up here: it seems like it is long overdue that we clean up all of this.

My point here is this: a rule is a rule and a guideline is a guideline. We should not confuse the two. If there are items on this page that really are rules, then they should appear on the rules page. There is, also, a lack of a page that dedicates itself to an explanation of the rules, a true supplement (although this page is very close to that). And finally, there is no formal guidelines page, although this page also has some double-duty in that role. So, I propose:

a) any rule that appears on this page that does not appear in the official rules should appear in the official rules. They are not so long that additional material poses a problem, and frankly, I can't see why this isn't already so b) a good amount of the content of the existing page be moved to a new page with the name "supplementary rules", where they will explain, illustrate and clarify the rules found on the official page. That is, we will create a true supplement. c) entries that are really guidelines should be left in this location, clearly identified as such, and a best-effort be made to bring in similar useful guidelines from the variety of other pages that already exist. Several examples are linked to in this article already.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the page name is probably wrong - if you want to move it to "Supplementary rules" you won't get an objection from me. However, I don't at all like the idea of moving some of these rules to the main rules page - the main rules are complex and intimidating enough already, people would give up at the outset if they were expected to read and comprehend the entire ruleset. And the basic rules provide more than enough information to get newcomers started. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not just the name though, there are things on the page that are rules, and things that aren't. Even if we don't want to put them on the main page (which I personally find much less confusing than this one), is it not the case that we should clearly delineate the difference? That's my real concern here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Italics needed in Queue 1

In the sixth hook of Queue 1, "Caddyshack" should be italicized. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 20:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Giant blue cock

In Prep 4:

I thought we tried to avoid deliberately misleading hooks outside of April Fool's Day? DoctorKubla (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a giant blue cock, though cockerel can be added instead. SL93 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I checked both the article and definitions at Merriam Webster, Oxford,, Free Dictionary, and Cambridge Free dictionaries. In all cases the article's usage of the word "cock" matches that of the first (most common) meaning provided by each dictionary. --Allen3 talk 19:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know the hook is technically accurate, but the word "cock" has clearly been chosen over the less ambiguous "cockerel" purely for humourous effect. And I'm not completely against humour on the main page, but lazy, juvenile humour like this doesn't do Wikipedia's reputation any good. I'm going to change it to "cockerel" now, before I go to bed; if anyone strongly prefers the former hook, probably the best thing to do is pull it from the prep area to allow more time for discussion. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Honestly? Grow the fuck up, this isn't reddit. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The sculpture is specifically called Hahn/Cock so the hook merely reflects the sculpture's name. And yes, the name was chosen by the (female) artist for its humorous effect, as the article explains (go and read it). Perhaps Tarc would like to write a stiff letter to Katharina Fritsch (who I bet is older than he is) to tell her to "grow the fuck up"? Prioryman (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just because we don't agree on one thing doesn't mean we can't agree on others! :-) Prioryman (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I like it. It is a giant blue cock. The hook is not misleading in any way. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Where I'm from, that's a giant blue rooster. Neutron (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, there are just waaaay too many boring hooks on DYK. This one's INTERESTING! -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
True. I'd say leave it as it is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems that 10,240 people would agree. I noticed that Andrew Sullivan also linked to it from his blog, which probably boosted the traffic a bit. A good result, all in all. Prioryman (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The Sullivan blog piece was several days before the DYK, so I don't think it was a factor in those 10,240 hits. --Orlady (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pricasso

Based on the discussion on the nomination page, I have closed this. The discussion stopped on July 9, with nothing resembling consensus. I am posting this here in case there is any disagreement. SL93 (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We should give this one permission to run next April 1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
What would be the proper procedure to nominate this for April 1 consideration?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Since the original nominator didn't say that was what they wanted, I'm not sure. SL93 (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The original nominator has been blocked for nearly two months.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
As a third party, can I reopen this nomination for an April 1 date request on behalf of the original nominator. It is likely the only way to get the content the exposure the original nominator sought?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, but I don't see why not. I would feel bad if it wasn't allowed when I said that it was alright, when I didn't know for sure. I can start another section if you want or I can ask someone that is more experienced with DYK than I am, if you want. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that you reopen the discussion, repost it at T:TDYK, create a new section in the discussion for an April 1 date request, make background, support, oppose and discussion subsections, and create a section here on this talk page pointing to the new discussion there. The background should be brief saying that weeks of discussion resulted in no consensus for a regular appearance at DYK. Since the nominator has been banned, TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) proposes that rather than just let the nomination die that we consider this for an appearance as part of the annual bounty of odd topics put forth on April 1 by DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I am planning to go at it straight, for a regular nom without any quirky hook. The tendency for April Fool's to be used for puerile humor is not something I like.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't have did that work anyway. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to save, OK to nom?

