Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 97

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 90 Archive 95 Archive 96 Archive 97 Archive 98 Archive 99 Archive 100



There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

More unreviewed older nominations

The amount of unreviewed nominations is rising up. I must separate. --George Ho (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Completed days

Image licensing

In reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin Pillar, I noted that the image has a license that requires attribution. The image is from flickr and has a notation that some rights are reserved, specifically, "Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." Per DYK Rule 1.3, images must be "freely licensed". I seem to recall discussion (ages ago) on this page indicating that we could not feature images with attribution requirement on the Main Page. Can someone tell me if that has changed, or maybe slap me because I'm mis-remembering and it was never required? If I am recalling correctly, then the DYK rule should probably be clarified. Cbl62 (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's attribution of the image (who it is by), but not the display of the image, using a standard CC-BY-2.0 license. All the CC-BY licenses have this language which is perfectly fine in all other places we expect free images. So this is fine to use. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The only issue I ever remember being discussed about a license is GFDL, which is more suited to software than images. Also, Wikipedia as a whole is dual-licensed GFDL and CC-BY-SA, so if that BY clause were an issue, everything would be an issue. Chris857 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I also found this archived discussion suggesting that the attribution issue is not a problem. Anyone disagree? Cbl62 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Attribution request is not a problem. The Flickr cc-BY-2.0 license is acceptable on Wikipedia or commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Prep 2: Magia hook issues

The hook needs some editing work, but I've not been able to untangle it. The basic problem is that you don't "prevent [a] debut album ... from further sales" ("prevent" is the wrong word), with a secondary problem being that the addition of the singer's second album in the hook text causes issues between singular and plural that leave the hook grammatically incorrect. If someone can fix these issues in place, well and good. If no one does, I plan to pull it back before the prep is promoted to queue and it requires an admin to do the fix. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No one else was able to untangle it after over ten hours (or no one tried), so I've pulled the nomination back from prep so it can be worked on without rushing. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the Pricasso link on the main page

This is likely the most controversial article on Wikipedia right now. User:Russavia is in the process of being de-bureaucrated for trolling Jimbo with this article. There is no way this would get through the DYK process if it had been brought to the attention of large numbers of Wikipedians. In short this is a pretty "good" example of what's wrong with Wikipedia/Commons governance. Please remove asap. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, no merit to this request at all. I have been one of the more vocal ones against Russavia's trolling and hijinks regarding this article and the connection to, but that is separate from the notability and straightforward DYK eligibility of the artist himself. Just as convicts can create excellent works of art, there's no reason that blocked editors should have their works judged on the personal failings of the editors, but rather they should be judged on the quality of the work created. Tarc (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to phase out {{*mp}}

A proposal has been made to phase out {{*mp}}. Please discuss on Talk:Main_Page#Phase out {{*mp}} Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 4 article

There is still an open, unresolved issue being discussed at Template:Did you know nominations/Wanita dan Satria as to the Prep 4 Wanita article; I passed it in good faith expecting a change, which my approval was conditional on.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading (1) your comments on the nom and (2) the article, I decided that the article is OK as is. A note at the end of the plot summary identifies the sources upon which the plot summary is based. The fact that the plot summary is in two paragraphs rather than one makes the positioning of that note awkward, but the article meets the criterion of being adequately supplied with inline citations. --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The reason we as a general rule don't confer upon prior paragraphs the coverage offered by a ref in a later paragraph is that there is no way for editors to know that the ref in the later para covers the prior para. This situation is worsened by the normal course of editing -- intervening paragraphs are added, in the normal course. Perhaps with refs -- refs that do not relate to the un-sourced para. @Crisco -- the first thing I consulted was the policy, with is the most important writing. I challenged the unsourced language in question. If that's not clear to you, let me make it clear now. The policy is wp:v, and that policy requires an inline ref for unsourced/challenged material. Policy is overriding, and is not supplanted by a "supplementary guideline/unwritten rule" or stylistic guideline. I still can't tell whether that para is your own OR, btw, or if you could easily add a ref for it (primary ref would be fine). Really, if its not OR and can be easily referenced, I can't see why wp:v should not be complied with, and an inline ref supplied for the challenged wholly unsourced para.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "I still can't tell whether that para is your own OR, btw," - Open the references, obviously. Is it that ridiculously complicated that you're going to assume bad faith? If you want to change how films are treated on Wikipedia, then go to WT:FILM or WT:V; WT:DYK is not the place. WP:Consensus (oh look, a policy!) is that plot sections do not need in line citations, and you have to form a new one first. There is referencing there, and it explicitly covers both paragraphs, but since it's not in the style you prefer (something CITEVAR makes clear as something that can't be forced) you are ABFing and trying to block the nomination. It's been good enough for FAC, it's been good enough for GAC, and you're saying it's not good enough for DYK... puh-lease. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "if its not OR and can be easily referenced, I can't see why wp:v should not be complied with" - It is referenced, right now. Read the footnote and open the sources. That I have not duplicated the refs is for stylistic considerations, not to promote "unreferenced" (actually, referenced, but you seem to be the only person who does not realise that) material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not assuming bad faith. Just the opposite -- I put a green check mark approving the hook on the basis of good faith -- that the issue I mentioned would be addressed, and the wholly uncited material would be given a reference, as required by the policy wp:v. I could of course have tagged the sentence, or put something short of a green check mark. I didn't. I relied on your good faith. There are not tags at all in that para. References in subsequent paragraphs don't confer a reference on prior paragraphs. And, as I mentioned, it would be unworkable to even know which para they would be meant to address -- in the normal course, paras are inserted between existing paras. I don't think it's a "stylistic" issue -- any more than it would be to say look, I have external links that support something in the article, that's sufficient. An unreferenced para is unreferenced. As we are talking about something on the main page in a dyk, I would think that it wouldn't trouble you to reference it. I approved it on the basis that I assumed you would not have a problem addressing that, and am not sure why you are so against it. You are not helping the reader -- for all he know the first para was inserted after the second para was created, and is not covered by it footnotes, and once an intervening para with different footnotes is created, there will be no way for him to even guess that you have an applicable footnote buried below. This is about a policy -- wp:v, which is a higher level of consideration than what any project might say, though it is not clear to me that we have a project that says that footnotes should be buried in later paras and than is sufficient, even if a para is wholly uncited and there has been a wp:v request for it to be cited.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
        • "There are not tags at all in that para." Are you absolutely incapable of seeing the footnote and references included within? User:BlueMoonset has even made it more obvious that the footnote applies to both. If you disagree, over numerous reviewers at several FAs and User:Dr. Blofeld at this article's GA review, either find a way to have such ways of referencing explicitly condemned or realise that consensus is against you. As for V is at a higher level of consideration, note that WP:CONSENSUS is policy as well, and that WP:IAR (which you could consider part of the reason why a consensus has developed like this) is a pillar. "once an intervening para with different footnotes is created, there will be no way for him to even guess that you have an applicable footnote buried below." Who would introduce a new paragraph? I know the references, and I maintain the article. Any new, unverifiable additions would be reverted. "it is not clear to me that we have a project that says that footnotes should be buried in later paras and than is sufficient" Try reading the FACs and GANs if that's the case, rather than beating on a dead horse. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Crisco, I've always found you to be an excellent editor. So I'm confused. The para I pointed to has zero refs. I requested one, per wp:v. I re-checked. It still has zero refs. We encourage refs be place after the sentence (or sometimes para) that the ref refers to. The reason I expect we don't place them after paras subsequent to the one referred to is explained above. At length. And, of course, wp:v is reached by consensus. Don't you agree that the typical standard at wp is to have a ref after a sentence or para to which it applies? And that wp:burden requires this, where challenged? And that if someone inserts a third para, referenced, between the two existing ones, we would have no way of knowing -- without requiring clicking by the reader -- of subsequent refs ... that the ref in a para two paras below, interrupted by a different referenced para, supports the paragraph that you have written which has zero refs? As to your question "who would add a new para", well -- any of our thousands of editors. I see that you are committing to maintain the article, but I think the better course is to simply follow our typical approach and have a footnote directly follow the sentence or para that it refers to. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Epeefleche, if you truly believe in your heart of hearts that each paragraph in that plot section needs its own ref despite Orlady and Crisco's (and now my) opinion to the contrary, then you're welcome to seed the first paragraph with a duplicate of the ref that's at the end of the second one. It is quite clear from the ref (as Crisco notes, I made the wording clearer) that the entire Plot section is based on the two reviews cited in the ref, whether it's one paragraph, two, or even three. Since the movie is no longer believed to be extant, the reviews are the sources for the plot. Typically, on Wikipedia, plot sections for fictional works don't have any refs at all, since the work is held to be its own obtainable (and referrable) source. In this case, some citation is needed because the work is not accessible, but what has been supplied is sufficient for not only for DYK purposes, but I believe for Wikipedia purposes as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Done, as suggested. I also fixed a mistake, in the same section.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • And you've edit warred. I explicitly cited BRD (i.e. WP:BRD). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) Thank you, Blue. Epeefleche, let me try and make this 100% clear.
  1. WP:CONSENSUS is policy, meaning all editors on Wikipedia must follow it
  2. Consensus has indicated that plot summaries generally do not need in-line citations (ask at WP:FILM if you don't believe me), a consensus which has been held up through numerous FACs and GANs (I know of no FAs on extant films with in-line citations except for direct quotes, and I've already linked to several on presumed-lost films with the plot summary cited with a footnote)
  3. You (quite apparently) disagree with this consensus, considering it against WP:V. Again, I point to the existing consensus, which shows that general consensus is that it does fall in line with WP:V.
  4. WT:DYK is not the place to make a change to this consensus. You could try WT:FILM or WT:V but DYK is not the venue.
  5. If you continue to make a stand and edits against consensus, that is a violation of policy. If you can change the consensus first, then change the article, but before then any calls for even more citations will likely be considered disruptive.
I hope I make this perfectly clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Blue, I accepted your suggestion. Added the refs at the end of the wholly-unreferenced para myself. And fixed a mistake in the plot section, at the same time. I pointed to this discussion, including your suggestion, as the basis for the edit.

But Crisco just deleted the refs. Apparently, he is not only saying that no ref is required. He is asserting, if I read his actions correctly, that my addition of such footnotes, as you suggested, is forbidden. And on the basis of them being forbidden, deleting the footnotes, from the otherwise unreferenced paragraph.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Again, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. There is an extant consensus on footnoting, and one which has popped up here as well. Either follow policy or be prepared for a much, much, wider discussion on your edit warring. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This is getting astonishingly blown up. I am seeking to follow consensus. The first question was whether footnotes were required to be added by you under wp:v, and 2 editors agreed with you that they were not. One editor suggested, however, a work-around -- that if I thought in my heart of hearts that adding a ref would be better, that I add the refs myself. I agreed with the editor. Orlady's comment ("The fact that the plot summary is in two paragraphs rather than one makes the positioning of that note awkward, but the article meets the criterion ...) suggested to me that relieving the awkwardness by agreeing with Blue would also likely be acceptable to Orlady (who is welcome to let me know if it does not alleviate the awkwardness). And Blue's suggestion which I followed is in accord with the content guideline wp:citing sources, which states: "An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote." But I'm astonished by the heat, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's count this now. 3 vs. 1 on requiring footnotes in a plot summary, and neither said that it would have been required for both paragraphs of this lost film. One suggested you try it, perhaps to defuse this discussion, and another said it was awkward, but that does not necessarily mean she meant it needed a duplicated footnote. I have listed out, explicitly, my interpretation of policy above (which has yet to get so much as a response from you). I also note that asking me "what's up my tush" via email then acting surprised when things get "astonishingly blown up" comes across, to me at least, as trolling. The consensus here (as at multiple FAs which I've pointed to, which have received not even a comment from you) is clearly against forcing those duplicated references on the article, and I have reverted as such. If you are looking to follow consensus, you aren't doing a very good job of it. What does the definition of an inline citation have to do with anything? I don't think either of us are misunderstanding what it means. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • At the risk of repeating myself. Even thought this string is way too long given the "weight" of the subject. Consensus of the 2 uninvolved editors was as you say that wp:v does not require that the wholly unreferenced para have a ref. But one editor (Blue) suggested that I could add refs if I felt them important. A second editor (me) agreed. A third editor (Orlady) said nothing indicating that was a problem, and though acceptable had indicated the current situation "awkward." You are the only one (at this point) arguing that adding a ref to the wholly unreferenced para is unacceptable. But in this string, I support Blue's suggestion. The reference to the guideline was to the placement of an inline citation. And a reference to what's up (anatomy or not) is meant to encourage collegial discussion, because the level of your upset seems quite high given the tiny importance of this issue. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • At the risk of repeating myself: neither have said it is necessary. Now, will you or will you not reply to my comments about the consensuses established at the FACs and GANs, or not. I am tired of you sidestepping the questions because you have no good answer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What are you disagreeing with? We both agree that neither said it is necessary. To respond to you, I'm writing it now in this string for the third time. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it is acceptable, if an editor thinks it will add clarity, as I do. Blue suggested I add the refs, if I felt strongly. I agreed with and acted on his suggestion. Orlady has not disagreed with what Blue suggested, which I concur with. That's the only issue, at this point, and you are the only editor in this string maintaining that you must delete the refs, which were put in in accord with Blue's suggestion. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have asked for an outside opinion from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Referencing_plots_.28dispute.29. As for Blue's position, read "It is quite clear from the ref (as Crisco notes, I made the wording clearer) that the entire Plot section is based on the two reviews cited in the ref, whether it's one paragraph, two, or even three;" Blue does not seem to be supporting your position, but rather saying "try it" or "do it yourself". Now, for the third time, will you please respond to my citation of extant FAs? I'm tired of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATism, and note for the fourth time that WP:CONSENSUS is a policy which you are not following. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't believe having a citation for each paragraph is required by policy, since no-one here is questioning the verifiability of either paragraph. This is a question purely about the positioning. My view is probably more in line with Crisco's. Each paragraph only needs to be individually sourced if some of them require different citations; however, if all the paragraphs of a section are attributed to the same citation then I don't think it's confusing to supply the citation just at the end of the section. I think most readers would assume that the entire section is attributed to the citation at the end of it. Betty Logan (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL, DYK now has higher standards than FA and GA? Crisco is really quite correct about this, it is certainly an established consensus at WP:FILM and many FA and GA articles follow the same, in fact I was under the impression that it was common knowledge (as I think Orlady probably knows). Plot doesn't need to be sourced. I believe this is the case even for novels. I certainly wouldn't pass an article for GA with a completely unsourced paragraph unless it was intentional so Epee you're also questioning my ability as a reviewer over this. You're lucky somebody of Crisco's quality still bothers with DYK, no way should he have to bow down to the whim of a DYK reviewer and go against policy and add a source to plot just for the sake of it. ..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you both for weighing in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Can someone please address the unfortunate use of the US word "likely" in the hook and replace it with the internationally used "probably"? Ericoides (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Lautten Compagney

I looked again at the hook, now in Queue 6):

This is ALT1, the original had "amarcord & guests", as in the concert announcement (one of two sources). The word "other" is misleading, it sounds as if the ensemble amarcord were guests. No, the other five singers (2 female, 3 male) were amarcord's guests. Please word that, or drop "other", or take the original. Sorry that I noticed it only in the other context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping "other", but nothing else unless appropriate changes are first made to the article. Gerda, it wasn't clear whether ensemble amarcord were guests of Lautten Compagney, or the other singers were guests of amarcord. In any case, I strongly object to "amarcord & guests" being used in the hook unless you are willing to put it in the article, which was my original point, and quote it, since the manual of style frowns on the use of ampersands unless part of a proper name or actual quote. The hook must reflect what's actually in the article, not what additional information the sources may have. (The article currently says "and five additional guest singers", which was part of my rewrite of a problematic sentence; if "additional" is incorrect, which you appear to be saying, then by all means delete it there.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's a link to Template:Did you know nominations/Lautten Compagney for the original hook discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Guideline discussion (relates to fallout from a DYK hook I authored)

(This is not a description of "all that happened"; it's de-personalized bare DYK process-related commentary, to seek improvements)

A DYK item led to some discussion and a little drama. The drama and good/bad faith has been covered elsewhere (Jimbo's page, NPOV/N, AN, talk pages, etc). This thread is to consider if there are points where the DYK process itself could benefit.

