Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:40, 7 July 2014

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

DYK queue status There are currently 5 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 12:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 76 minutes ago( verify reset purge )

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

Prep 1

One hook suggests (arguable) that a sailor's corpse was scattered in a dinghy and a few lifebuoys ... though I don't believe that is what is meant.

The Rambling Man's disruptive and unacceptable behavior

3family6 made me do it

One of the best proposal's I've heard from EEng, which surprisingly he DIDN'T turn into a formal proposal (at least that I recall), is to put a message on the DYK MP template that the articles are works in progress, and invite editors to improve them. But make the hooks iron-clad.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

-- Kind words from 3family6 in an earlier thread. Your wish is my command...

I actually think we shouldn't worry as much as we do about article quality, but rather let DYK articles be frankly works-in-progress.

• We should check for BLP and copyvio, and maybe a coupla other things I'm not thinking of

• Many current requirements, such as "no tags", should be dropped
• Possibly we should just adopt "B-class" or "C-class" (or something in between -- see quality scale) as our standard, instead of (as we do now) having a set of standards outside the Start-C-B-GA-FA trajectory.
• This should make reviews easier and faster

• Then add a template to top of the article saying, "Like most Misplaced Pages articles, this one is a work in progress. It may be incomplete, inaccurate, or unbalanced. If the topic interests you and you want to help, click here yada yada yada ". This template remains until maybe a week after the article's main-page appearance.
• The hook however, is directly displayed on the main page, and should be ironclad. It needs to be carefully checked straight back to the sources, grammatically unimpeachable, and stylistically unblemished.

In summary, we should drop many of the standards for the articles (but make sure those that remain are consistently enforced, which they aren't now), and raise our vigilance for hooks.

• If it seems wrong that nominated articles are allowed to have obvious flaws, notice one thing: we fuss and fuss about the article linked from the hook in bold, but care nothing (apparently) about the other articles incidentally linked from the hook. To my recollection I've never seen anyone make any mention at all about the quality of these other articles, and yet many of them are truly awful and we don't seem to care that links to them appear on the main page -- so why do we care so much more about the "bold" link? And again, the "work-in-progress" template means we don't have to be embarrassed.

I think this would focus energy on what's by far the most visible -- the hook -- without putting editors through all kinds of hoops to eliminate and in the article -- nonsense not even required by GA. Furthermore, to the extent we want DYK to attract new editors, we should see it doing that by drawing in people who see the article on the main page and want to improve or fix some little bit of it (such as by addressing or tags, which would now be allowed) -- not by rewarding the article creators/ nominators with DYK templates on their talkpages. Those aren't really "new" editors anyway.

In fact, maybe the MP DYK section should say, Did you know...

• ...
• ...

If did know any of these things, then maybe you have the interest and knowledge to help us improve these frankly in progress articles.

Not exactly what to say, but the idea we want to project. EEng (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Have to say I'm not a fan. Might as well put a stamp that says "this is shit" as well. What about GAs, or articles that aren't works in progress? I've written several DYK articles which have been nominated for GA simultaneously. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Many DYK articles are pretty shitty, even after removing all the or other templates recognizing that. And that's never going to change as long as we insist on pushing week-old articles onto MP. The only question is whether we're going to be up-front about that, or look like fools pretending they'll all shiny and perfect. Anyway, the shittier they are the easier it is for a reader coming from MP to see an opportunity to become a new editor.

Articles that are GA could carry no template, or a different one. EEng (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not going vote on this proposal, rather, I want to see things develop through discussion and consensus. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think most of us agree that DYK as it stands needs work (is there part of Misplaced Pages that doesn't?) And I personally think that the nomination and review process is too difficult and/or complex for many editors to want to deal with - see Dennis Brown's comments in an above thread. I don't agree with EEng that we should get rid of "citation needed" or other dispute tags, but things like "clarification needed" aren't that big a deal unless they appear frequently in the article. But as things stand now, I never know if an article I nominate will pass review without some significant work. I'm not talking about neutrality issues or basic sourcing problems - I often nominate an article that has problems in those areas (because I did not notice them, and happily patch them up. But I think EEng has a point where often the problems found in reviews are not backed up by any guidelines, at least explicitly.