I was wondering why I didn't get any feedback on Through the Looking Glass (video game), when I noticed that the tab in my browser editing the nom was still open - I never pressed save. Can I get a bye on this one? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean it's past the five-day limit? How old is it? Gatoclass (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the Through the Looking Glass (video game) article history, the article was created on July 26. The nomination template does not yet exist, so far as I can tell. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Two reviewers sought

Template:Did you know nominations/Footpaths of Gibraltar needs two reviewers following an AfD which the nominated article has survived by a very large margin. It would be appreciated if two editors who are uninvolved with the topic area (either pro- or anti-) could take on the task. Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It already had one review and reviewer. You, the nominator of the page, don't get to pick and choose or reject nominators because their review is not to your liking. And being involved with the topic area has never stopped you from reviewing articles (e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Gap Footpath), so why do you want other standards for other people? Fram (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Fram, you have not even carried out a proper review. You haven't assessed the article against any of the DYK criteria. You have objected to the hook on spurious original research grounds, ignoring the cited source, you raised concerns about notability which were rejected by 8 !votes to 2 in the AfD and you objected on spurious copyright violation grounds which have been rejected by the person whose copyright you accused me of violating [4] (who of course you didn't ask). As a reviewer, you are supposed to check the article against the guidelines listed here but you have done none of that. Secondly, I don't think you can credibly be regarded as an impartial reviewer. You have been an unrelenting opponent of the Gibraltar project for nearly a year now (let's not forget you even attempted to delete Gibraltarpedia). I don't see how someone with your level of fervent opposition can let that go and review an article impartially. I would ask that you voluntarily refrain from reviewing any Gibraltar-related articles in future, and to make things even I will voluntarily undertake to do the same. Finally, as for what we do now with the review, I think the fairest thing to do is to start over and ask two people who are uninvolved to make their own judgment, as I've done above. Prioryman (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's entirely understandable if Prioryman is asking you to either apply the criteria as they exist or step down from the "reviewer" role. Two reviewers still needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Prioryman, as shown in the Devil's Gap Footpath review, you are not one to lecture on DYK criteria, since you clearly either don't know them or don't care about them at all. I'll review whatever I like and however I like. I have asked you in your previous, very recent attempt to get me removed from reviewing to provide some evidence that my reviews are problematic. You haven't done this. I have time and again highlighted actual problems with the articles and nominations. Just like I regularly do with other, non-Gibraltarpedia articles. I have not declined the nomination on any article or nomination that didn't have serious problems. I dislike Gibraltarpedia (or parts of it) exactly because they do such a poor job in their attempts to get more Gibraltar-related articles on Wikipedia and on the main page. But that doesn't mean that I reject Gibraltar-related DYKs on spurious grounds. Fram (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Crisco, what was wrong with my review? The article is not about the subject but only about a subset, the hook was not supported by the source (and was patently ridiculous), and the article was a technical copyvio. As it stands, you corrected the third point, the first is still a problem, and the modified hook, with the weasely "many" inserted, is still not supported by the source. The supposed source for the hook, [5], gives two examples of footpaths that were "originally created" etc, 1790 path (which isn't even in the nominated article) and Douglas Pass (presumably the same as Douglas Path(?), and Signal Station Road which isn't a footpath. So "many" actually equals "one" footpath now present in the article? Clear fail... Fram (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Fram, your "subset" complaint is essentially a notability issue, but that was decisively dealt with by the AfD. The hook is not "patently ridiculous" and your rejection is based on an argument from personal incredulity: "So there were no footpaths in Gibraltar before this? This seems extremely unlikely, as most inhabited places in the middle ages were filled with footpaths, not for cannons and troops, but for the people who lived there." As I have pointed out to you, Gibraltar was established as a fortress. It's a barren lump of rock with no water, no mineral resources, no natural harbours and no agriculture. People don't live on the Rock of Gibraltar because there is nowhere for them to live, nothing for them to live on, and nothing for them to do there. Its only utility has been a military one. All of the paths and roads there were built by the military, by definition - Gibraltar didn't even have a civilian government until the 1950s. You can see from, for example, this map of around 1800 that all of the roads and paths outside the town go to fortifications, outposts or gun batteries. Your personal disbelief of a hook fact is simply not a valid reason to reject it.