Minimal necessary background, context, and history
For DYK review and process purposes we can skip case-specific questions and abstract the issue. When abstracted, these seem to be the DYK questions that arise, and where we could have caught this:
Not essential to read this, but if the points below seem "out of the blue" this may give an idea where they come from
  • An article was written that accurately, neutrally, and verifiably describes its topic (or for this purpose one may assume it did). However the resulting hook, while reviewed and agreed to be encyclopedic, cited, accurate, appropriately worded, etc, was also seen by others or on first glance as "surprising" (eg 'is that real/neutral, or hyperbole/exaggerated'?). A reviewer checking cites and sources considers that actually, the strong description is an accurate neutral representation and neither more nor less than its sources. But as a result the hook seemed to some, to include bias when posted on our Main Page whether or not that description was supported fully by article and cites. Is this kind of situation a DYK problem, or is it an example of Wikipedia showcasing how well and faithfully it does its job when at its best (crossref when Cartman gets an anal probe was FA/Main Page)? Does it need or imply any kind of internal second opinion within DYK if a hook is "surprising" by reason of its strength or otherwise?
  • The article covered a brand and its company. The company with the strong reputation was dissolved long ago and its assets and brand acquired by another business (which apparently hasn't got much reputation since then but we cannot comment on the new company's product reputation in our article as reliable sources are absent). The DYK hook describes reputation in terms of what "was" or what it "had", but although accurate and neutral, these words could be misread by some skim readers, and may appear to suggest also a current-company reputation (halo effect). So an article and hook may be correct yet some readers may misread it or misinterpret it. Do we publish it anyway on the basis we don't "nanny" readers and DYK is intended to entice and be backed by an article, or is there a case that DYK should avoid risk of reader misconception in ways it doesn't do right now?
  • The hook was modified on the basis of a user report while at prep (the reviewer didn't check but assumed and later apologized for the assumption), but the hook's author wasn't informed when the hook was modified after hitting prep. The hook's DYK subpage showed no trace either. Had notification taken place, the hook could have been put on hold, and the user, the DYK subcommunity, and the hook/article author, could have discussed concerns and addressed any issues, prior to queue or Main page. The absence of notification of a DYK hook edit to the author, meant that the matter only came to light after main page, and review was "on the spot" based on cites, rather than a proper consensus discussion while in Prep, which might have been ideal.
  • The page was still being edited (DYK isn't static) when it hit main page, and as a result it was still template with "Undergoing a major edit" when it hit Main Page.
Possible changes to DYK process, for discussion
  1. Should nominators/authors be notified on their talk page, and/or some kind of notice given on the article, when a hook for an article moves into prep (or queue)? Entering Prep means that Main Page may be imminent. But DYK isn't static, and can take time, so an editor may well work on the article and it could be in an untidy state when it hits Main Page. This one had {{in use}} across it when on Main Page. Any editors working on DYK nominated articles should have some way to know it's likely to hit Main Page as a DYK imminently, so they can tidy up their edits and avoid any major "working" edits, or edit-in-progress templates, and generally the article can stabilize from being expanded or written, if it's still being edited. There is currently no way to be aware of this.
  2. Should nominators/authors always be templated on the rare occasion that any change to their hook is made after it enters Prep, and a DYK "on hold" delay be built in when this happens until resolved? This is rare, but for an editor, it's very hard to be aware of a change to a hook after Prep. The pages at Prep/Queue are not ones they will have visited or have watchlisted, so once in Prep/Queue a hook drops off user radar. The first the nominator or author may know, if not notified, is when it's actually on Main page. If they then notice or believe that the modification was misconceived, technically incorrect, contentious, or misleading (for reasons a DYK editor may not have appreciated if they don't know the topic area well, or they "just assumed"), then this will be the first point the author has, to draw attention to it and fix it. It's not ideal to decide if a hook is right or wrong, under such pressure and while on Main Page. So it's important nominators/authors are always notified immediately on the rare occasion this happens, and that when a hook is "late modified" or questioned after hitting Prep there is a delay or "on hold" and notification, so they have a chance to notice and address the query with those expressing concern, prior to any Main Page oxygen or pressure.
  3. If a hook seems accurate and correct according to sources (in the view of the reviewer) but could be surprising in some way, should a DYK reviewer be advised to add a tag that requests DYK discussion, and also notify the nominator/author, so that at least it has more eyeballs and we're more sure about it first?

FT2 (Talk | email) 15:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: Regarding notifying nominators, I've always found WP:WATCHLIST useful. Regarding point number 2, there is/was a note that said hooks which have been sent to prep may be edited by other editors without prior permission. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't really answer the process issue:
  • A hook edit in Prep/Queue probably won't be on a watchlisted page for the nominator, anyway (Prep and Queue are not widely visited, hence not watchlisted). This one wasn't.
  • Also many users don't (or even in practical senses can't) use their watchlist. With 3800 pages I'm editing on mine, I stopped having a way to use it years ago in any practical sense. I try to track active pages I know about. I certainly can't watch pages I don't, like the Prep pages. Others may be in the same position.
  • It's a bit lawyerly to ignore and say "they ought to watch their watch list".
  • Saying "it's their job to notice" doesn't actually help DYK. It didn't here.
  • As for "a note", Consensus can change: there may be a note but we're not discussing "prior permission". We're discussing discussion if a query is raised at a late stage, that those involved know so they can participate in resolving it before it's Main Paged. Evidently the 'note' you mention doesn't always get the best results as we could. This might be a process improvement (for reasons stated). FT2 (Talk | email) 16:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Re notification, the main onus is on the nominator, via his watchlist. On the last point (that caused all the trouble), the rules say "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided" but there is nothing I can see about avoiding in the hook "peacockery" that is appropriate in a full, attributed & referenced context in the article, but not in a hook, given in the voice of Wikipedia. We've seen plenty of hooks changed for this (usually not difficult) & something should be added to the rules. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Regarding notification, it’ll certainly be useful if DYKUpdateBot would notify the nominator on their talk page when their entry entered the next queue in line to be added to the Main Page. In this case, if the nominator happened to miss any alterations made to their hook earlier while it was in the prep area, they will have some time to initiate a discussion before the article is displayed to the public.
  • 2 and 3 are commonly done (the procedure would be to pull the hook back to suggestions area), but nominators aren’t usually notified for this. However, once the article hits the Main Page, pulling the entry would mean the article is likely ineligible for re-listing. Alex ShihTalk 16:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Couple of points:
    • (i) When you (FT2) say "is it an example of Wikipedia showcasing how well and faithfully it does its job when at its best" you are overstating the case - you can't compare a DYK that may have had only minimal input, with a featured article or anything that has been through a formal review process (the DYK process is not formal enough). The article was largely written by you, and there are still questions being posed on the article talk page about the approach you took there. It is that approach that fed through to the hook and caused problems, IMO.
    • (ii) "DYK should avoid risk of reader misconception" - agree absolutely, though those who argue for hooks that attract readers' attention will disagree. I agree with Johnbod that peacock terms are best avoided in hooks.
    • (iii) The nominator should take some responsibility to follow a nomination they have started and be aware of when it will hit the main page. I think it is courteous to hold off on major edits until after it has been on DYK, as otherwise you are presenting a moving target for the other things that are meant to be checked at DYK. Certainly you shouldn't have an 'in use' template there when it is in the queue for DYK (it is trivial to follow the nomination as it goes through prep and into one of the queues which tell you the exact time it will appear on the Main Page - Alex has provided a link to the Queue template, and simply clicking 'What links here' restricted to the template namespace is usually enough to spot when it enters the queue).
I also still think this could be discussed with less being written about it. I'm trying to keep my comments to a minimum, but it is difficult when you (FT2) write such a lot about it. It sometimes feels less like a discussion, more like a powerpoint presentation. Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Most of that is too case specific. This is about DYK process improvements, i.e. noticing where it could have been addressed better and earlier. When an editor presents a hook, then it becomes DYK process that is responsible for its appropriate navigation and handling of any changes. Some issues could be caught by
  1. Notifying nominators when an unusual "late" edit occurs at Prep/Queue/Main Page, to allow resolution (since it may be on a page like Prep/Queue 1-6 that they don't visit or watchlist; do you really think most DYK nominees watch their nomination once endorsed and moved to Prep/Queue!). Even a seemingly minor edit may be important on technical articles. You need to actively let people know if it's changed after Prep. The lapse in checking behind an edit in this case is exactly why it was readily reverted on querying, and absence of a route to make nominators aware of such an edit was why it was not discussed before Main Page. Both are DYK process issues, they are easy to improve;
  2. DYK reviewers check cites and accuracy, but guidelines don't suggest to also look for and flag possible queries or 'surprising' hooks for more eyeballs. "Accurate, cited but surprising" hooks should probably have extra eyeballs invited to be safe. It's a DYK process issue that might be worth adding;
  3. Having a way that non-DYK editors of a DYK hooked article can know when Main Page is imminent so they can stabilize and cease any major edits, and plan their editing better around Main Page viewing, is also a DYK process issue.
All of those are DYK process points, and DYK process is all I'm discussing. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
For goodness sake. This doesn't need reams and reams of text posted about it. It is simple: avoid peacock terms in a hook; if someone makes a late change to a hook, notify the nominator as a courtesy (that should be standard); and if you have nominated an article, do follow it through the process and be aware of when it is appearing on the Main Page (this really is not difficult to do). Everything else is just waffle and wasting people's time. Nothing will change unless you present it in a concise manner. Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Bullets above are not "reams and reams". Bottom line is, all else aside, DYK process can lapse. There were places this could, and should, have led to appropriate discussion before Main Page, but it didn't. That's a DYK process lapse since only DYK process guides DYK from nomination to main page. People differ in their views, even this case was checked by myself, and two separate DYK reviewers, all considering it valid. Notifying the nominator, which we agree "should be standard", apparently isn't. We see that DYK topics can end up on Main Page right in the middle of a major refactor because it's not visible to non-nominator editors that a given article might even be at DYK, much less hit Main Page imminently. Thats a DYK process issue. When a process lapses, it's worth looking at where the process could have caught it, and simply saying "nominators should catch it" doesn't work - an individual nominator may be away unexpectedly, or edit another topic for a few crucial hours rather than compulsively checking every page they are involved in. So DYK process cannot assume others will catch them in a timely manner unless notified. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, FT2, for opening this discussion.

Not being a DYK regular, I don't feel able to offer fully-formed comment. The DYK process appears labyrinthine and opaque at first glance (perhaps this is part of the problem), so I'm not able to identify any specific inadequacy. As an ITN regular, I can say that nothing like this would happen there. I think part of the reason is that is it much easier to see what is bubbling close the surface and offer comment - anyone from the community can easily contribute if they wish to, but this does not appear to be the case with DYK (at least not for the full life of a nomination).

I think there are probably separate policy and process issues to consider, though. I think DYK should simply not include such promotional blurbs. Carcharoth suggests that WP:PEACOCK ought to cover this, and I sort of agree. But multiple experienced users have defended the blurb in question in ways that suggest they do not feel that WP:PEACOCK applies. The present example also shows that the holes in the net are fairly wide in terms of community scrutiny. If content like this can make it to the main page, then I think there is no doubt that we have a problem. I wonder if a simple line of guidance for DYK may be helpful. I won't propose exact wording but perhaps simply drawing attention to PEACOCK with a notice on relevant pages would be enough. Or perhaps something firmer is needed.

On the process side, although it does sound like notifying a nominator of blurb changes would be courteous. But I don't see how it is anything to do with what went wrong in this case. Please explain to me if I am missing something. I think the problem may be in lacking general transparency, so that blurbs about to appear on the main page are sheltered from general scrutiny. Formerip (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem I had was that I noticed a hook in a prep area simply because I was following the progress of one of my own DYKs, and thought the hook was not suitable for the Main Page as it stood - I'm not an admin and had limited time available so I posted here, hoping that the hook would be pulled from the prep until it was sorted out. That didn't really go very well. There should be a prominent link from the queue page to an appropriate location to notify of potential problems with queued hooks. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The key question here would appear to be whether users should be informed as a matter of course when their hooks are altered. While in theory it might be reasonable to expect such notification, DYK is different from most other projects in that there is high throughput here, few regular contributors, and consequently very limited time available for discussion of individual nominations. Even if we were to make notification of nominators about last-minute hook changes compulsory, it wouldn't necessarily help since the nominator would have to be online to be able to respond in a timely manner, and if he or she was online they would have to agree more or less immediately to the changes or additional parties would need to be brought into the discussion to try and determine consensus. In short, the only way to ensure the level of consultation FT2 is suggesting would be to pull the hook back to the nomination page every time a change was made to a hook that wasn't about some purely straightforward issue like grammar. This would be hugely disruptive to the running of DYK and put even greater pressure on the handful of regular contributors who run the project. The likely effect would be that the regular reviewers responsible for quality assurance at the prep and queue level would simply stop bothering, leading to a decline in quality of the end product, and given that DYK quality is a far higher profile issue, I would therefore have to strongly oppose any move to make notification about hook alterations compulsory. The rules state that nominators themselves are responsible for monitoring discussion of their noms, and IMO that's the way it should stay. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  • The nominator should certainly monitor the discussion of their nomination. However, taken the fact that the majority are not regular contributors into consideration, it's perhaps unreasonable to expect them to keep track of their nomination once the entry has been promoted to the prep/queue area, especially when there are no methods of notification available (since it's unlikely prep/queue area would be on their watchlist).
  • I have a minor proposal. Does anyone mind if I make an addition to {{DYKmake}}? This is the current appearance:

Main PageJimbo Wales (give) (tag)

May I add a note link in the style of the following?

Main PageJimbo Wales (give) (note) (tag)

While I am not in favour of making notifications compulsory, this will give the editor an option to send an automated message (for courtesy) to the nominator under the #Credits section if their hook has been altered while being in the prep/queue area. It's something that I would definitely use. Alex ShihTalk 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I confess to not having read the whole of the discussion above, but on the face of it, the suggestion of having a button to click to notify the author of a hook that it has been edited sounds like an excellent idea. Awien (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of notifying the author that a hook has been edited however it should only be if it is something major such as adding or removing words and not for minor things like punctuation or spelling. I don't think it's really necessary to have something to tell people that their hooks have gone into the queues because, I think, it is reasonable to assume they are watching their nomination pages and will see when it says "moved to prep X". I would oppose any idea of adding any tag to surprising hooks because it takes away the hooky-ness of such hooks. Plus DYK would look a mess when things like April Fools hooks come in with tags everywhere. If people want to find out about what is behind any surprising hook, they can look at the main article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to ban Fram from future Gibraltar-related reviews

Back in September 2012, Fram attempted to delete Gibraltarpedia itself (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA) in a proposal that was rejected by the community. Since then he has intervened a number of occasions in Gibraltar-related reviews. While he has made some valid points, his recent behaviour in my nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Footpaths of Gibraltar has been egregious. He has posted a pseudo-review but has so far refused to review the article itself despite repeated requests from me over the last month, and has rejected it on the basis that he disbelieves the hook. I have pointed out repeatedly that he is wrong and several other editors (Gatoclass, Crisco 1492, Silverseren) have called him out on his behaviour, but to no avail. He has made it clear that there are other motives behind his obstruction. He has claimed that the contents of a deleted article, part of which I incorporated into this one, are "tainted beyond repair".[1] He voted to delete this article with the false claims that it was intended as "an end-run around AfD" and was a copyvio.[2]. Even after the AfD closed with a large majority in favour of keeping, he continued making notability-based arguments on this page. Given this blanket opposition it's quite apparent that he is obstructing the article because he is sore about the outcome of either or both of the AfDs and thinks the article was created for improper reasons, and thus wants to keep it off the Main Page.