To answer Taylor Trescott's point, I wouldn't so much support a template saying "this article is a work in progress" but rather "can you improve this article? Feel free" or something of that nature (much better worded of course, I'm writing off the top of my head here - hmm, interesting image THAT is!). As for GAs - they can still use improvement. Or maybe they can get on their own section on the main page - though THAT is a MAJOR restructuring that would have to go through miles of red tape.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I will say that I am neutral on the idea of a template on the article. I was thinking a short boilerplate on main page would be good.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds like a "badge of shame" to me. Couldn't support this, sorry. Gatoclass (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, where's the shame in making sure that readers attracted from the main page -- who may not understand the nature of article development -- don't think that we think these are well-developed articles? That fact is that, even with the substantial amount of effort put into reviewing now, most DYK articles are roughly C to B class. Why not admit it, and at that same time save the huge amount of time spent dressing them up to look like they're more developed than they are? EEng (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate any suggestions on how to improve DYK, but I really think this is a non-starter. To begin with, why just DYK - why not a special tag for all the blue linked articles on the main page with the exception of the FA? And what is the special tag supposed to convey that is not already in the Disclaimer? I don't think we need to be cluttering up mainpage links with unsightly tags that only state the obvious. Gatoclass (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Huh? What "cluttering up mainpage links"? I said a template at the top of the linked article itself, not on the link as it appears on the main page.
• I'm not talking about the blue-linked articles. I'm talking about the bold-linked article from each hook. The purpose of the template is allay any fears like, "Won't it be embarrassing for WP to 'highlight' (bold-link) articles that obviously are works-in progress?"
• But if none of that's a worry, then no template is fine with me.
• The key idea is to drop some of the requirements for DYK articles and raise them for hooks. What do you think of that?

EEng (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wording like "frankly in progress articles" is pointy (And "if you know these things" is unnecessary; anyone can fix typos or, say, add images), but

Please help to develop and improve these articles

would be OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

New proposal - review credits

I was challenged by a couple of users on my previous proposal to come up with a way of encouraging, rather than requiring, better quality reviews. I still think more stringent requirements have a place in the system, but I agree that encouragement is usually a better approach where possible. In that light, here's another suggestion as to how we might improve reviewing quality.

My suggestion is that we encourage secondary reviews of existing approved nominations, by awarding review credits to users who find substantial errors in an approved nomination's hook or article. Review credits will only be awarded for secondary reviews which identify legitimate and substantial errors, as confirmed by a DYK administrator or regular reviewer; they will never be awarded for original reviewers. A double review credit will be applied for any secondary review which identifies legitimate copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues. Additionally, a review credit will be awarded for identifying substantiated copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues in any nomination which is yet to be approved. A new table will be added to the "List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs" page for review credits. Comments welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I do like this idea of rewarding those who find errors during a secondary review.--¿3family6 _contribs 23:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of multiple reviewers. Credits wouldn't appeal to me personally, but I can see that they would encourage some people. I'd give them out for all reviews other than QPQ though, as you don't want to discourage primary reviewers (People who would like credits may wait until they could be the secondary reviewers). Belle (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This needs a bit of tweaking and fleshing out, but I think this is may be the best new idea currently proposed on this page. It's disappointing that there's been so little discussion so far here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

U.S. hooks

There's a note at the top of the queue page that says:

"Since on average about 50% of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have roughly half the hooks in any given update on U.S. topics. Thanks."