  • Let's not forget also that you have completely failed to review the article. The DYK criteria address the length, newness and policy compliance of the article. The additional Gibraltar restrictions require a review of neutrality and promotional aspects. You have not tackled any of these issues. You have literally only reviewed the hook and used your personal incredulity of the hook fact - which is purely original research on your part - to reject the entire article without even considering any of the other requirements. Frankly, that's an abuse of your responsibility as a reviewer.
  • Finally, your opposition to this topic area is so long-standing and well-known that I simply do not think you can credibly be seen as an impartial reviewer. I certainly don't see you as impartial - how can I when you have so clearly abused your role as a reviewer, made false accusations against me and tried to delete Gibraltarpedia itself? I don't want to have to formally propose a ban on you reviewing articles in this topic area and I would prefer you to voluntarily refrain from further reviews, as I will undertake to do as well. Prioryman (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You have pointedly ignored the discrepancy I raised between the source and the hook. Or is that also not a DYK criterion? Oh, I see, apart from "length, newness, and policy compliance of the article", you "forgot" to mention that there are also rules about the hook. Or did you think that it was sufficient to meet some criteria, and that meeting all of them was optional? Again, if you don't know (or deliberately forget) the DYK criteria, then don't nominate or review any other articles please. Apart from that, I like it how you ignore most of the history of Gibraltar if it suits your arguments better. So no permanent settlement was created in 1160, and no Kingdom of Gibraltar existed since 1462? You claim that it had "no civilian government until the 1950s", but you seem to forget the pre-British history of the place. Careful, tensions with the Spanish are already running high, we don't want to add "the rewriting of Gibraltarian history on the English language Wikipedia" to be added to the fray. Oh, and contrary to what youclaim, your 1800 map shows plenty of roads or paths outside the town going to other things than fortifications, e.g. to the hospitals, to Moulins, and to the Notre Dame d'Europe. Furthermore, nothing says that footpaths can't be inside the town as well of course. Finally, this is the umpteenth time that you have mentioned banning me from these reviews, but as always, you have not produced any evidence to even start considering a ban. Please stop with your poisoning of the well and either put up or shut up. Fram (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a classic WP:RANDYism, I'm afraid. I've written a featured article history of Gibraltar which was on the Main Page less than a month ago so I do know what I'm talking about here. Gibraltar was founded for military purposes. It was garrisoned continuously for over 850 years. It was run by a military governor - Moorish, Spanish, British - for 810 years. The roads you mention on the map were built for military purposes on military-owned land. The hospital was for soldiers. The windmills ("Moulins") ground the garrison's grain and that road runs to the batteries on Windmill Hill. Our Lady of Europe ("Notre Dame d'Europe") is an old army storehouse and the road there runs to the batteries on Europa Point. None of these roads were built for civilians. The whole peninsula was run, owned, used and administered for military purposes from 1140 until the 1950s and yes, there was no civilian government until that time under any of its rulers. And yes, even in the town the footpaths were built for military purposes. Many of the pedestrian streets are called "ramps" (see e.g. File:Bishop Rapallos ramp.jpg). Why? Because they were literally built as ramps, so that cannons could be towed up to the batteries on the Rock. Some still have tracks built alongside the steps for the cannons to run up and down (e.g. File:Library Ramp, Gibraltar at night 22.JPG). What you aren't grasping is that Gibraltar had no reason to exist other than its military utility. The people who live there now are surrounded by over 800 years' worth of military infrastructure, built on a massive scale. Its roads and paths were built by the British and Spanish armies to allow troops and weapons to be moved around. In the case of the Rock there was no other purpose for the footpaths as nobody lived or farmed there.
  • I'm afraid your objection is simply based on a personal lack of knowledge on your part and personal disbelief. Nobody is expecting you to become a subject matter expert on this topic but we do expect that reviewers should accept authors' subject matter expertise in good faith, which is what you're conspicuously not doing.
  • As for rules on the hook, as I already said you have reviewed the hook, but you have not addressed any of the criteria that are to do with the article. You are rejecting the article purely on the basis of personal disbelief of the hook fact. That's not appropriate conduct for a reviewer and I will ask you again to step back and let uninvolved reviewers deal with it. Prioryman (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a quick look at the discussion here and the nomination page, and am obliged to agree with Prioryman that nominations don't get rejected just on the basis of having an incorrect hook, the correct procedure is to place a hold on the nom until either the hook is corrected (if necessary) or a new hook found. While I too am bothered by Gibraltar noms that appear to be about increasingly trivial topics, this particular article also clearly passed AFD so notability has been established. I therefore think it's time this discussion ended; the article can be passed or failed by consensus of uninvolved reviewers per the usual processes. Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Review request

For Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Muslim violence in India which was nominated over six weeks ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Queue 2, no. 4: one of the more blatant bits of advertising to be potentially appearing on the main page. Awien (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Prep 2, actually. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 00:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Oops! Awien (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem is in "so good". I altered the phrasing to tone it down. The rest of the facts in the sentence appears to be properly cited in the article. Alex ShihTalk 04:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the structure of the hook (which is now in Queue 2, having just been promoted from Prep 2)—it doesn't work as a sentence. Also, the article didn't say DeFrancesco had bought a stake in the company, just that he owned a stake in the business ... which could have been acquired in any number of ways; for all we know, could have been in payment for his endorsement. Perhaps something like "... that jazz musician Joey DeFrancesco thought well enough of Diversi organs that he stopped using Hammonds and obtained a stake in the company?" I'll leave it to others to judge whether this is still too close to WP:ADVERTISING to qualify; I think it might be interesting enough of a hook even if the Hammonds were cut due to concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Sourced or not, it still reads to me purely as a pretext for getting the Diversi name, along with an endorsement, onto the Main Page of Wikipedia, but I'm no policy wonk.
And BlueMoonset is right, the syntax of the sentence is a bit off as it stands.
With apologies for being a pest, Awien (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Have you considered discussing this with the nominator? SL93 (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I pulled the hook back to the nominations page, where discussion can continue without everyone feeling like the situation is a crisis. --Orlady (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised that Awien didn't notify the nominator. Saying that someone is trying to advertise a company is a big deal, especially when it would be put on the main page. I would not be happy if someone posted somewhere that I was advertising something, without even bothering to give me a chance to defend myself. SL93 (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The Diversi article was recently created by Ritchie333 as part of the process of polishing the Hammond organ article for GAN. I said "Diversi has almost no presence on Wikipedia (a single listing at clonewheel organ), but they deserve something more than that", and so Ritchie333 created the article. This company has very little going for it beyond the involvement by Joey DeFrancesco, so if the DYK is to have any kind of hooky hook this is it. The Diversi company is otherwise very small, with low volume sales to a small potential market. It's kind of sad, really. I'm sorry to see the DYK challenged. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, what you seem to be saying is that Diversi should be allowed a plug on WP because they're the underdog. I can actually relate to that. If somebody with the power wants to wave a magic wand and make this go away, I'll go away too.
SL93, what you seem to be saying is that a non-admin, non-insider is supposed to know that the DYK talk page isn't the place to raise a DYK issue? I know all it says is "To report errors in the queue, please post at WT:DYK", but to the uninitiated, that looks as though it would include potential errors of judgment over inclusion. I would suggest you not bite the well-intentioned who don't like to see WP look bad and try to do something about it. In fact, come to think of it, I'm offended that you've reprimanded me in public rather than contacting me in private and letting me defend myself.
Awien (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I never said that you couldn't, but it is wrong to to treat it like the hook is for sure an advertisement. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I think Awien acted correctly in raising the concern here about a hook that did come across as promotional and that was in queue for the Main Page. Orlady then acted prudently in removing the hook from the queue so that it could be discussed further. Binksternet and BlueMoonset then collaborated to come up with a better, less promotional hook which is now back in queue. No need for reprimands. This is how the system is supposed to work. Cbl62 (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not the system worked the correct way, Awien did say that it was blatant advertising from someone who has edited on Wikipedia for over 7 years. He never said that it could come across as promotional, but only that it was promotional. I don't understand where people are getting their information from. I never said anything about the system. SL93 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I created the DYK. The hook was a parody of Victor Kiam's famous quotation "I liked the shaver so much, I bought the company". I have never even seen a Diversi organ, much less played one. In case my sarcastic sense of humour isn't coming across, this comment implies I am aware of basic article policies. My talk page is generally open for people questioning my judgement. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Oldest Nominations needing DYK reviewers