Fram's persistently obstructive behaviour, going back to the attempt to delete Gibraltarpedia itself, suggests to me that he simply cannot be seen as an impartial reviewer of articles in this topic area. His behaviour in this case has been an abuse of his responsibilities as a DYK reviewer. I believe we need to avoid further disputes of this kind. I have asked Fram to refrain from reviewing such articles in future. However, he has rejected this request and he has continued to obstruct this particular review. I have asked for uninvolved reviewers to look at it, but I have no confidence that Fram will not attempt to obstruct them as well. I'm therefore proposing that Fram either voluntarily undertake to abstain from reviews in the Gibraltar topic area, or should be banned from carrying out such reviews in future. Prioryman (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have clearly stated that the hook is not supported by the source supposedly used to support it, and have given my analysis of why I make that statement. You have not made a single attempt to find a better source or to explain how the hook is supported by the source anyway. All you have done is attack the reviewer and asking for my ban and/or a highly irregular third reviewer, when no second reviewer has stepped forward yet. You have so far raised the same non-issue at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 96#Abuse of DYK review process by Fram and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 96#Two reviewers sought, all in continuation of Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 95#Third Fourth opinion requested. As it stands, your hook (original or modified) is not supported by any source in the article, just like it was from the first review on, some four weeks ago. Fram (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Your very first comment in your pseudo-review ignored the article completely and rejected it solely on the basis of your personal opinion of the hook fact.[3] Since then you've spouted a series of ignorant historical claims in the review and in WT:DYK discussions. I've pointed out where in the source the hook fact is supported. I've pointed out why your claims are wrong. Three other editors have told you that you need to reconsider. You've not listened to any of it. You've not even bothered to give any explanation for your failure, a month on, to give the article itself even a cursory review. You've literally only reviewed the hook. This is not how a DYK reviewer is supposed to behave. I've asked you repeatedly, and you've had enough time to live up to your responsibilities. If you won't do that, you need to stop - or to be stopped - from abusing your responsibilities in future. Prioryman (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
How can I have ignored the article completely and still have found that it was a copyvio? I have given plenty indications that I have looked at the article and noted problems with the article, and between the article and the hook. As for "ignorant historical claims", which ones? You continue with "I've pointed out where in the source the hook fact is supported", something which you only attempted (and failed) to do minutes ago, after you started this ban discussion. Other reviewers may be more patient and give an article with multiple problems (from an experienced editor) endless time to get back to it. That's up to them. I don't see any need to do so. Fram (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have asked Prioryman in his previous failed proposals of the same ban to list my Gibraltar-related DYKs to show an ongoing problem (or lack thereof). These include things like Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Casemates Gates, which he used above (in the "lift restrictions" discussion) to lament the long delay between nomination and front page appearance. Part of that delay in that case was my action in pulling the nom from the queue and getting a thorough review instead of the half baked ones that happened until then. Another example, quite recent, is Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Gap Footpath, approved by Prioryman, ultimately the article was deleted and the DYK naturally rejected. There are other, similar examples, which may explain the reason why Prioryman wants me banned from these reviews, and why no one seems to support him in this. Fram (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to a reviewer being thorough. But I have to say I've never had to deal with a reviewer behaving like you - and I've contributed 150 DYKs by now, and participated in far more reviews. I'm not going to rehash your errors of historical fact here - I've covered that in the review. The source of the hook was linked from the article before you even reviewed it (not "minutes ago"). Your very first comment in the review made it clear that you didn't believe the hook fact because it didn't conform with your personal opinion. Apart from the hook fact, your other objections were notability (dealt with by the AfD) and the false copyvio claim (I always had permission to use the content in question).
You're just not taking any notice of what I or others are telling you. The copyvio claim is a case in point - even after the editor whose copyright I supposedly violated said "of course you had my permission" [4], you've still persisted in making this claim and you've not acknowledged that you were wrong. All I'm looking for is some basic fair-mindedness. I'm not seeing any from you. Now let me ask you some questions. Do you believe this article is an end run around an AfD? Do you believe its content is "tainted beyond repair"? Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
"The source of the hook was linked from the article before you even reviewed it (not "minutes ago")" No, minutes ago (well, by now it is probably hours), you finally indicated which source in the article supposedly was the source for the hook, even though in the article it was used to reference a completely different fact. As for the copyvio: an article which reuses text from a different article, written by a different user, without any acknowledgment of that fact at all, is a copyvio, no matter if you have that editor's permission to do so (which wasn't stated anywhere at the time I made the copyvio claims). You were claiming edits as your own (through the edit history) which weren't yours. Compare it to using public domain material: while you are free to reuse it, you are not free to present it (even without intending to do so) as your own work, your own words. This is what you did and what Crisco 1492 corrected, and noted at your talk page. Fram (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please - no more about this nom. Fram doesn't have veto over this article or any other, articles are approved or rejected by consensus and there is no consensus here yet. No doubt a consensus will emerge over time. Gatoclass (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There have been some serious issues with the Gibraltar subject area for some time, which I think has helped contribute to WP's downhill slide in credibility among the general public and to the ongoing editor exodus. If you want to find a main contributor to the problems with the Gibraltar topic area, I don't think Fram is where you would want to be looking. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • We need more Frams to watch over the Gibraltar shenanigans, not fewer... Carrite (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
    • +1Scott talk 08:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Xu Ming

Now in prep area 1: There are some elementary grammatical errors in the article that were neither identified nor fixed in the DYK review. I've done a light dusting, but more work needs to be done. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 10:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hooks pulled for BLP reasons

Earlier today, one hook was pulled from the main page because of BLP issues (people accused of committing a crime without god enough sourcing in the article, and per the general rules of not using negative BLP hooks for DYK): [5].

Now, I have pulled another hook that wsa life for 15 minutes for similar reasons (a real criminla, but accused of much worse based on a warrant and an incorrect reading of the sources): [6].

Both were discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Weakly sourced claim that Pete Townshend did a serious criminal offence currently on Main Page before this action was taken.

Can we please take more care in applying BLP rules to such DYK entries, and not promote them when in any doubt? Fram (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a criminal accusation this time, but unduly focusing on the negative anyway: in the current Queue3, we have "... that Judge Amy Salerno scolded jurors in her courtroom this month for what she considered to be an incorrect not guilty verdict?" According to DYK rules, "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." This seems to me an unduly focus on the negative aspects of a BLP. Fram (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Queue4: " that Xu Ming, formerly China's eighth-richest person, testified at Bo Xilai's trial that he gave Bo's wife more than $3 million to buy a villa in France?" Fram (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • In Prep 3 : "that suspected Pink Panther Milan Poparić was broken out of a Swiss jail by two accomplices carrying AK-47s?" is reliably sourced to CBS News but it would be a tough argument to argue that in positive light. Should we just scrap questionable BLPs full stop? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't included that one, because the current rules only prohibit undue negative attention, and this one can hardly be treated in any other way, unlike the Xu Ming and Amy Salerno hooks. And contrary to the first two, the hook is at first sight decently sourced as well. Whether it is a good idea to have DYK hooks about living criminals can be debated, but I focused on the more problematic ones under current rules... Fram (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Once again, I don't know how Milan Poparić got reviewed and promoted. I have boldly removed it from the prep area. It says that he is a suspected criminal - that is focusing on a negative aspect of a living individual. StAnselm (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Certainly "suspected Pink Panther" is inappropriate. But he is not a suspected criminal! :) He's a convicted criminal, so with some tweaking that hook should be fine. --Errant (chat!) 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, I don't have a problem with the Xu Ming DYK, since the hook is merely about the donation of money, not necessarily for nefarious purposes. StAnselm (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Mentioning that someone said at a trial that he gave millions to the accused's wife is hardly neutral. The implication that there was something nefarious is quite clearly intended. Fram (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
In that case, it is better to remove it. We should always err on the side of caution. I notice, however, it has been added to Template:Did you know/Queue/4. StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
With Xu Ming, it should be easy to find a non-negative hook. StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Fram for spotting and dealing with these. I will note that the creator of the article about the Mafia guy was warned about the problematic nature of the article (and the level of care required to write about living crime figures, accused or otherwise) on IRC several weeks ago, by me and two other editors. A note for everyone else: writing about living crime figures, accused or otherwise, is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia without getting your fingers burnt.

Not anything to do with crime, but we also still have Wikipedia's article Butt fumble headed gently towards the main page in DYK. This and its hook are, yes, entirely about a negative action taken by a sportsman (and the reaction to it), and I believe one of the recent sources cited in that article states that the individual concerned is currently fighting to keep his career (or somesuch wording). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to realise that some articles are never going to be suitable for DYK, even if they are worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. The butt fumble article is borderline; the ones mentioning crimes and criminals should definitely be excluded. StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
StAnselm, the criteria for articles at WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME doesn't forbid articles about living criminals if they have been convicted of crimes. In this case, Milan Poparić was serving a six-year prison sentence for a jewelry theft. As for DYK rules, they say "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals"; is there really excessive and inappropriate focus here on someone who is a convicted felon? DYK doesn't forbid absolutely, just undue. (Looking at the hook, the word "suspected" is not really correct: he is said in all the sources to be a Pink Panther, but the suspicion has to do with whether he is a "ringleader" in the group.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So, what to do: the Amy Salerno hook will hit the mainpage in a few hours time, and the Xu Ming one some 12 hours later. Pull, modify, or leave as is? Fram (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

With the Milan Poparic hook, several DYK reviewers weighed in, such as Crisco 1492 and BlueMoonset, saying that suspected was OK. However, would his breakout from prison be accepted instead of the current hook? Matty.007 07:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Demiurge1000: thank you for your repeated warning, as I have found out, it is similar in consistency to a minefield. However, as I mentioned above, several respected DYK reviewers looked at the hook. Matty.007 07:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, any entry which can be boiled down to "Living Person (committed/is accused of committing) gross professional misconduct" should not be on the front page. DS (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed hook from Prep Area 2--needs replacement

I removed Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide from Prep Area 2 to discuss possible close paraphrasing issue. I would appreciate if a regular promoter could replace it. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hook has been replaced and the steps that were skipped during the removal process have been completed. --Allen3 talk 22:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed hook

The hook that was removed here is not mine, but I don't see it as meeting the rationale set forth in its deletion from the queue. The hook states: "... that Judge Amy Salerno scolded jurors in her courtroom this month for what she considered to be an incorrect not guilty verdict?" The rationale given for its deletion was: "...way too controversial and BLP-sensitive. Even though it's 100% sourced...". As to it being controversial, that's not I believe criteria for deletion here. And as to it being BLP-sensitive, I don's see that." Perhaps others see what I do not. Others' comments would be helpful--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That hook was discussed above in the WT:DYK#Hooks pulled for BLP reasons section, and Fram recommended its removal, but no admin took action on it. You can read the reasoning above: the hook does dwell on a negative aspect of a living person, perhaps unduly (which would run afoul of DYK rules). The hook was up for over eight hours: since starting in 25 hours, all hooks will be up for only eight hours, it did have a significant run on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. If the judge is the living person about whom we are speaking (as distinct from the jurors), then I don't see the hook as "dwelling on a negative aspect" of the judge. Judges are allowed to speak to jurors, and tell them that they feel that the jurors reached an incorrect conclusion, just as they -- as part of their job -- are allowed to enter a verdict notwithstanding what the jury concluded, in appropriate circumstances. I don't see that as a BLP violation.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This situation appears to have been handled poorly, not the least of which because that no one involved in this discussion bothered to tell me about it. I'm not a disgruntled nominator, my article had a good run on the front page, I am more than satisfied in that respect. But it seems that potentially controversial hooks should be pulled from the queue (and their nominators notified) well before this point to allow for ample discussion. (And I would have gladly provided a new hook had anyone bothered to ask.) The process seems faulty both if potential hot potatoes are not dealt with before they get hot, and if they can be pulled from the front page and just dropped with no further attention to the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

How to make it to the main page

I found a very interesting thing about a RMS Titanic survivor, Edgar L. Perry, aged 19 in 1912 who died in the Southampton Blitz in 1940. There's almost no information on him to create an article and in the Southampton Blitz article it's mentioned but it's old so it doesn't qualify for Did you know?. How to make it appear on the main page? Japanesehelper (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC).

You could attempt a 5x expansion of the Southampton Blitz article: see 1(b) in the eligibility criteria section here. The Blitz article is not very long, and I suspect it has been well documented in reliable sources, so it should be possible to do enough work on it within the five-day timescale for an expansion. About another 8 kilobytes of text would be needed: roughly 1,500 words. Then the fact could be mentioned in a hook which links to Southampton Blitz, which would be the article you would nominate. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I wonder how notable he really is, if "there's almost no information on him to create an article"? If he's not notable he wouldn't justify a stand-alone article; he'd only be notable in the context of the Southampton Blitz if he played a significant role in it. I'm not sure being a casualty would count. Prioryman (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
If there's "almost no information" on him, why is it essential for him to be featured on the front page of the encyclopædia? There are lots of other deserving, interesting, and/or informative candidates. bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Time to update DYK's run rate?

The back log of nominations currently sits at over 200, even after preparing a days worth of sets. With this level of backlog I would propose we change from the current run rate of 2 sets of 7 hooks (14 hooks/day) to 3 sets of 6 hooks (18 hooks/day). I further propose this change become effective with the 00:00 1 September (UTC) update (all currently loaded queues and prep areas under current run rate with next set in prep 3 being the first at the new run rate). Timing the change for this update allows a couple days for discussion and avoids the need to move any of the special occasion requests currently in the queues and prep areas. --Allen3 talk 18:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless more nominations are reviewed, changing the setting is impossible. We still have older unreviewed nominations. Before agreeing, go to either #More unreviewed older nominations or #Refreshed list of older nominations needing re-reviews. --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to plan the shift for September 1, and go to 18 slots a day in three sets. There are always a boatload of unreviewed older nominations; what matters is that we have enough reviewed nominations at the present time to fill all 28 empty slots in the queues and prep areas and still have 11 left over; four days from now we're likely to have more extras, not fewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that having 40-45 verified hooks is sufficient to swap the system. I was thinking 60-80 verified hooks. Look, when 1 September 2013 comes, I fear that the amount of verified hooks could go down to 30 or 25, and that's not enough to change into three-per-day. --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
George, we're not currently using up enough hooks. If what you fear actually comes to pass, which I doubt, we can deal with it then: 60 to 80 verified hooks when all 10 prep sets and queues combined only have room for 60 strikes me as an excessive requirement. I'll be interested to see what other people think. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I support Allen3's proposal. Gatoclass (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hear hear. I was going to suggest changing to three sets once the backlog had hit 200; great to see it already being proposed. And now that there are over 50 approved hooks, three sets is definitely the way to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Counter proposal: that we step up the cycle temporarily – maybe for two weeks – to clear some of the backlog of verified hooks. The problem is that even now and at the current rate, some elementary errors are slipping through already when they go to the prep areas. When the deluge comes, more significant errors may well appear. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 10:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
    Rate changes at DYK have always been until future circumstances give reason to make the next change. If after a few days or few week you believe another change needs to be made, just bring your argument for why it should be done to this talk page. --Allen3 talk 14:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Changes to DYKUpdateBot's configuration needed to implement this change have been made. The 00:00 1 September (UTC) and subsequent updates are now set to run at 8 hour intervals. --Allen3 talk 16:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Great. Thanks, Allen3. Good to know we're set. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Unreviewed nominations of August 2013

I will add more another time. --George Ho (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Added August 17. --George Ho (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Submitting a DYK entry

Can someone sumbit this article on my behalf? I've tried submitting it myself but the form doesn't work. Here are my suggestions, all of which are cited, but I wouldn't be opposed if a regular editor can think of a better one.

  1. Did you know that the Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival is one of several yearly "festival sidebars" hosted by the Rhode Island International Film Festival?
  2. Did you know that the Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival is the largest and oldest running horror film festival in New England?
  3. Did you know that the H.P. Lovecraft Walking Tour, presented by the state historical society, is one of the most popular attactions at the Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival?
  4. Did you know that the Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival is one of several yearly "festival sidebars" hosted by the Rhode Island International Film Festival?
  5. Did you know that proceeds from the Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival have gone to a scholarship fund for college students to study film?
  6. Did you know that the Society for Creative Anachronism presented a "Zombiethon Battle" at the 2010 Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival?
  7. Did you know that the actors Gary Klar (Day of the Dead), Paul Kratka (Friday the 13th Part III), and The Atlantic Paranormal Society were special guests at the 2006 Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival?

Thanks, (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate help. (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

Although we have 231 current nominations, 63 of which are approved, we do have a great many older hooks from two weeks old to over two months that need reviewing. Please consider reviewing one or more of them if you can. Thank you as always for your continuing assistance. (Note: I have omitted completely unreviewed nominations, as these were covered on George Ho's latest list and this is already quite long.)