Having been examining dozens of queues over the past couple of weeks, I don't believe this to be true at all. Is this note actually required? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: It is probably a guess. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd just be interested if it's really needed, and indeed if it's actually followed in practice. It certainly shows a clear systemic bias to encourage this kind of behaviour. Would be interested in statistics on this, perhaps if I have a spare half hour, I'll take a sample of the last couple of hundred hooks and see... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the English-language Misplaced Pages. Of course there is a strong systemic bias toward topics related to the English-speaking world, which is inevitably reflected in DYK nominations. Having said that, we probably get substantially fewer articles about the US than we did once, so that note probably needs updating. I'd say that the proportion of US-based topics at DYK is currently running at around 30%, based on the last 100 hooks featured. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention systemic bias towards the English-speaking world, the majority of which is not US-based of course. I don't see the purpose of the note at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, the note was originally placed there to prevent people filling up sets with non-US hooks, which would often mean a slew of US hooks in the following update, which looked pretty bad. A safer option might be to just change the figure from 50% to 30%, although plainly the issue isn't as critical as it once was. Maybe I'll take a longer look at the archive; in the meantime someone else may want to comment. Gatoclass (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the US-centric hooks are way fewer in recent months. But before that, they were all over the place and it really was a challenge to limit them in the prep sets. It sounds like it's time for all the rules pages to be updated. Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That note has been there nigh-on forever. My understanding of that statement is that the U.S. is an exception to the general rule (Misplaced Pages:DYK#Selecting nominated hooks) that says "No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue, and no more than one is even better." IMO, the note should be removed (because it is so commonly misunderstood as a mandate to find more U.S. hooks, even when there are few such hooks available) and the general rule should be revised to say that "U.S.-related hooks are an exception to this general rule because a large fraction of the hooks on the nominations page typically are U.S. related; to accommodate the volume of U.S. nominations, it is usually acceptable to have roughly half the hooks in any given update on U.S. topics." --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Having thought about this for a bit, I'm of the view the note should remain, albeit somewhat modified, because it really looks very bad when we end up with a bunch of US-related hooks on the mainpage because someone used up all the non-US hooks. Also, Yoninah's testimony that the current spate of non-US hooks is a recent phenomenon is concerning. Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a serious concern that one portion of the main page advocating a dedication to a single country in its output. No other part of Misplaced Pages does this, why should DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think "up to" is missing there. --PFHLai (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't "advocate" anything of the sort. It's a caution against allowing DYK sets to be overly US-centric. In other words, its meaning is exactly the reverse of what you apparently think it is. (And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?) Prioryman (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You again? Every time you post, you make me smile, please continue! Are you the same "Prioryman" who threatened me with "user conduct" reviews? Please, go ahead... We can go toe-to-toe and rattle our sabres at one another! And while we're here, why should it be 50%? Why not 20%? Why have a note at all? No other processes that hit the main page have such a caveat? I don't see a caveat at ITN that says anything of the sort, and God knows we have a fight on our hands sometimes to keep the systemic bias out of ITN. And people don't take me seriously? Pot, kettle, here's a mirror for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The point Prioryman is making is essentially correct - the note is there to prevent the overuse of US hooks that occurs when prep builders use up all the available non-US hooks instead of using a mix of both. I thought I had explained that already. Gatoclass (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it think... Prioryman (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Not at all fair, most horses I know have more intelligence and thought capacity than the average Wikipedian. Even the many below-average Wikipedians who seem to lurk here. When is that user RFC happening Prioryman? Or is it just another of your idle blusters? As we say in cricket, I think you've bowled your fair share of no balls. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In the name of all that's holy, Rambling Man, do you have to be against everything? I'm probably your best friend here -- I think this place really needs some shaking up -- and even I'm getting a bit annoyed.

The discussion so far is enough for the small number of prep builders to be aware that this is a possible issue. Let's reconvene in a coupla days when people have had a chance to get a sense of what's really going on. In the meantime, just try to stay within 1/3 to 2/3 US.