While we have 168 current nominations, 22 of which are approved, we do have five empty queues and three empty preps, and a great many older hooks that need reviewing. Some of the more middle-aged hooks are above, but several of the ones here don't fit the criteria of that section though they definitely need a reviewer, so I'm listing eleven of them here. Thank you as always for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing reviews

Re-review needed

Add more nominations whatever you like, but each must belong to either "un-reviewed" or "re-review needed". I'll correct errors in the list if I see mistakes. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes; do not list nominations

  • whose articles are not yet fixed and/or
  • whose issues are not yet resolved and/or
  • whose discussion is getting too long.

And do not include Gibraltar-related nominations If an individual nomination is listed in this talk page already prior to this list, it will not be listed here. Requests that are archived are allowed to be listed. --George Ho (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Prep 1

A hook currently in Prep 1 reads: ... that British manufacturer Karrimor's formidable reputation for ground-breaking outdoor pursuit equipment was a direct result of its location in Lancashire, and a CEO who was an avid climber and trekker? Any chance of dropping the formidable from the hook - sounds a bit WP:PEACOCK. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the find, I have fixed the hook. Alex ShihTalk 17:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have re-inserted the descriptive terms per discussion in my talk page. Alex ShihTalk 07:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hardly NPOV, no matter what the editor says. "reputation for..." would have been fine, and neutral, while still reflecting the reputation without necessarily promoting the company. It's on the Main Page now, which is worrying - possibly it should have been held for further discussion instead of putting a blatant advert live. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Increase from 14 per day to 16 per day?

So far we have 180 nominations, but the amount of verified hooks is below 30. 30 or less is not enough to go back to three sets per day. Perhaps we might increase from seven per set to eight per set during the two-set system? --George Ho (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to go back to three sets for a while yet - I would say not until the number of noms is well over 200 - but when we do go back, we can go back to three six-hook sets per day as I think any more would be unsustainable at current levels of nomination and review. Gatoclass (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
200 is too little for me. The problem would be so-so amount of reviewers, not the setup. Even amount of nominations is becoming a less sufficient reason to go back to three sets. I had to make a list of older nominations just to increase interests. --George Ho (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you are trying to say there, however, my concern is that we don't keep continually switching from two to three to two sets a day; I think it would be better if and when we can manage it to stick to three sets a day with one less hook, because eight hooks per set is too many IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You mean, displaying 16 hooks per day is too much? Or you meant 24? --George Ho (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I think he's saying that 7 hooks is a better size for each individual set. Also, that it's best not to keep changing the size of DYK because that creates problems for ITN and OTD. Back in the day, 8 hooks was the norm -- and we even had some periods of time when we ran 9 at a time, but I agree that sets of 7 are more esthetically pleasing. Currently we seem to be averaging about 18 nominations per day. Given that rate of production, and the sloppiness of some of the reviews I've noted in my recent examination of the queues and preps, I don't think we're ready to increase our output above the current 14 hooks per day. --Orlady (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, my suggestion was for three six-hook sets or 18 hooks per day. At the current rate of noms, that would match perfectly. But we might want to wait a little longer for the number of approved noms to build up a bit more. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Question on 5x expansion

I have been expanding an article I created some time ago in userspace, I was wondering if I were doing these edits on the article how long do I get to finish? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

At the time of nomination, the article must have been expanded fivefold within the past five days. But you can work on the article in userspace as long as you want (see supplementary rule D8); the clock doesn't start ticking until you edit the mainspace article. DoctorKubla (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Refreshed list of older nominations needing re-reviews

Re-review needed

Again, the nomination must omit:

  • long discussions
  • unresolved issues (latest review must have a red icon, indicating issue resolved)
  • irrepairable articles (counts as unresolved issues)
  • Gibraltar-related topics