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) 15:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


A reviewer at the DYK page for A Night in Terror rejected the article because he said that the plot doesn't count for prose size. That is not true. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/A Night in Terror Tower SL93 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It is has been resolved. To be clear, I feel nothing bad towards the reviewer. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - let's add two extra prep areas

I propose that we add two extra prep areas to allow more flexibility in the timing of prep set building. Prep set builders are not evenly distributed around the globe and this would make it easier as they could pick a set that was not currently being built, and when 4 were loaded more could be generated. This would also anticipate possible ebbs and flows in demand if the RfC up there is close as successful.--Gilderien Talk to me|List of good deeds 19:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Gilderien, could you provide everyone with some information on the scale of the problem you are trying to address. Is the issue of all prep areas being full something that happens on a regular basis or is it something that normally happens less than one or two days a month (Hint: As one of the individuals that regularly builds DYK sets I know the answer to my question but suspect you will benefit from doing the research to find the answer yourself)? Additionally, if the problem you are seeing is caused by a short term burst of activity among one or two individuals, won't they just fill the two extra prep areas you are requesting? Bonus question: In an environment where most non-regular set builders do not pay attention to when the set they are building will run, how will your proposal affect efforts to satisfy requests from the Special occasion holding area? --Allen3 talk 20:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I would say quite often - I suspect it would be impossible to get exact figures as I would have to compare 4 different histories, but from my personal experience I have seen it a couple of times a month for several sets worth that all the prep areas are full. If GAs become eligible to be DYKs I suspect this problem will increase. Bonus question - with a one-to-one mapping from prep areas to queues, it will actually become easier, because builders and nominators would be able to guarantee placing in a particular queue if prep 1 went to queue 1, etc. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually it has been a fairly rare even for all prep sets to be filled for the last year or two. The simple reason for this is that we usually lack enough approved hooks to fill all the prep areas with balanced sets. A week ago at this time there were only 25 approved hooks on the nominations page. This compares to the current count of 63. For the last week we have been seeing an unusually large number of hooks being reviewed. Time will tell if this trend lasts, but my experience suggests that Wikipedia:WikiCup competitors stockpiling QPQ reviews in anticipation of the final round of competition is at least partially responsible for the increase. On a slight tangent, an individual filling the lead (image) slot of all the prep areas with a hook and leaving all or most of the other slots empty is a fairly common occurrence. --Allen3 talk 21:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That may be true, but I have seen frequently claims that GAs becoming eligible would cause problems with the number of sets - this would alleviate the problem and also make specific date requests more convenient.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Allen3, it simply isn't necessary at this time. If the addition of GAs makes a difference - a doubtful proposition - we can revisit the issue then. Gatoclass (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Has there ever been a report produced saying how many queues, hooks and/or articles DYK has produced over a given month or year or a set of months or years?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The information is all retrievable from the DYK archives. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I know that. I was just wondering if this year is going to be one of the lowest for amount of DYK material. We have had 12-hour queues very often.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Asking for consensus determination: are negative articles eligible for DYK?

Fram and I have lost this argument. There is broad consensus to approve the particular nomination, and to recognise that there may be negative DYK hooks on BLPs, including on criminals. There is no consensus at this time to remove the word "unduly" from the DYK rules. StAnselm (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recently, a number of articles have been pulled back from preps and queues due to negative hooks. One of these, Milan Poparić, has reached a stalemate, and one that is based on different understandings of the principles and DYK rules involved. We are hoping to achieve a consensus on how the DYK rules affect such articles and hooks going forward.

The nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Milan Poparic; there has been discussion there, and also some on this page at WT:DYK#Hooks pulled for BLP reasons. Where we stand is: User:StAnselm believes that the hook and/or article is negative, and as it's a BLP it thus breaks DYK rules about such. Others of us, myself included, think that DYK's rule—see WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria, 4a: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." (The "unduly focus" wording is reiterated in WP:DYK#The hook within its "Content" subsection)—does not mean all articles or hooks with negative aspects, but those where undue/inappropriate attention is paid to the negative aspects.

What is the case with properly sourced articles about convicted criminals (i.e., ones that meet the WP:BLPCRIME or WP:CRIME criteria)? Are they automatically disqualified from DYK because they are de facto negative? Or is it only if the hooks have an undue focus on the negative that they are ineligible—and if a valid article is generally negative, is it undue or allowable for the resulting hook to reflect the article's contents?

For those who are wondering about the particular hook in this instance, its latest version is:

Thanks for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: As an involved party, I believe BlueMoonset has faithfully and accurately described the dispute. StAnselm (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The key word in the phrase "articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of individuals" is the qualifier unduly. What that means is that it is permissible for DYK articles and hooks to focus on negative aspects of individuals so long as the focus is not undue, which is to say, it doesn't unfairly malign an individual or present a distorted image. In the case of career criminals, notable only, or chiefly, for their criminal activities, it is hardly possible to malign them by referring, for example, to their crimes. I don't have a problem with the proposed hook, providing Bluemoonset is correct that there is no question the person in question is a member of the "Pink Panthers". Gatoclass (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • While under current rules negative articles are allowed (but greater care should be taken with them than has often been the case), I support a change to the rules that would simply disallow negative or contentious BLPs at DYK, to avoid further problems. Fram (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If a topic is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, it's suitable for presentation on the main page. Anything else would be censorship. Gatoclass (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
We choose which things we bring under the attention of thousands of people at the main page. Having serious, negative mistakes there about BLPs (e.g. stating that a recently arrested alleged local Mafia leader is "Head of the Cosa Nostra") is something that should be avoided at all costs. DYK hooks lack the space to provide context, nuances, ... It's better, considering the fair number of problems we have had in this regard, to err on the side of caution. Such a mistake in an article is bad, but such a mistake on the frontpage is much, much worse. This is not "censoring", it is being careful and fair. Fram (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it's total overkill. DYK/Removed lists only a tiny handful of DYKs removed over the last three years for BLP concerns - not a single one this year until this week, only four in 2012 and three in 2011 - and at least half of the total were probably unjustified removals. BLP violations are usually caught very early here, as it's something most admins are acutely aware of as an issue. Gatoclass (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that the fact that no one noticed problems means that there were no problems. In March, I had to change the hook in Template:Did you know nominations/Sameh Fahmi after it was already in the queue, for misrepresenting the reason why some BLP was convicted (a rather important point, one would think); considering that I only check these queues occasionally, I doubt that I was so unlucky to stumble upon the only ones in 2013 to be in the queue or life with serious problems. I have just opened at random the June 2013 archive of DYK, and for June 30 (the "first" day in the archive), I spot "... that Singaporean businessperson Zeng Guo Yuan spent three weeks in jail for placing sunshades at his two stores without permission?". Looking at the article Zeng Guo Yuan, he did not spend three weeks for placing sunshades without permission, but "for placing at his two stores banners of then-wanted fugitive Mas Selamat bin Kastari"; the "sunshades" part was his defense. BLP is accused of A, defends himself with B, is convicted for A, so we post a DYK that states that he was convicted for B instead... The fact that only a few of these get caught in time is exactly the reason why they need to be removed right from the start. Fram (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely with Fram, and I do not believe the issue is merely interpreting the DYK rules - we need to follow the spirit of BLP, even if that might be a vaguer concept than we would like. I think we should change the DYK rules to remove the word "undue". Removing all BLPs would be overkill, but we can easily decide to remove all negative and contentious BLPs. StAnselm (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) So, the fact that only a tiny handful of hooks get pulled for BLP reasons is proof that there must be many more which were missed? Sorry, but that is not a credible argument. We are not about to start disqualifying entire categories of articles on the basis that an occasional mistake is made. Gatoclass (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
No, the fact that a simple check immediately finds another hook which should have been pulled (or modified) indicates that a) the small number of pulled hooks is no evidence of the problem being small, and b) the current system doesn't work as it should. The mistakes aren't occasional, they are all-too frequent, and in these cases, they are serious. Fram (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
So, the fact that you found one other apparently incorrect hook is now sufficient cause to justify the banning of all DYK hooks and articles which contain negative BLP-related content? This is getting downright Kafkaesque. Gatoclass (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The fact that I found one other among the first twenty hooks I looked through, yes. It's not as if I had to look at hundreds of them to find some tiny mistake. Take another month, the first crime-related BLP entry: " that Marte Dalelv, a Norwegian woman, received a prison sentence of sixteen months in Dubai after she reported a man to the police for rape?" This is correct, but IMO should not have been in this form (or at all) on the front page, as again it omits all nuance and having both sides represented; while the hook correctly states "after", the implied message is that she was sentenced "because" she did this, while officially it was for other reasons. I don't see this hook as complying with NPOV. It's far from the worst BLP crime related hook we had, but it's hardly one that will encourage me to support the posting of DYK hooks on such subjects. They are just usually way too delicate and difficult to put neutrally and fairly into a one sentence hook. Fram (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You were complaining about BLP violations, so in support of that you present evidence of an alleged NPOV violation? That doesn't make much sense, does it? I think it's time to move on from this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I was complaining about problems with crime-related hooks about BLPs, you seem to have narrowed this down to BLP violations. You seem to be moving the goalposts quite a bit though. I think it is clear from the examples that there are plenty of problems with many crime-related or other negative or contentious BLPs, including errors and biased reporting. It is also clear that only some of those are found before they hit the main page. The question is if soemthing needs to be done about this, and if yes, what. 11:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Bearing in mind I take a strong stance on BLP; that policy mandates we take great care when writing about a living subject. Whether that be negative information or not! However, that doesn't mean negative information should be pushed to one side (which is an unfortunate way that BLP gets applied). As the DYK rules clarify any hook should not unduly focus on negative things about an individual, but that doesn't mean that the can't. In this specific example, the individual is explicitly notable for having been broken out of jail by AK-wielding accomplices. So that's fine - we are not picking a negative but non-prominent fact to feature. --Errant (chat!) 09:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with ErrantX. When someone is notable for some reason and also there is negative information, then we should avoid negative hooks. But when someone is notable prominently and unquestionably for something negative, there is no concern to be had. --cyclopiaspeak! 09:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree Gatoclass, Errant etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I find the original hook to be intriguing. Agree with Gatoclass, and I think Errant--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree generally with Gatoclass here, and certainly as to the hook in question. To do otherwise does not only seem wrong-headed, but would appear to ignore completely the word "unduly." The overriding question -- of whether we should have more stringent rules in this regard for DYK than for articles in general, is also one that my an interesting one to think about, but that issue is a secondary one.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

my nomination

Why is my nomination not being reviewed?--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop the presses! A TV show was delayed!

The lead hook of Queue 3 is one of the most boring ones we've had in a long time. It's hard to imagine a hook less interesting than one about a scheduling change for a cartoon.

I also think the picture doesn't look that great. Maybe something like the following would be better:

Or, if you must use the image:

MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Mandarax, I just took a quick look, and those are comments on the pilot rather than the show as a whole, but then this is an article about the pilot episodes, not about the series itself, which neither of your proposed substitute hooks makes clear. (Also, only one critic made the comment about the title, making these a bit misleading on that front.) So I wouldn't be in favor of using them. How about replacing the end of the hook, the clause "although originally set to premiere in November 1998?", with "nearly two months later than originally scheduled, due to post-production delays?" It's 28 characters longer, but still sufficiently below 200:
Delays in post-production are a different matter from ordinary scheduling changes: they actually couldn't finish it on time. Would this wording be a sufficient improvement? (I'm not particularly fond of the image myself, incidentally, though in the larger size it does show Antonucci with a less than affable expression, something that isn't clear at thumbnail size.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
As written in the article, the comments appear to be about the whole series, based on the pilot. I had generalized the critics for brevity, but it could be changed to:
Your hook is also definitely an improvement on the one currently in the Queue. Either one, or pretty much anything else anyone may suggest other than the current one, is fine with me. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like we need an admin who agrees that the queue's hook is a problem and will change the hook. Calling all admins! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Changed to Mandarax's, simply because I found it the more interesting (particularly as the show ran for several years) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The rules for DYK images are 100 percent strict, are they not?

I mean, there is no chance that I can use a cropped version for the hook, with the full-size image being used in the article, right? I'm asking because the image on the right would be great at accompanying the hook about Merkel-Raute, but unfortunately I think it's of no use for the article itself.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

We've often allowed people to use a cropped version which looks better at 100x100px. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Well, then my problem is solved.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Are expansions still 5x?

Remind me, are expansions still 5x? I just expanded an old 300 words article (Ryszard Siwiec) to about 1,200, that's about 4x, but I have run out of anything meaningful to say. Is it fine for DYK, or do I have to add 300 words (i.e. a passable length of a new DYK) of half-relevant background garbage to get this DYKed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See Eligibility criteria 1b for your answer. In the past, articles a little short (e.g. 4.75x or larger) have been approved under a WP:IAR waiver. As the article in question is just short of 4x (having gone from 1930 characters of readable prose on July 13 to 7645), this does not appear to qualify under traditional waivers. --Allen3 talk 10:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Consider the possibility of getting this one qualified for DYK as a new GA... (See above.) --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, although it apparently makes no difference in this case, all be aware that we count by prose characters, not by words. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 September 2013

Queue 4, no 1, "that William Blake sketched a series of portraits of historical individuals (example pictured), including ancient Greeks, medieval royalty and characters of folklore, that appeared to him in late night visions?" Please change "that" to "who"; they're people, not things. Thanks, Awien (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Awien (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 talk 00:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Awien (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 September 2013

Queue 6, no. 2: "that Florence Koehler was one of the most well-known jewelers of the Arts and Crafts movement?" Please change "most well-known" with more usual "best-known". Thanks, Awien (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Awien (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 talk 00:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you again. Awien (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Many older nominations are waiting for a reviewer. Thank you for your assistance.

As usual, please cross off any entries you perform reviews for (unless an additional reviewer is needed) regardless of whether the review resulted in a pass or fail. --Allen3 talk 12:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Earwig's Copyvio tool on the Nomination template

Please be advised that the Copyvio Check on the nomination template directs to Earwig's copyvio check on Toolserver. That tool is now on Earwig's Copyvio Checker on labs, even though the one on Toolserver seems to also work for the moment. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate hook in Queue 6

  • ... that in 1960, at Ahu Akivi (pictured) in Easter Island archeologists took one month to restore the first moai in place but less than a week to fix the remaining six?

I think this source has been misunderstood. Firstly, it doesn't tell us how long it took to actually restore the moai, just how long it took to raise them. Secondly, it didn't take them less than a week to raise six moai. What the source actually says is: "During the restoration, it took a full month—using a stone ramp and two wooden levers—to raise the first of the seven moai. By the time they got to the last moai, the same task took them less than a week." That is, it took a month to raise the first moai, and less than a week to raise the seventh. We don't know how long it took to raise the other five.

So could someone pull this? DoctorKubla (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove restrictions on Gibraltar articles?

After 26 days of discussion, I am closing this per a request at WP:ANRFC. consensus was to lift all present restrictions on Gibraltar and Gibraltar-related DYKs. Editors generally agreed that continuing to impose the restrictions would be unhelpful at this point and advanced arguments that various concerns inre: contests and DYK disputes that existed at the time of the restrictions have not been persistent. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi everyone, I know that things are fairly calm right now, and I don't want to stir up any hard feelings, but the restrictions on Gibraltar-related articles have already been in place for almost a year. The number has almost dried up, and Gibraltarpedia is well done and over. Any worries about rescinding the restrictions on Gibraltar articles, and return to treating them as regular articles? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman recommended next month. However, if you want soon, I think we should deal with individual restrictions and vote on each individually. We can't vote on restrictions as a whole anymore. It was tried and failed. We could decide about "banning Victuallers from Gibraltar-related topics", and then deal with the rest individually. --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "banning Victuallers from Gibraltar-related topics" Facepalm. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I certainly don't see any need to retain the Gibraltar-related subsections. There might be an argument for retaining the double review for a while I guess, but I wouldn't have a strong objection to dropping it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I feel both could be dropped. We've had what, five in the past two months? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I haven't been counting but if that's the situation I guess we could drop the remaining restrictions and see how that goes. Gatoclass (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Just in case, here it is: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options. --George Ho (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention that Gibraltar's artificial reef/border dispute with Spain is legitimately news at the moment. Awien (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I suggested waiting until September as that would be a year exactly since the restrictions were imposed but I wouldn't object if we were to lift them earlier. I've added some figures at User:Prioryman/Gibraltar notes covering all the Gibraltar-related DYKs that have run this year. (A couple of other DYKs coincidentally mentioned Gibraltar in the hook but weren't about it, so I've excluded these.) It's obvious that the restrictions are completely unnecessary at this point in time - the only practical effect they are having is to double the workload of reviewers and incur unnecessary delays in completing the reviews. The average time from nomination to running is 18 days, considerably more than for other DYKs. Last year the average delay was a ridiculous 69 days, before we started dual-listing them. The original reasons for imposing the restrictions have all faded away. The number of articles is low; there have been 20 Gibraltar-related DYK nominations so far this year, an average of only 2.5 per month. The Gibraltarpedia contest is long over - it ended in December 2012. There is no ongoing controversy - on 13 July we had a Gibraltar-related Today's Featured Article, which attracted the highest number of votes in favour I've ever seen in a TFA nomination and produced no controversy whatsoever when it ran. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that there's any ongoing COI or promotional issues, and Victuallers is doing other things these days. So what justification remains for the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • My apologies for interfering with the scheduling (although I honestly think now is the time). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, it's absolutely fine. Prioryman (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


Alright, let's structure this as a formal !vote, a pseudo-RFC if you will. One question: should restrictions on Gibraltarpedia articles and articles related to Gibraltar be lifted? (edited 10:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

Yes, lifted in whole

  1.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  2.  — Darkness Shines (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  3.  — Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  4.  — Khazar2 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  5.  — IronGargoyle (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  6.  —  SL93 (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  7. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  8.  —  These were never needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  9. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  10.  —  Miyagawa (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  11.  —  Simon Burchell (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  12.  —  Sagaciousphil (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  13. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  14. Way past time. They serve no purpose now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  15. Most definitely.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 02:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  16. Yes time to simplify things here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  17. I see we've been averaging about five per month, or roughly one a week, for the last four months, but so far this month we've had only one and there is only one nom remaining on the nomination page. This seems to be clear evidence that the number of Gibraltar noms has dried up, and I for one would like to see the nominations page cleaned up of all the extraneous subsections, so I think I can support this. If the situation changes, we can always reimpose restrictions if necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  18. Long overdue. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 11:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  19. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  20. Requiring additional reviews clogs the DYK queues. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  21. As per Gatoclass and Hawkeye7. - Jayadevp13 06:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  22. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  23. Per Gatoclass. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  24. Provided Victuallers confirms that the contracts and obligations to the Gibraltar Government are completed. TheOverflow (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  25. End the sillyness Agathoclea (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  26. Certainly. theonesean 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  27. Such restrictions never made sense in the first place. --cyclopiaspeak! 20:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  28. Should have been lifted a while ago. SilverserenC 21:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  29. Yep, does nothing useful and was hype in the first place - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  30. Definitely. Not needed when it began, and nothing's arisen since then to warrant it. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  31. Piling on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, lifted in part (explain what should be lifted)

  1. To be fair to people who just happen to write a good new article about the region, sure, let it just be a normal DYK vote. However, articles should be given extra scrutiny if they are written or substantially improved by Prioryman or anyone connected to last year's WMUK outreach program(me), and/or anyone connected with "Victuallers" in any way, shape or form. This is still an embarrassment to the spirit of WP and the WMF chapters' outreach efforts. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
    Since when was Gibraltarpedia a WMUK outreach programme? -- KTC (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Never. Nor has SB Johnny given any rationale whatsoever why articles written by me should be "given extra scrutiny". Considering several of my Gibraltar-related DYKs have since gone on to become GAs, I think I've proved the opposite, if anything. Prioryman (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, keep the restrictions

  1. Keep the restrictions until February 2014. There was a public relations disaster in September 2012 [7][8][9], but the issue stayed in the news through February 2013.[10] Jimbo called for a five-year moratorium. I think we should go with one year from the last expression of disapproval in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Keep restrictions. I wasn't going to vote either way, but noticing that Prioryman in his helpful list of the DYKs that ran this year excluded Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Gap Footpath, which he approved and subsequently got deleted at AfD. Excluding the most problematic (AFAIK, there may have been others even worse) Gibraltar-related DYK from your notes used to influence a discussion on lifting the restrictions seems par for the course. Having a second reviewer at least reduces the chance of such problematic articles appearing on the main page. Fram (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Keep per User:Binksternet. After having read what this dust-up was about, I'd posit that 5 years isn't over yet. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


To Binkerset: We can't keep one or all restrictions any longer. If we keep banning more experienced Victuallers from contributing to Gibraltar-ish articles, then we might encourage others to do the same thing on others, even when s/he requested that s/he be off of them. If we keep the special place section for such articles, that's just a waste of space, especially for low-loading browsers or those with low-speed internet, like dialup. --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, there is no ongoing controversy. We had a TFA about Gibraltar for an entire day last month with no controversy whatsoever when it appeared. Since that February 2013 news item (which was one isolated hit piece written by one of the most anti-Wikipedia journalists out there) there has been no negative coverage whatsoever, even though we've had 18 more DYKs and a TFA. Basically, nobody cares any more. You also don't explain what a continuation of the restrictions would achieve and your choice of one year is completely arbitrary. I would add that the last proposal for a moratorium was rejected by a huge margin, something like 27-2, so argumentum ad Jimbonem won't work either. It's time to end this and get back to normal business on DYK. Prioryman (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I note that you have not taken any of the other voters to task for their lack of explanation for why they might think the lifting of restrictions is a good idea. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Because right now the onus is on you to justify keeping the restrictions. You've offered no explanation of what a continuation is supposed to achieve or prevent, whereas it's pretty clear what would be gained by lifting them. Prioryman (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any controversy anymore. One recent article does not mean controversy. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call six months ago "recent"... but that aside, Binksternet is wrong to characterise the media coverage as "staying in the news through February 2013". The reality is that there was a flurry of news stories in September 2012, nearly a year ago, then a handful of articles in early October, then the February 2013 Register piece, then nothing since. One isolated story written by a notoriously anti-Wikipedia writer, which nobody else followed up on, can't possibly justify continuing the restrictions. The controversy took place almost entirely in September-October 2012. That is more than long enough ago for us to be able to move on now. Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

To Prioryman: Your Gibraltar notes page is helpful to see the delays in Gibraltar articles, some of which seem quite long... but the delays aren't necessarily (or only) due to the Gibraltar restrictions, are they? If you linked to the DYK noms, rather than simply the articles, in your table, it would be simpler to see the reasons for the delays (I suggested this on your notes page, but you may have missed this). TheOverflow (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - sorry I missed it, I didn't think anyone was going to comment there. The delays have certainly been exacerbated by the restrictions. Of the 20 DYKs listed on my notes page, only 3 have been the subject of any significant dispute ([11], [12], [13]). For the rest, the restrictions are largely responsible for the delays - the usual situation has been a long gap between the first and second reviews. For instance, Template:Did you know nominations/Fortifications of Gibraltar was nominated on 24 May. The first review was on the same day. The second review was not until 9 June - 16 days later - and the article wasn't promoted until 18 June, 25 days after it was nominated. The reason for the delay is twofold, I think. First, even now I suspect that many reviewers aren't used to the two-review system which is unique to Gibraltar articles and they skip over reviews requiring it. Second, at BlueMoonset's insistence completed Gibraltar reviews are, again uniquely, removed from the main listings and confined to the holding area at the very bottom of the page. Set builders don't appear to check it very often.
Until February this year, the Gibraltar nominations didn't even appear in the main area of the nomination page. This meant that the only place where they appeared was in the holding area at the bottom, which has never before been used to hold incomplete nominations. This resulted in massive delays. Grand Casemates Gates took 109 days to get from nomination to running - nominated on 15 October 2012, ran on 23 January 2013. It didn't even get its first review until over a month after it was nominated. From February, at my insistence, we started dual-listing the nominations in the main area and the holding area. Before February, it took an average of 81 days for Gibraltar-related nominations to go from nomination to running (the shortest time was 46 days, the longest 109 days). Since February, the average has come down to about 18 days (shortest 5 days, longest 85 days). This compares with an average of 7 days for a random sample of non-Gibraltar nominations over the same period. So in other words, the restrictions have meant at least twice as much review work per nomination and are currently causing these nominations to take at least 2.5 times longer to process than non-Gibraltar nominations. That is actually an improvement from the situation before February when it took 11.5 times longer to process them on average. Maintaining these restrictions has cost a lot of people a lot of time and effort, for very little benefit - another good reason for getting rid of them. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • @Fram: Devils Gap Footpath was not included because Prioryman made a list of articles that ran. As the article was deleted and did not run on the main page, it was not included. I find it disingenuous to suggest there was a hidden meaning there, as if AGF is not needed for Gibraltar. That being said, you raise a valid point about the possibility of non-critical reviews (although without the ABF your argument might be stronger). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    • @So the DYK restrictions were only applicable to articles that ran, and not to those that weer nominated (and accepted by e;g. Prioryman) but ultimately didn't run because of, well, problems? And showing that the restrictions aren't necessary by producing a list of thoes that ran, excluding those that apparently had problems which were severe enough to reject them, is just a coincidence? The problem is not that AGF is not needed for Gibraltar, but that a lot more AGF is needed for some of the prominent members of Gibraltarpedia to accept their comments at face value. It's not as if the Devil Gap one is an old DYK... 07:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
      • You are comparing apples and oranges. We both know that the restrictions applied to all articles nominated, and perhaps a better list of Gibraltar DYKs for this discussion would have been one of all such articles nominated. However, Prioryman provided one of all articles run, which by its very definition would have excluded the article you took issue with. I am not asking that you change your !vote (as I said, you raise some good points), but the way you've raised your objection to Prioryman's representation of the Gibraltar DYKs suggests the folly that a list of articles run should include articles that did not run (!). A better question, in my opinion, would be "Prioryman, why didn't you make a list of Gibraltar articles that were nominated, so we can see the true state of such nominations" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
        • As far as I know, the Devil's Gap Footpath article is the only Gibraltar-related article that has been nominated but not run (and note that it didn't run not because it failed a DYK review, but because the review was aborted due to the article failing an AfD). Every other article that has been nominated has eventually run. Prioryman (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
To Fram: I don't fully understand what you are trying to say here, but I will say that I don't think Prioryman or any other user involved in creating Gibraltar articles should be approving the same - we have rules here about avoiding apparent conflicts of interest per supplementary rule H2. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Currently, one of the two reviewers is often someone closely involved with Gibraltar or GibraltarPedia-related articles. If we have only one reviewer, but that reviewer is sufficiently uninvolved (not only with the article, but with the topic and the creators), then the need for two reviewers is largely gone. In the past, I have seen too many articles created and reviewed by people too closely involved with one another, which at least for the Gibraltar articles is avoided by the current situation. Fram (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's simply not true. 30 editors have reviewed the 19 DYKs that have run this year (listed at User:Prioryman/Gibraltar notes). Only one of them, Dr. Blofeld, is associated with Gibraltarpedia. If 97% of the reviewers are uninvolved I don't see how you can credibly argue that there isn't sufficient variety in the reviews. While it's true that Dr. Blofeld did five reviews before withdrawing from DYK earlier this year, none of those has in any way been contentious. As for the "apparent conflicts of interest" that Gatoclass mentions, that's nonsense. We've never banned members of a WikiProject from reviewing articles by other members of the same. In fact, as subject matter experts, WikiProject members are possibly in a better position than most reviewers when it comes to identify problems such as errors of fact. The restrictions specifically state that "One of the two reviewers should not be connected to GibraltarPediA", and so far that has never caused a problem. Prioryman (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It is quite obvious from the DYK reviews I did (on Gibraltarpedia articles, on Gibraltar but not Gibraltarpedia articles, and on unrelated articles) that project members are often either not subject matter experts or rather poor fact checkers (and in one case rather good fact inventors). And while we may never have banned project members from reviewing, I vaguely remember someone trying to ban opponents of a project from reviewing articles on very flimsy grounds. Fram (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
If you don't understand why opponents of a project shouldn't review articles let me spell it out for you: such opponents have a clear motivation and means to sabotage the project in question by obstructing and rejecting DYKs on bogus grounds. This is exactly the scenario that occured on Template:Did you know nominations/Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Not different from people approving articles (or fighting rejections) on bogus grounds because they are supporters of a project (or have other interests in promoting these). And a project isn't sabotaged by not getting their articles in DYK. Wikipedia doesn't get worse by not getting an article on DYK, but it may get worse by getting one on DYK that shouldn't be there. DYK is not a trophy for a project or an editor, but a means to make Wikipedia more interesting and to attract readers and editors. Please try to get rid of your WP:OWN perception of this. Fram (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Implementation of RfC

Persuant to the closure above I ask now how should this be implemented. Newyorkbrad's suggestions seem to be an excellent starting point.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the first step of implementation would be to alter the eligibility rules (in WP:DYK and other place where they are listed) by adding the new criteria. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I think a better first step would be to figure out what all the steps would be: if you change the rules before having everything else in place, then you've caused just the confusion the implementation delay built into the proposed close was supposed to avoid. One small example: the "NewDYKnomination" template would need to be fixed so that it includes "GA" (or "Good Article"?) as one of the allowable items in the "status" field, and knows how to translate that in the resulting "DYKsubpage" template that is created from it. If all these are done ahead of time, we won't have processes breaking and people unhappy. I think Newyorkbrad was wise to call for this in his closure of the RfC, and a little time spent to try to think of all the processes that need changing and all the places in the many DYK rules pages that will also need changing will be very worthwhile. I would strongly recommend that editing the eligibility rules be the last step, not the first. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation BlueMoonset. Now I can see why the delay is needed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from modifying NewDYKnomination, is there anything else that needs to be done? I can't think of anything offhand. Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be relatively straightforward - we've done new classes of DYK article before (expanded, BLP expanded, and a tag for "new in mainspace"). I ran through it (on paper) the other day and couldn't see anything obvious other than the template update. Perhaps we should do a dummy run for a GA and see if anything breaks? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, if that's it, then I can't see anything stopping us from giving it a shot. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think there should be a separate category for GAs that appear on the main page (through DYK). This is in case at some point in the future GA gets its own section for newly-promoted articles (or GAs in general), it will have a record of those articles that have already appeared on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, for the record if this is to be implemented on the 20th does this mean all GAs promoted on or after the 15th will be eligible (based on the 5-day rule)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Answering Gatoclass: I've put in a request to Shubinator to add a check for how recent the GA status is to DYKcheck, which tells how "old" the GA is. I didn't ask for a check on previous GAs. Until it's ready, reviewers would have to be prepared to make such a check by hand. I would suggest that checking the article talk page is the way to go; people sometimes add an undeserved "good article" template (which places the icon) on the article page, but they rarely know enough to fake the "GA" template on the talk page, and it's easy enough to click on the link to the review page from the GA box on the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are other templates that would need editing: some require coding, some are simple text edits. I'll start a list here, including the already identified NewDYKNomination. I can think of at least one more:

  1. Template:NewDYKnomination
  2. Template:DYK review criteria, which displays instructions to people who are editing nomination templates. (The GA would need to be added to the "New" section.)