NOTE: "Re-review needed" category must omit nominations with either long discussions and/or unresolved issues. --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If the nomination is getting complicated, then an individual request on a nomination is best recommended. --George Ho (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with this: I don't believe it's helpful to have each individual old, long discussion populating this page, in part because they're being excluded from lists like this even though all they need is a new reviewer. All old nominations that are fixed and ready should be highlighted; indeed, the older they are, the more likely they need to be mentioned. People do self-selection quite well when looking for a hook to review: if they aren't interested in long discussions, they can skip right over them. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Those long discussions may indicate so many problems of the article and/or nominations. Many a reviewers brings up issues if something goes wrong, and there are too many reviews. The oldest nomination most likely has a log of long discussions, countless issues, and stuff like that. What was the last nomination that lasted more than two or three months? --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The ones I added might have lengthy but not long discussions and have a red icon. --George Ho (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Bluemoonset - many of the older noms with a lot of previous discussion could often use some input from uninvolved users. But at the same time, I can see some merit in George's "Unreviewed" and "Re-review needed" categorizations. Maybe the solution would be the addition of a third category called "Unresolved issues"? Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you want long list of nominations with unresolved issues and/or long discussions, then here are below as categorized.
Nominations with unresolved issues
Nominations with long discussions (reading along is best recommended)—untouchable absolutely, unless the discussion isn't that long!

I'm poofed out. Well, I'll leave categorizations to you for now. --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

...Actually, I would allow re-categorization. I moved the June 21 nomination from re-review to "unresolved". Strike out nominations with long discussions if each is only either approved promoted or rejected. --George Ho (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, the more complex these lists become, the less useful they might be. One of my periodic DYK activities is skimming through the older sections of the noms page to look for completed noms that I can promote or review issues I might be able to resolve. The colored icons on the noms page make it pretty easy to skim. Now, after I've finished dealing with a nom, it seems that I need to come here to figure out whether the nom that I just worked on is listed here, how it is listed, and what I need to do with its listing (e.g., strikethrough or recategorize) to record my actions. My vote is to "keep it simple" here. --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree George's approach is getting too complex - we only need three headings - unreviewed, re-review ready and unresolved issues, and we don't need to be "re-categorizing" noms after one has been advanced, although I guess there's nothing wrong with re-categorizing if someone feels motivated enough to do it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
How do I simplify the list then if I can't use headings or determine length of discussions? Just look through a nom and skip long yet relevant discussions? --George Ho (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say you can't use headings, I just said I think three headings are sufficient - unreviewed, ready for re-review, and unresolved issues. I don't know why you want a heading for "long discussions" - "long" is subjective, and issues can be relatively simple regardless of the length of the discussion, the complexity of a discussion is a function of its content not its length. Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of the "unresolved issues" section: if the nominator hasn't resolved issues brought up by past reviewers, or the review is actively being worked by reviewer and nominator, then we don't need to point our reviewers at them, since there isn't anything they can do to help. My problem was that reviews that did need help were being arbitrarily excluded because nominations were "long". I'm also frankly puzzled by the automatic exclusion of older Gibraltar articles; I always included them in my lists, and if they need reviewing, why would they not be included here like all the rest? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
IMO, a single list of noms awaiting review works best, with no distinction between "unreviewed" and "re-review needed". Both of those need attention from a new reviewer, so it's helpful to highlight them here, and the distinction between these categories should not be treated as significant. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I do think some distinction is useful, but only between potentially easy noms and more problematic ones. This is because sometimes I am looking for easy reviews to increase the approval pool and other times I am trying to clean out some of the older and more problematic noms, and I'm sure I can't be the only reviewer who works that way. Gatoclass (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I think two headings would be sufficient. It's better to keep the list simple, but as Gatoclass pointed out, it might be more effective to work with easier and problematic nominations separately. Alex ShihTalk 18:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
On reflection, I don't think we need any hard and fast rules for this. If George or some other user wants to categorize the list under different headings, or not, that is their prerogative and it can't do any harm. What we don't want is to have artificial restrictions on the type of noms listed, like the "no noms with long discussions" proposal, because problematic noms need attention too. But I still think that dividing them under at least two headings - reviewed/ready for review and unresolved issues - is a worthwhile idea. Gatoclass (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You know what? I decided to separate unreviewed nominations from this list because the whole list is getting longer. In other words, you are left with "re-review ready", "unresolved issues", and "long discussions" categories. I'll create a separate long list of unreviewed nominations soon. --George Ho (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)