Can people please add others to the list as they think of them? Some of the templates will need only small changes (like "DYK review criteria"); others will be far more complex. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Eligibility criteria

  • As Tony's last comment suggests, we need to figure out what the eligibility rules for GAs should be. Here are some specifics that I think should be included:
  1. To be eligible for DYK, a newly designated GA should not have previously been featured on DYK or in ITN. I think we've seen agreement on this point.
  2. There should be a length threshold for GAs to be included in GA. This could be the same 1500 characters of prose that DYK currently uses, but there might be merit in a higher threshold, such as 2000 characters. It seems to me that a higher threshold would be in keeping with the views expressed in the RFC regarding the presumed superiority of GAs. I don't think that a higher eligibility threshold would need to be coded into DYKcheck, as it's a simple matter to look at the prose character count in DYKcheck.
  3. To be eligible for DYK, a GA must be nominated no later than 5 days after it is designated as a GA.
  4. Different QPQ criteria may be appropriate for self-noms of GAs. Considering that most (but not all) GA creators are more experienced than typical new contributors to DYK, it's reasonably to ask them to start doing QPQs earlier. As a starting point for discussion, I suggest that after a new-to-DYK contributor has received one DYK credit for a GA, any future self-noms of GAs should be accompanied by QPQ reviews.
  5. Other than "newness" and possibly length and QPQ, all existing DYK criteria apply to GAs nominated for DYK.
We'll need to change the slug over the DYK feature, which now reads "From Wikipedia's newest content:". I can't avoid thinking that it should say something like: "From Wikipedia's newest content and articles newly recognized because 'everyone gets a trophy':", but maybe that could be modified to something like "From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content:". (Aside: I am unable to escape the impression that the "Good article" feature is related to the modern U.S. phenomenon of "everyone gets a trophy", which is exemplified by the practice of giving a trophy to every 7-year-old child on a youth sport team, with most of the trophies recognizing accomplishments like "most improved" or "good effort".)
We need to figure out what to do when a DYK reviewer finds that an article should not have been passed as a good article. The rules of the Good Article Reassessment appear to be patterned after the WP:FAR rules, in that they discourage reversal of a GA designation -- there seems to be a strong presumption that the GA designation is a valid one (in spite of the fact that it takes only one reviewer to bestow the designation -- and there aren't any pre-qualifications for GA reviewers). I expect that DYK reviewers are going to be finding copyvios and other serious issues with some newly designated GAs (just as we currently find them with other DYK noms), so I think we need agreement on a process for quickly removing the GA designation. --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you are perhaps a little more cynical than I about the GA process! But leaving that aside...
  • Basic criteria - length, citation of hook, etc should remain as they are - this will make it simpler to maintain and avoid the rules swelling too much. I don't think adding a marginally higher count will really mean much, given that GAs tend not to be minimally short and almost all will pass it. (Are there very many ultra-short GAs at all? IME they tend to be if anything overly long...)
  • Eligibility criteria - not previously "featured" (main link) on DYK or ITN seems consistent with other rules. It may be worth adding "not previously TFA", which is borderline plausible for an old article being salvaged.
  • Major problems - ie clearly unsuitable as GA, not just DYK-specific issues - punt straight to GAR and flag it on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations; there have been several cases where obvious bad/superficial passes have simply been revoked there. GAR is a slow process and could certainly be sped up & made more lightweight, but I don't think we should get sidetracked into trying to do that here and now! If we find more than a small proportion are being challenged as fundamentally unsuitable, we can look at a more direct solution, but I don't think that is a major risk.
  • Reviews: given these are almost all by experienced authors, I think saying "you must review" is fair - so reviews required for all nominations.
  • Tagline - something like "new and recently improved content" works, and also works better for the "expanded" DYKs in any case.
Thoughts? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
My personal thoughts when I wrote the rule change were as follows:
  • Basic criteria - no change is needed here as Orlady said i.e. implement the proposal as written.
  • Eligibility criteria - no change is needed here, as excluding it as a result of previous features is already in the supplementary criteria.
  • Major problems - straight to GAR - if we at DYK can identify clear unsuitabilities then it shouldn't have been passed as a GA anyway. Minor problems can be fixed as usual by the nominator or anyone else.
  • Reviews: It would seem reasonable to require QPQ for every nomination, no matter who wrote/nominated the article.
  • Tagline - "new and recently improved content" seems like a good summary.
-Gilderien Converse|List of good deeds 21:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: There are essentially two reasons why I recommended that the QPQ requirement should apply for the second GA article instead of the first. The first reason is that some GA contributors are very new contributors (in particular, I was thinking of students who edited one article for a course) and can not be assumed to be remotely ready to do a QPQ immediately after getting the GA designation. Of course, most of them probably will never do a second DYK nomination, so they'll never do a QPQ, but I believe DYK will be better off without their QPQ reviews... The second reason is that even an experienced Wikipedia contributor who has never been involved with DYK will learn a lot while watching their first nom go through the process, and will be much better prepared to do a decent review in the next outing. IMO, iDYK will be better off giving them the first nomination "for free" than if they try to review before they have a clue what DYK is about -- or if regulars have to take time to coach them through the review process before they've had any experience with DYK.
As for articles that shouldn't have passed GA, "straight to GAR" is not a solution. GAR is a slow process that presumes the article was fully qualified for GA, but has lost some of its good qualities over time. It isn't appropriate for dealing with a non-good article that was recently passed due to a substandard review. I much prefer Andrew Gray's solution of raising these articles as issues at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
My "straight to GAR" is mainly so that if it gets lost at WT:GAN, at least it's got logged somewhere and the wheels will grind onto it eventually. Doing both is of course best. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
WT:GAR does work for incorrectly passed good articles, but it has never been a process that has a time limit so can take some time (especially as the end goal is usually to improve the article to a good one). Reporting at WT:GAN is likely to result in a faster response. Maybe it would be better to skip GAR in regards to DYK. If someone comes across a substandard good article then they can raise it at WT:GAN and if there is general agreement there then it should not feature. It can then be put through the reassessment process without any time pressure, independent of DYK. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew Gray and (ec) Gilderien that we do not want to boost the size of the rules to make reviews even more daunting. The automated tools for checking would then become more complex too. But compulsory reviews for GA nominators sounds OK as a rule variation as these are very unlikely to be new here. However they are likely to be new to DYK review, so don't be surprised if there is some sloppy or erroneous reviews coming up soon! One area to check more carefully would be for copied content from other Wikipedia articles, but for GA this may be allowable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Another GA issue I have seen is fraud: someone puts the symbol on an article and puts it on the list without any nomination or process or reviewer. So I think we need a clear statement of what constitutes a real GA for reviewers here to use. Perhaps we need a page for regular DYK workers to read up on about GA for those like me that rarely touch GA. Some training material would be good! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
It certainly happens! All GAs will have a review page - Talk:PAGENAME/GA1 (or 2, 3, etc), always linked from the talkpage (via article-history) and sometimes transcluded there. If it's missing, or clearly dubious (signed off by the author, no meaningful comments), then you've got a bad review. For transparency, we could always modify the template to include a link to the GA review page? That might be overkill, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
It should be possible to add code to DYKcheck to check the article talk page for evidence of a successful GA review (similar to how DYKcheck checks to make sure articles aren't tagged as "stub" on their talk pages). However, the DYK review instructions should remind DYK readers to check the GA review to make sure the article passed in the requisite time period. --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
As noted above, I put in a request the other day on Shubinator's talk page for GA checking to be a part of DYKcheck. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a QPQ exemption if it isn't a self-nomination. With normal DYKs, someone nominating another person's article, especially someone who is not a DYK contributor, usually has to do some work on the article to make it DYK ready, which is why we've waived the QPQ requirement for non-self-nominations. One major argument in favor of adding GAs has been that GAs, by virtue of having been reviewed for quality, would be DYK ready, with the possible exception of the hook and its inline sourcing. So I think that people who nominate other people's GAs should be prepared to do a QPQ: it's not like they have to search very hard to find or work hard to nominate. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
One interesting issue is that a lot of the nominators may turn out to be the reviewer of the article and not the author - something I can certainly imagine myself doing - which is something to bear in mind. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be one freebie for nominators per creator: that is, if JoeGA hasn't had a GA nominated for DYK before, then a QPQ wouldn't be required, but once a GA has been nominated, someone has to do a QPQ for all future noms by that creator. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Good points about nominators. I suggest that any nominator's first-ever DYK nomination should be "free", but after the first one, all future DYK nominations of GAs (whether self-noms or someone else's GA) should have a QPQ. --Orlady (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, a few comments:

  • I would be opposed to changing the existing DYK tagline to "from Wikipedia's newest or most recently improved articles" as suggested above. "Improved" is a very vague term that could essentially apply to any article that gets a tweak. I would suggest "most recently promoted rather than "most recently improved", because the articles are after all being promoted to GA status. The words "recently promoted" should be linked to an appropriate GA-related page.
  • DYK rules are complex enough already and I see no need for further instruction creep, so I would oppose the notion that there should be a different QPQ threshold for GA noms; DYK is still an unfamiliar process for previous non-participants whether experienced editors or not, and not all GA participants are that experienced anyway so I think it would be best to leave the threshold at five; alternatively, I guess we could standardize the requirement to three for all parties. I am also not that keen on requiring QPQs for third party GA noms, again for instruction creep concerns, unless the process is standardized to require QPQs for all third party noms. On the other hand, I think the five-day nomination threshold should be strictly enforced on GAs because unlike DYKs which are often works in progress when nominated, GAs have already had their promotion and should be ready for nomination immediately. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think "promoted" is a good term - it's clear to us that it refers to articles which have gone through a particular internal rating system, but it's pretty arcane and confusing for an outsider. This is like the way that we parse "featured" as meaning FA-status, but many readers just think it means "picked to be featured" and that it's relatively arbitrary. To an unfamiliar reader, "promoted" has a risk of commercial interpretation that I think are best avoided.
I agree with the slight ambiguity around "improved", but "newest content" is selective as well - we don't include content newly added to existing articles, after all! So I don't think it adds any confusion that isn't already present. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the "newest content" currently featured in DYK include new content added to existing articles, when those articles were expanded 5x. --Orlady (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sure; the point is that we don't include all newest content, only that which meets specified criteria, so "improved" would be no more selective - we would still implicitly mean a restricted set of "improved" in the same way we mean a restricted set of "newest". Andrew Gray (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would be strongly opposed to "recently improved", it is totally uninformative because any article with the slightest tweak can be called "improved", and it's bound to lead to confusion for readers. "Promoted" may not be ideal but it at least informs the reader that there is a process on Wikipedia where articles get assessed for quality. But there may be other alternatives. Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
On reflection, the best alternative might be simply to be specific. I suggest: From Wikipedia's newest content or newest good articles. Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Until recently I was the major contributor at WP:GAR so can provide some indication of that process. There are in fact two ways to delist a good article, individually or through the community. Community GARs can take months, while individual ones can be concluded within a few days (although it varies by reviewer). An individual reassessment is like a WP:GAN review in reverse, the reassessor lists the problems and if it is not improved up to the criteria in a satisfactory time period (up to the reviewer, but with it being nominated here I see no reason why the nominator should not respond quickly) then its status is changed to delisted. I would encourage individual reassessments for most articles, community reassessments are more useful for ones which are borderline or cover controversial topics or for editors that may not be familiar with the Good article process. I guess it poses the question of what happens to an article that is sent to community reassessment and deemed to meet the criteria. Can it be brought back here up to three months later? AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Prep 4

Re the first hook: that the use of the term "Arab street" (street in Madaba, Jordan, pictured) to refer to public opinion in the Arab world has been re-imported into Arabic media from the U.S., where it had been derived from Arabic originally?

To illustrate this hook with the image of an actual street makes no logical sense, since what the expression "Arab street" actually refers to is (as explained) the abstract "public opinion". I tweaked the wording by adding the clarification "the term", but public opinion is not what a street image illustrates. Awien (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree, and moved Connie Hill to the lead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Crisco. Awien (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah but ... it's a street, it's got big Arabic signs on it, and it's colorful. Shortly after taking that picture I asked our guide (a Jordanian himself) if we'd just walked down the Arab street, and we both had a chuckle over it. "Two cows" may be a series of jokes, but we still illustrate it with a picture of two cows. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That sort of meta-humour (?) may work in an article, but there is too little relevance to make MP worthy (let alone a literal Arab street would be misleading, of the Fish Day variety). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Increase to 21 hooks per day?

Amount of verified hooks is reaching to 80, an increase from 65. Perhaps add the seventh hook for each prep area? --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's leave it at six per set for a while - last time we went to three 7-set updates per day we burned through the reserves very quickly. Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we should hold fast at this time. There has clearly been an increase in activity during the last few days, with incoming nominations arriving at the rate of 20–25/day. It is not yet clear if this is a short-term spike or a longer lived increase in activity. If incoming nominations rate hold at this increased rate, then we will need to make the increase. Watching and waiting another week should give us a better idea of where things sit. --Allen3 talk 09:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
With 5 queues and 2 preps filled plus 254 hooks on the noms page (including 83 that are allegedly approved), I think we may be at the point of needing to go up to 21 daily hooks again (a 17% increase in output). A factor in my thinking is that 6-hook sets often result in an unbalanced main page, or force ITN to retire news items prematurely. A week may be too long to watch and wait -- let's revisit this in 2 days. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
We have now reached the final round of the WikiCup. I, for one, have increased my rate of DYK nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Now amount of nominations is 250, including 74 verified, down from 254 (83 verified). Also, after 16:00 UTC, we will be having four queues and two prep area filled. --George Ho (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Now 266 nominations, including 90 verified. --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting, now the amount of nominations is 254, including 74 verified. Three queues filled, three prep areas filled. --George Ho (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is anybody here interested in this proposal right now? --George Ho (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A question

What tool is used to detect copyright violations? I am a university instructor, and I would find the use of such a tool very helpful. We have software to detect plagiarism by students, but the conditions of the software license do not allow me to use it for non-academic work, such as my writing on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Any help with this would be much appreciated. Liangshan Yi (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I believe this is the tool. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    • If you are comparing an article with a source, this works for most web sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


This is an unusual request, but here it is. I have worked on 995 articles which have appeared at DYK. Four more noms (Lille Vildmose, Cabaret des Quat'z'Arts, Mols Bjerge National Park, KUNSTEN Museum of Modern Art Aalborg) have approved tick marks next to them. A few other articles are in review or waiting to be reviewed, but it's my hope that Template:Did you know nominations/Goaribari Island could be my 1000th DYK article. Thank you for your consideration. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As the person that is currently performing the bulk of the nomination promotions/set building, I spotted the comment in the Goaribari Island nomination and have been trying to honor your request. At the pace noms are currently being promoted there are still a few days left before Goaribari Island needs to be scheduled. --Allen3 talk 16:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Allen3. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A friendly FYI that I'm now at 998 articles. Tutuala, Bulgarian wedding music, Mols Bjerge National Park, Bal des Quat'z'Arts, and Jens Bang's House. have been ticked as approved. Goaribari Island hasn't been reviewed yet. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Increase to 7 hooks per set?

With the number of nominations at 271 and verified noms reaching close to 100 now (at 95), I think it's time we could add an extra hook per set. Rather than burning hooks at a rapid pace (e.g. back in July), the opposite has now occurred—a massive backlog. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Jeremiah Hamilton DYK: possible to postpone?

Would it be possible to postpone the Jeremiah Hamilton DYK? T:DYK/Q currently reports it's scheduled for September 2. I've asked for a photo of Hamilton's gravestone at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Takes_Brooklyn, which is happening next weekend. It'd be great if the article had that photo before the DYK. I'm pretty sure such a photo doesn't exist anywhere else. Emw (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Why postponing it? The hook is not a lead hook at this time. And you can add a photo anytime because a lead hook requires a photo. If there are major problems with either article or nomination, please say it. --George Ho (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I suggest postponement because having that photo would significantly improve the article, and the traffic it will get as a DYK will likely be its single biggest day of viewing. I'm not proposing the photo be in the DYK hook, though I wouldn't object to that. The nomination has been up for over a month, so I don't think having it up for another week or so would hurt things much. On the contrary, postponing the DYK for a week or so until the photo is up would notably enhance the article's value for our readers, most of whom would view the article while it's linked from the main page. Emw (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The photo is a minor issue, and we can't postpone the hook just because of the photo. Since there are no major article issues (or BLP issues), I don't see a sufficient, convincing reason to postpone the hook or reverting closure of nomination. --George Ho (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Is postponing a hook by a week or so after its nomination has languished for over month not also a minor issue? In cases with two competing minor issues -- one based in administrative interests and the other in encyclopedic interests -- I would assert that the latter should take precedence. Emw (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator. However, I don't see a point on delaying the hook any longer. The article or hook does not violate any policy or guideline, does it? And there is no special day, is there? We can't delay a nomination for just popularity, right? Perhaps we should wait for more experienced editor or administrator to express an opinion. --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"We can't delay a nomination for just popularity, right?"
The nomination was delayed for over a month for no other reason than lack of reviewer action, so the speed with which a nomination becomes a DYK hook is clearly a minor concern. Thus, delaying it by a week for the encyclopedic reasons given in my detailed explanation above should be even less of a concern. If you still disagree, please answer this question: is postponing a hook by a week or so after its nomination has languished for over month not a minor issue? Emw (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm hardly a more experienced editor, but I would err on the side of our readers, which is to say delay it and showcase more encylopaedic content. Of course, you could say that is what GA is for ... --Gilderien Chat|Contributions 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Neither WP:DYK nor WP:DYKSG says anything about non-lead images and delaying the hook for minor issues. Right now we have three-set-per-day system, and we have over 200 active nominations (over 60 verified). --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • But if you want to postpone it, try to simply cut-and-paste just the hook, and then move it to another Prep area. But how many days do you want it delayed? --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I would want to postpone it until after the photographs from Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Brooklyn are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The event is next Saturday, September 7. I can leave a note here -- or wherever works best -- when the photo is available. I assume that would be around 7 to 15 days from now. Emw (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Administrators: would 7 September 2013 be all right? The date is irrelevant to the subject Jeremiah Hamilton himself. And he barely had any specific special dates besides his death date, May 1875. But 7-15 September is the week of Brooklyn trip. What do you say, administrators? --George Ho (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As the hook is currently in Prep 1, it doesn't require an admin to do this. My view is that we have plenty of hooks ready for promotion, so there's no urgent need for this to be run immediately. Since there is a special Wikipedia event, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Brooklyn, which will net additional material for the article, it would be nice to wait for it. I wouldn't put it in the special holding area for 7 September 2013, since the photos will be taken that day and only available on Commons later. My suggestion—I'm willing to do it myself, but I wanted to get other opinions first—is to reverse the promotion, and add a ? icon to the nomination with a note that this is on hold until new material from the event is available and added to the article. Emw would then post to the nomination when the new material has been added to the article, someone would check to be sure it has the correct permissions and then reapprove it if so, and the article is subsequently promoted either in the usual way or from the special occasion area. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(*Sigh*) Before I revert the closure, of what would be the picture? When you said Brooklyn, I expect a place. Can you specify? --George Ho (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(*sigh* (dramatic much?)) Emw specified that in his/her very first post here: Hamilton's gravestone. LadyofShalott 03:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... while gravestone photo may be essential, I wouldn't delay the nomination for a week, especially since we have too many nominations, including too many verified hooks. But I guess I'll leave decisions to someone else. --George Ho (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hook has been removed from Prep 1; nomination template will await word from Emw. Emw, if the photo is not taken for some reason, or there is a delay, please let us know on the template: one way or another, you should post something there no later than September 14. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Many thanks, Emw (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Gave this nomination a green tick. --George Ho (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Noting here that I superseded the tick with a ? icon within the hour. George left the decision to someone else, who happened to be me, and since I took him at his word and said we'd wait until September 14, I felt it was inappropriate for George to reverse my decision to wait. As noted on the nomination template, I will continue to monitor the situation and will definitely follow up. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Today is 14 September 2013 in Europe. How many more hours? --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
None more. I've reinstated your green tick and promoted the hook to Prep 4 to put an end to this ridiculous turn of events. Emw's contributions log shows he hasn't made a single edit since September 9. Basically, we've wasted more than 2 weeks giving him the benefit of the doubt in producing the pic. All this has done is increased the backlog (yes, even one DYK backlogged from ​1 12 months ago is one too many); perfect example of where assuming good faith just sometimes doesn't work. A clear misjudgment made. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It would have killed neither of you to wait until September 14 was over: I said "no later than September 14". I was also a bit taken aback to see Bloom6132 both approve and promote a hook, something that we avoid here on DYK. To call it "B.S." in the edit summary was unhelpful. I'd frankly rather AGF a request like that: most of the time it pays off, and to call doing so a "misjudgment" is to encourage not honoring such requests in the future. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you were taken aback by my approval and promotion of the hook. It's actually the first time I've promoted a hook to a prep area at all. I also invoked IAR here – the hook had been approved by two other editors beforehand, and no further arguments were presented as to why this should not be promoted (other than waiting for the pic to be uploaded). Calling this episode "B.S. and a "misjudgment" is just me calling a spade a spade. At the end of the day, we've got a hook dating from July 27 that's been delayed for over 2 weeks now in order to wait for the upload of some silly image that still hasn't been added. Basically, there's nothing that would've been changed had we promoted the hook on schedule on September 2. Please tell me how is this not a misjudgment? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
And yes, I actively encourage DYK not to honour any requests like this in the future. I know Emw did "not propos[e] the photo be in the DYK hook," but the delay brought about the same effect. In my opinion, the only times an approved nom should be delayed are: special anniversaries, sentimental reasons (e.g. Rosiestep's request) or if the image being requested for the lead hook is a featured picture. This nom fit none of the above descriptors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
You're operating from hindsight, because we certainly didn't know that nothing would change at the beginning of September. Your opinion on what should be eligible—based on how past requests have been handled here at WT:DYK—does not seem to be the consensus view. Not every bit of leniency (which also comes under IAR) fails as this one did, though I don't regret offering it, because of the Wikipedia special event involved, and I strongly disagree that it was a "clear misjudgment" on my part based on the evidence available at the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
"Your opinion on what should be eligible…does not seem to be the consensus view." Care to make a pseudo-RFC on this TP to find out? That way, we could have rules enshrined in DYKSG instead of having to invoke IAR all the time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not giving that update on 9/14. The Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn proposal didn't pique enough interest. I happened to be driving from Washington, DC to Boston for a wedding very early the morning of Saturday 9/14, and could just barely squeeze in a detour to Green-Wood Cemetery to take the picture myself while careening north on I-95. Unfortunately, right after I began the detour I realized my camera was out of power and unchargeable, which hadn't happened before. I should have updated this thread to note that on 9/14, but, amid the 400+ mile drive and a frenetic day, I forgot.

That said, I would nevertheless maintain that in cases where it emerges there is a reasonable chance (e.g. a Wikipedia photo-hunt in the area and an interested editor driving through the same) that an encyclopedically significant artifact (e.g. the only available photograph of a gravestone of a historical person covered prominently in the New York Times website and about whom remarkably little is known) can be obtained within, say, two weeks, then that should take precedence over concerns that the DYK hook appear on the main page in the standard time scheduling. Unless there is a dearth of pending hooks in the DYK queue or it imposes a significant burden on DYK maintainers, then making an exception to the standard DYK scheduling for this kind of encyclopedic rationale seems reasonable to me, especially when such nominations have languished for well beyond the proposed postponement -- and thus lost much more of their DYK freshness -- because of a simple lack of input from reviewers prior to the request. Emw (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change to Main Page presentation

In a recent discussion about Main Page redesign, User:Awien brought up the point that "it seems to me more logical to reverse the titles of DYK: have 'From Wikipedia's newest content' as the section heading outside the box, and 'Did you know... ' inside the box, directly preceding the hooks. (The overall structure of the present order, 'Did you know...From Wikipedia's newest content...that the music video bla bla bla' is simply incoherent)." I agreed with Awien and proposed that "Alternatively, the "from Wikipedia's newest content" blurb could be moved to the end of the list and rephrased as "...that all of the above were taken from Wikipedia's newest content?" Basically working the notice into the format of the section." Is there any interest in doing this? --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Khajidha quotes me correctly, so that makes two of us who think putting the three sentence fragments in a logical order (either one, as far as I'm concerned) would be a good idea. Hardly such a big deal as to require massive input, surely? Awien (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that under the circumstances, when we're about to incorporate Good Articles into DYK per the recent RfC, that any such change would be premature, since the whole would be to do over again this weekend. There's a discussion on how to reword the "newest content" phrase, since that doesn't apply to GAs. Let's hold off making any change at least until then. Thanks. Also, Awien, there have been very prolonged debates in the past on a similar suggestion to the one you're making now (the first, certainly: to move "Did you know..." from the header to inside the box), and you'll notice that the header is still "Did you know...". So I would recommend that you wait for consensus before moving ahead. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It died on the order paper before, so we can't do anything now? Hmm.
And given what you say about incorporating Good Articles, the solution is blindingly obvious: drop "From WP's newest content". Awien (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I didn't say we can't do anything about it now (and I think you know that); I'm saying that if you want a change now, there needs to be new consensus, since this is a significant change, and past consensus was otherwise. Having started this with a discussion, that's the way to follow through. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Should a merger proposal hold up a DYK?

An editor has made a merge proposal on Footpaths of Gibraltar, only a few weeks after a similar proposal that he made in the course of an AfD was rejected by a large majority. The article has already been accepted for DYK but has been held up since July by various disputes, of which this is the latest. Frankly, I don't think the proposal has been made in good faith (it simply relitigates an already-rejected proposal from the AfD and the Wikipediocracy connection is suggestive). Should the proposal hold up the article even further? There seems to be some disagreement between DYK contributors on that score and I'd appreciate some advice. Prioryman (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The merge proposal makes sense, the article doesn't really cover the supposed topic, only a subset of it, which can easily be dealt with in the merge target. An AfD that ends in keep doesn't invalidate a merge discussion, that's standard policy. An intermediate solution is to rename the article to Footpaths in the Upper Rock Nature Reserve, which much betters indicates the actual topic of the article. Fram (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not what he asked. There's nothing in the rules that says a merge proposal should hold up a DYK. Nobody is saying the merge proposal has to be removed. And if you want to start a proposal to rename it, go right ahead. But the hook is valid, the sources are valid, and the deletion discussion resulted in a keep. I couldn't possibly care less about DYK, and can’t imagine why anyone would be so insistent on having their hook included in it, but I also can’t imagine why anyone would be so insistent on keeping it out. To continue with this, after all this time, really seems like petty harassment. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, instead of just asking "should a merge proposal hold up a DYK", he continued about the merits of the merge proposal ("not made in good faith", "already rejected", ...). So it isn't really correct to say "that's not what he asked"... Fram (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
That's still not what he asked. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 11:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
So what? I am not allowed to reply to his comments, only to his questions? I haven't asked you anything, but you feel free to reply to my comments anyway (as is only natural). Perhaps extend the same basic courtesy to others? Fram (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a pointless comparison. If you had asked me something, I'd have been happy to answer you. I can do both. (So there's your answer to the "basic courtesy" question.) Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 12:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, if the article gets merged into another article it will not be a valid DYK candidate. With regards to your allegations of bad faith, as I said, I had wanted to initiate a merge discussion after the AfD was concluded but had simply forgotten about it by the time the discussion had closed. I do admit that the recent mention of the page on WO is what reminded me of it, but I do not take marching orders from anyone and simply do what I believe needs to be done. Naturally, not thinking there should be a stand-alone article on the topic means I do not think it should be featured on the main page. On an additional note, I already explained that my suggestion for a merge came at a time when most people had already weighed in so it was not rejected. It just came too late to impact the discussion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't buy that. People would have gone back and changed their !votes if you had persuaded them (and I believe one person did just that). The fact is that you're making an argument about notability, but this was explicitly rejected by the AfD participants only a few weeks ago. And quite honestly I agree with Kafziel - it does very much feel like petty harassment. Kafziel is also right in pointing out that there seems to be nothing in the rules about not running the DYK while a merge proposal is in progress. I think there is a real risk that such proposals can be and in this case are being gamed to delay the DYK as long as possible. I would think that it would be a good idea to run the DYK as soon as possible to take away the incentive for this kind of obstruction. Prioryman (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Common sense would say that, if there exists the imminent prospect of the nominated article becoming something other than an article, it should not be featured on the main page. It is not rehashing of the same dispute because the argument for a merge is different from that for deletion and it is terribly common for merge suggestions to be ignored when people are already into the "delete vs. keep" mindset AfD typically invites. Not everyone follows an AfD much after voting either. Indeed, that is why I did not initiate the merge discussion until now, because I wasn't following the AfD closely enough to notice when it closed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not being "featured on the main page". It's a DYK hook, not a featured article. Merge proposals can take weeks or even months to find consensus, at which point the few brief hours that this hook had spent in its little box on the main page would be a distant memory. None of what you're saying has any bearing on the validity of the hook. I know you don't like the article - but you already had your say. I've seen some crazy things in my many years at Wikipedia, and this is absolutely one of the lamest of all time. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It is typical that merge proposals be settled before a DYK is promoted, even an already approved one, much like the delay imposed by an AfD. Even though this article has waited a long time, a week or two longer appears to be necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Show me some. Preferably some that have been backlogged for two months, like this one has. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Here are three I've found in my timeline with the word "merge" in the edit summary:
All handled within a few days of nomination, or a couple of weeks at the outside. Nothing as ridiculous as this. This one is so obviously done in bad faith, if I weren't involved with one of the reviews I'd probably have just put it directly into a queue. I still might. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 02:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Would you please not accuse me of acting in bad faith? I explained my reasons for suggesting the merger and no, it was not decided in the AfD. A merge to the fortifications article was rejected by some editors on grounds that would not apply to a merge into the reserve article. Naturally, I wanted to initiate discussion about a merger before the nomination gets promoted, since it is not ideal to have an article appear on the front page and then get turned into a redirect some time later. Had I thought of it sooner I would have done it sooner and for that I do apologize.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. It's perfectly fine to have an article appear on the main page and later be merged. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. We have Featured Articles of the Day that are later demoted, we have In the News articles that are later merged, and we can certainly have a Did You Know hook up for a few hours. DYK articles are often the lowest quality articles on the main page. So what? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 11:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
This did in fact happen to one of my earlier DYKs, Star Carr House, which got merged into Star Carr. Prioryman (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that the page has been moved to Footpaths of the Upper Rock Nature Reserve by Fram, though the merge discussion remains. Harrias talk 12:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Kafziel closed the merge discussion on the talk page shortly after the move. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Since Kafziel is clearly involved, I re-opened it and put it to a request for comment. A rename wouldn't change the fact that the article focuses on a feature of the nature reserve that is not notable in its own right.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like an excellent use of your time. I leave you to it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems that one procedural trick after another is being used to try to delay or derail this DYK. The amount of effort that some people are putting into trying to block an innocuous DYK is extraordinary. Don't they have anything better to do with their time? Prioryman (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Many older nominations are waiting for a reviewer. Thank you for your assistance.

As usual, please cross off any entries you perform reviews for (unless an additional reviewer is needed) regardless of whether the review resulted in a pass or fail. --Allen3 talk 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Date sensitive DYK

Hi there, I'd appreciate it if someone could review my DYK submission Template:Did you know nominations/Ma Chengyuan. I'm aiming to get this featured on September 25, the anniversary of his death, which is a week from now. The hook fact is supported by citation #4 in the article. Thanks a lot for your help! -Zanhe (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with template

I have some issues with the Template:Did you know nominations/Arbeiter-Zeitung (Timişoara), which for some reason refused to covert itself to the standard DYK nomination format. Anyone knows why? I've tried to remove different elements, but with no luck. --Soman (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. It was missing a "]". MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 04:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Commie Jews

Would it be possible to have a think about the hook for Young Communist League of Poland, currently in queue 2. I'm sure it's probably accurate, but it also comes across a little as conspiracy theory fodder. Maybe saying that less than a fifth of members were ethnic Poles would make for an equally good hook. Formerip (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTCENSORED comes into play. And that's only suppose to apply to offensive material; this hook doesn't even appear offensive to say the least. Its just simply stating the facts. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't have to do with NOTCENSORED. I'm not asking that the information be removed from WP. We do have a responsibility to make sensible choices about what out-of-context information to display on the main page, though. Formerip (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I have a slight problem with that hook since the article says that Jewish participation declined by 1933. The hook implies (at least to me) that they remained a majority. The hook appears to be out of context, so it's slightly inaccurate via that omission. (Full disclosure: I'm Jewish.) – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
As the creator of the article in question, I fail to see how this would by offensive. There is a lot of context that doesn't appear in a less-than 200 character hook, but that is always the case. As to the article itself, I actually took great care in not letting this issue dominate the article completely (most of the English-language material found on the Polish YCL concentrates around the issue of Jewish representation in the membership). There isn't anything conspiratorial in that, it has its historical explanations. Do consider that the Komtsukunft, with some 3,000 members, merged into the Polish YCL at a very early stage of the organization. It is thus likely that in the initial phase of the Polish YCL a majority of members had belonged to Komtsukunft, and add to that there were Jews in the Polish YCL that had never belonged to the Bundist movement. Thus Jews constituted a majority of the Polish YCL during several years of the 1920s. The key issue here is that by 1922 the Jewish left had already built up a size-able youth movement, a development that lacked parallel amongst the Poles, thus explaining why the difference between the youth organization and the mother party in terms of the percentages of Jewish membership.
I chose the hook on the basis that this is precisely the fact that fascinates most contemporary Western writers that dealt with the Polish YCL. For what it's worth the three works used to source the hook fact are (1) Diner, Dan, and Jonathan Frankel. Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism. Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004. p. 19,(2) Gutman, Israel. The Jews of Poland between Two World Wars. Hanover: Published for Brandeis University Press by University Press of New England, 1989. p. 62 and (3) Schatz, Jaff. The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. p. 85. --Soman (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that it is not possible to explain the over-representation of Jewish people as having these specific historical causes, as opposed to being caused by their participation in a secret plot to take over the world, within the hook. Formerip (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Neither the hook nor the article talks about a secret plot. The hook has link to article, which provides more context. --Soman (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a way to give enough factual information as to not mislead in anyway, and then readers can click the link to read the context. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
As DYKUpdateBot has indicated the set needs to be promoted with due haste, this first (and only) actionable suggestion has been implemented. --Allen3 talk 14:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The change to the hook that Muboshgu suggests is not backed up by the source, we have statistics for 1930 and for 1933, but no exact data on the years inbetween. The suggest leaving the hook the way it is, it talks about a specific year (not the whole period of existence of the organization). --Soman (talk) 15:39, 19 September 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 #2 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) 14:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Any chance that the DYK for Merkel-Raute is featured on 22 September?

Hi, I would like to raise broader attention to Template:Did you know nominations/Merkel-Raute. I could perfectly understand if this DYK suggestion was turned down altogether or posted on a different date. But I dare say that the current situation is quite unsatisfying: The hook has been approved, but it has not been promoted yet. It's quite frustrating to see that the anticipated date will likely be missed solely due to the discussion having been abandoned. Thank you and best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to highlight an article about one side in an election on the day of that election. The day after, when it will also be in ITN probably, would be perfect though (assuming there are no problems with article or hook, I'm only discussing the principle here). Fram (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Electioneering concerns end when the polls close in Germany. I have performed some web searches attempting to find what time of day the polls close in Germany, but the best I was able to locate was a Twitter posting indicating a 6pm (16:00 UTC) closing time. Can anyone provide a reasonably reliable source to confirm or refute this information? If confirmed, it would allow the nomination to be scheduled for the 16:00 update without a problem. --Allen3 talk 11:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The time is correct, it could go in the last set that day, - not likely to influence the voting anyway ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Good job guys, I was delighted when I just spotted it on the main page! :) Amalthea 18:26, 22 September 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 #2 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, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

When to lower amount of hooks to 14?

So far, we have 249 nominations, including 47 verified. But the queues are empty, and Prep 3 is missing two hooks. Shall it be October 1 or when? --George Ho (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Lower to 14 per day? We now have 18 per day, which to me looks like to little. If we were to fill the queues and the preps, we would still have 8 approved nominations spare and 210 nominations total. What we need is more reviewers, to get rid of the backlog. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
We got two "overdue" warnings recently. How many more would it convince you? --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Far more than two. With 259 nominations, it's far too many to even be thinking of reducing the number of hooks being used. The warning are only a problem when no admin is around to act on them and promote a prep to a queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Down to 36 verified out of 258 total. Also, three more "overdue" messages since the OP was posted. Still too soon? --George Ho (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  • And how many are in queue and prep, George? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • After 16:00 UTC as schedule, there will be one queue and two prep areas filled. Also, only one hook in one prep area. --George Ho (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • George, we have trying to hint to you—for months, really, but more strongly than ever in this thread—that your frequently expressed concerns about prep size and frequency are ill-judged: you simply don't seem to have a good sense of when changes are truly needed. I think you can safely rely on those of us who actively build preps and promote them to propose changes in main page hook display when they become necessary, and wish you could find it in yourself to do just that. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Good Articles

I'm afraid I'm going to be the one asking the annoying question that may yet have been asked somewhere and I've missed it. So apologies if I am. From what date are Good Articles eligible for DYK? The RFC says end of September, but it was added to the eligibility criteria two days ago. Miyagawa (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I also am unclear about this. I have reviewed a GA nomination for DYK and do not know whether to approve or reject it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems that there are some already being cleared. I decided to be bold and move one to the leading slot of a DYK set earlier. So I presume we're good to put them up. Miyagawa (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

COPYVIO at The Duck House

cross posted at MP:Errors WTF is going on at DYK??????? I thought there were mechanisms in place to detect copyvios... The Duck House DYK is currently on the MP, and the problem is clearly unacceptable. See this. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That hook was taken off the main page. I have now deleted the entire article section that was problematic. The nomination template doesn't indicate whether a copyvio check was done when User:Violetriga approved the hook. The article creator points out at Talk:The Duck House that the text in question was widely published, but I don't believe that puts it in the public domain. Furthermore, the wording wasn't particularly encyclopedia-like. --Orlady (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I did a couple of other spot-checks of theater-related articles which Blethering Scot has contributed to. All of them show the same problem: Synopses lifted verbatim from other sources. I am running between meetings so I'm not able to check more at the moment, but I suspect we may have a much more significant problem here than just one bad DYK sneaking through the review process. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
As you will have seen from my talk page and the article page i was unaware text that clearly have been released by the promoters would not be allowed. Its clearly in the public domain when a google search reveals hundreds of reliable sourced including that text. I should also note that if IronGargoyle had looked at my user contribs he would of seen i had started looking through to see the articles it was in but they didn't. They will also find that the four pages a summary was included by me on were those where it was widely available and you will find that they have been removed, two by me, one by you and one at the original copyvio where i had also asked for its removal as tag said i couldn't. Once again i am wondering why i wasn't advised of this discussion it seems everyone is discussion shy today. But anyway why did the admin who moved to the queue not asses this properly or the user who reviewed or promoted. This process is flawed and clearly in this case the admin has majorly cocked this up. Im not impressed given how simple this would of been to rectify.Blethering Scot 17:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Also i would note that if something is being removed as a copyvio and there isn't a source that immediately would indicate where it would come from then it should be advised what it is a copyvio of. At Betty Blue Eyes there is a summary which i did not add that you removed[14] but its unclear what its a copyvio of and you should link in your edit summary or post on talk page of said article. Otherwise the edit summary is entirely unhelpful to anyone.Blethering Scot 17:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
In reply to @Ohconfucius:. What is going on at DYK is that there are systematic failures here. The reviewer, the promoter and ultimately the last post the Administrator all failed to properly check the article. The administrator is the one in the wrong here as clearly as respected members of the community they take the post under the good faith of the editors. The admin in this case has abused that faith by not carrying out the checks they are required to do. There is no excuse as at any point this could of been fixed but it wasn't even noticed and i suspect that the admin never checks they just approve as oh well two people have looked at it and i don't. Thats wrong and the administrator knows better than to treat the community with no respect and putting something unchecked on the main page when they know full well what they are supposed to have done is frankly unacceptable.Blethering Scot 17:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Reading this am i correct that @Allen3: was said admin. If i am can he please explain the lack of checking, if not what admin was it.Blethering Scot 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Rather than pointing fingers at other people, let's all resolve to try to do better in the future. Everyone involved in DYK has some shared responsibility for avoiding promotion of copyvios -- that means article creators, nominators, reviewers, prep-area builders, and admins who approve queues. The reviewer has primary responsibility for checking for copyvios; the administrator who promotes the queue is unlikely to be able to do anything more than spot checks. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Its clear that fingers are being pointed by others here so i don't apologise for pointing out the admin who didn't do what he should of. Sorry but you all as administrators are ultimately responsible for what end up on that main page and even a quick spot check by that admin would of stopped this ending up on the main page. Sorry but this is a systamtic problem of admins and reviewers being lax with what ends up on main page. Its unacceptable it really is.Blethering Scot 17:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
"You can't find me guilty, judge. Blame the policemen, because it was their lack of diligence that allowed me to commit my crime." --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Your attempt at humour is inappropriate given I've fully admitted that I didn't realise that mass released text wasn't allowed. However you can't cover up the failure of the procees by an admin, reviewer and promoter. Eithier way your not deflecting the point with a silly attempt at humour point stands. Blethering Scot 18:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I really cannot explain how I missed that and can only apologise. The situation appears now to have been resolved but should never have happened, and it is entirely down to a misunderstanding by the nominator and my inept review. Wrist duly slapped, I'll double check things better in future. violet/riga [talk] 17:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You missed and I never understood however the admin should of fully checked. There is a reason it's protected and an admin has to review. Blethering Scot 18:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Mistakes happen, we know that. What we don't do is point accusing fingers at specific individuals. Lots of hooks go up each day, and sometimes during that process things get missed. It happens, we try to learn from it, and we move on. Stop attacking people. Harrias talk 20:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Which means that it will keep on happening time and time again because effectively no one gives a toss about it. Who's attacking i am asking the admin who reviewed to explain his actions you will find no personal attacks here only grave concern at a flawed process. Three checks and not one stopped it reaching the main page and ultimately its the admin who should be doing that final check. I find the admin group here very nonchalant about their mistakes and or failings.Blethering Scot 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I really appreciate the humour here. Yes, there is systematic failure, the admin who approved the nomination was certainly off guard, so it's easy to place the blame there. But let's not forget the nominator/article creator is considered a "seasoned editor", having been around since Q1 of 2010. And considering all the warnings littered all over the DYK pages, it's fucking appalling if not inexcusable. The "not guilty, m'lud" plea, then the attempt to pass the buck, is a poke in the eye. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's clear that checking DYK articles is a slap-dash affair. "let's all resolve to try to do better in the future"—where have I heard that before???? This is a serious violation of policy, and DYK needs urgent reform. Tony (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Some sense of proportion is needed here. While it's obviously regrettable that a mistake was made with this DYK, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of DYKs are fine. An objective view of the situation would suggest that the DYK process is actually very good at weeding out problems. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement - there always is - but we also need to recognise that any system that relies on human judgement is never going to be perfect, and there will always be occasional errors. Prioryman (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Breeze Barton

Breeze Barton is currently at the main page in the DYK section. However, it looks to me as if that page doesn't have a single reliable, independent source. What we have are primary sources (Daring Mystery Comics and a book by Marvel Entertainment) and unreliable sources (the Comicvine wiki, Wikia, and Why is such an article allowed to grace the mainpage? Fram (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look very well sourced at all.Blethering Scot 22:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The creator of the article was recently blocked as a racist troll. In the DYK discussion he claims he checked out a comic book worth thousands of dollars from the public library. Even if this comic was anthologized somewhere and he checked out that book instead, at the very least this is a shitty, incomplete citation that was never questioned. What a mess. Gamaliel (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I've prodded it. We really need a better system to check DYK hooks. Fram (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, not only did he borrow it from the public library, he borrowed it from the public library in Singapore. How likely is that? Fram (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • A fairly complete set of 1920s–30s Swara Muhammadiyah (Yogyakarta-based newspaper for Muhammadiyah) is held in Chicago. You'd be surprised what's possible. Not that I believe it in this case, but there's always a possibility. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
And even then, I'ld be surprised if you were allowed to borrow those papers. Consult them, yes, but borrowing? I hope not, at least... Fram (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
There, there, what has my supposed "racist trolling" got anything to do with this? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone deal with this?

This Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Grunwald has been sitting there for over a month, and everything anyone has brought up has been addressed. Can someone deal with it? Christopher Connor (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Passed it, though since it has a potentially controversial hook about BLPs, other editors should take a look to see if they concur. Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 26 September 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 #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Um. Do you guys need help with this? I'm willing to help but I have no idea what I am doing and I don't want to break the main page. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations

Rescued this from the archive. Please strike when you've reviewed a submission. Gamaliel (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of the above are already reviewed; some are unreviewed. Regardless, I stroke the above and give you a fresher one instead. As for July, I'm sure that they are already reviewed. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

They are not already reviewed; stop deleting or striking them. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
August 2013

Admin needed before 07:40 (UTC)

Hi there. I realized yesterday that I forget to claim a credit for Andrine Hegerberg in the Template:Did you know nominations/Andrine Hegerberg. I asked the promoter to add a credit to the prep-area (which I could have done myself, but I didn't want to do that due to the obvious COI), but he didn't see the message before it was promoted to the queue. It isn't really a big deal, but if any admin is around, I'd be happy if you could add {{DYKmake|Andrine Hegerberg|Mentoz86|subpage=Andrine Hegerberg}} to Queue 6. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This wasn't done, so the bot didn't issue a credit, but I've taken care of it manually. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 10:30, 27 September 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 #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for O Heeriye

O Heeriye, currently in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 has a few minor problems related to quotations. There are a number of quotations in the text, but the use of {{cquote}}, whilst pretty, is reserved for pull quotes per template documentation. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

How difficult would it have been for you to simply change the two offending templates, rather than post this here? I imagine it would have taken less time to simply do it than to write this out, yes? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unusual review

Was this intended to be a serious review? It's a cryptic comment, and there's no indication of checking the criteria, seems to have been done as a QPQ for the user's own effort, Template:Did you know nominations/El cumpleaños de Don Ramón. Should a re-review take place? Benea (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article again just in case. All good, nice work! Harrias talk 11:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The review is by a brand new Wikipedian (fewer than ten edits), so a QPQ is not required by the user for a first DYK submission. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideas and opportunities

I'm not sure if there's a better place to put these, but while I was reviewing Cabbage for FA status, I discovered that we don't have an Agriculture in Ukraine article. We have Agriculture in Russia, in Poland, in most countries, actually, but not Ukraine. Ukraine is one of the most agriculturally rich countries in Europe. It shouldn't be too hard to piece such an article together; we have a related category, examples from other country articles, and information in Economy of Ukraine, Ukraine, and Agriculture in the Soviet Union. In case anybody is looking for a not-too-difficult DYK opportunity, I thought I'd mention it. (Agriculture in South Korea is a similar opportunity, being currently just a redirect.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Admin needed

We have no queues ready to go, and a hungry bot that will be looking for one in a little more than two hours. Can an admin please promote the next available prep? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • That's why wise brains suggest you to become admin. TitoDutta 13:32, 29 September 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 #1 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) 14:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oldest Nominations needing DYK reviewers

Here are the 38 old nominations that need reviewing: nearly half are over a month old, and all are over three weeks old. We have 264 total nominations, of which 36 are approved, but we could use 48 to fill the six queues and two preps that are empty. Thank you for your reviews.

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) 19:13, 6 October 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 #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


"...that Arsenal's Kristoffer Olsson was offered a trial at Chelsea before going through two trials before signing for Arsenal?" is perhaps the most clumsily worded DYK I have ever come across. GiantSnowman 08:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That version, currently on the Main Page, is the original hook, rather than the one that was approved. The reviewer referred to the original as "kind of confusingly worded". It would help to strike hooks which aren't to be used. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 09:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the main page, thanks. Instead of the approved one:
I used a slightly modified one:
I hope everyone can live with that? The repetition of Arsenal was still rather clumsy and unnecessary. Fram (talk) 10:08, 8 October 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) 06:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

All the queues and prep areas are empty, if someone can put together an update in prep I can move it to the queue, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have put one update together but there are still 3 empty queues and 4 empty preps. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Approved hook for October 10

This hook was nominated yesterday (October 8) and approved today (October 9). I moved it to the Special Occasions holding area in the hope that an administrator can put it into the queue for October 10. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you first, Yoninah! You make the impossible possible! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
As the queues and almost all preps are empty, it would not even take an admin to move it to the next prep, please pictured for Verdi's bicentennial ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


Hey, can someone look at the articles for 12 September? They've been languishing for weeks. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Updates needed

More updates needed please. Gatoclass (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Queue empty?

Maybe I'm not pushing the right purge-propagate-update-dinklehinger button, but isn't the queue empty right now, with an update scheduled in just two hours? There is, however, one populated prep area. Tinkering with main-page stuff if way above my pay grade, so can someone swing into action? EEng (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've loaded the update, but the queue page is going to be empty again very soon ... Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
And again....I have loads of chores today but can pop in to load into queues if some keen non-admins are happy to fill prep areas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
One more fully loaded. (And a partial, if anyone wants to finish it.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Good articles...

As per Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC anything happening as yet? I can't see discussion but maybe I am missing something...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry, my bad - can see how. (mainly posting as I couldn't 5x expand Vela (constellation) within 5 days....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Older Nominations needing DYK reviewers

The most recent list is mostly completed, so here are a new set of three dozen old nominations that need reviewing: ten are at least a month old, and all are over three weeks old. We have 265 total nominations, of which 37 are approved, but we could use 46 to fill the five queues and most of three preps currently empty. Thank you for your reviews.

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) 05:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)