Now if people will please get back to letting me recruit them for the destruction of DYK from within... EEng (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not against everything, just against notices like this which are nonsense. Oh, and there are no prep builders left, remember? I chased them away with a burning torch and an inverted crucifix. They're all hiding somewhere, probably in Texas. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the garlic, actually. EEng (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not French. Merci. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• My position is the same as Yoninah's. I will normally try to limit the US hooks. I also won't hog the non-US hooks, which will only make his life more difficult. But if there are not enough US hooks I will happily build a non-US prep. I have also noted that there are less US hooks lately. I have no idea whether it is a temporary or permanent situation, or what the cause is. Possibly the US contribution to the project is declining faster than that elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Something like:

If more than 10% of hooks on the suggestions page are related to a single country or subject, please ensure that at least three hooks in any given update are about that country or subject, in order not to build up a backlog

would seem equitable and workable. And please, everyone, dial down the snark. It's very off-putting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, right now we could have a caveat on Indian election DYKs. Why we need a caveat is beyond me, add it to the instructions somewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support Andy's proposal to replace the US segment at the top of this section with this new segment. Much more practical. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... "at least three hooks" feels like a bit too many. Two would be plenty, as it would still be sustainable (at least if we're still at three sets a day). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can't support wording like that, it doesn't get the message across at all, and who has time to parse the entire nominations page to figure out what the percentages are? Besides, the problem is with US hooks no other country. Gatoclass (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not just say "Please try and ensure the hooks cover as wide a range of topics and cultures as possible". Straightforward common sense, and can be used to avoid bias against the US, the UK, India, Pokemon, Nigel Farage, obscure state roads in West Virginia and former contestants on The Apprentice. Everybody wins. Ritchie333 09:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Because that won't address the problem, which is that too many non-US hooks sometimes get added to a single update, leaving too many US hooks for the next updater. I think for the time being I will just change the "50%" as that is clearly not the case right now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it for now to: Since a preponderance of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on U.S. topics in any given update, though never more than half, rounding up. Hopefully that deals with the main issues, if there are additional concerns feel free to discuss. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK and GA articles

The GA articles on here get approved via a terse and rudimentary process of nomination and approval, and really should not be a criteria for DYK's to come from. This is because we are unable to determine the wherewithal (breath of scope/brevity and completeness) with which the review process was done in the first place. I have always thought of DYK's as being new content or content that has been expanded not GA's.HotHat (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

well here we check them again for size, copyright violations, neutrality and referencing. So the checking is almost as much as for GA, even if GA is cut. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

GA articles shouldn't get a "rudimentary" check, if they do something is wrong. They should be checked just the same as any other nom. Judging by some of the GAs I've seen recently, one can make few assumptions about quality based on the GA rating. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

HotHat, it seems by this edit that you don't want GAs to be eligible for nomination on DYK. This is the July-Sept 2013 Good Article RfC that made GA a part of DYK. — Maile (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess that I am just in the ever growing minority on this one, but it is not the only time, which I have found myself in that precarious and perilous predicament. I guess you don't need to discuss my proposal any further, unless you all want to amongst yourselves.HotHat (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with HotHat that GA status does seem surprisingly sparse, considering even DYK nominations sometimes (often?) get better oversight than GAs. But I don't see what that has to do with DYK at all. I could see where you would oppose GAs because they are not new or newly expanded content (well, often they are, but I digress). But right now there is no other way to feature GAs, so I think that this is a good compromise. And I think nominating them for DYK is better, because it means that they get reviewed again.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If I think of the whole start-DYK-GA-FA process as a production line, my thinking was that DYK at least offered more scrutiny and (hopefully) source of improvement of some already-GA articles. Scrutiny is a good thing I feel...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

3rd opinion requested re North Fork Tangascootack Creek

subject trimmed from: 3rd opinion requested at Template:Did you know nominations/North Fork Tangascootack Creek

Would someone mind providing a 3rd opinion on whether the use of maps to support the hook for North Fork Tangascootack Creek is OR or not? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

... that Jim Bartels resigned as curator of Honolulu's ʻIolani Palace after criticizing Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa for sitting on one of the palace thrones?

The source says he "had a dispute" with her, the article says he "had a dispute" with her, so why does the hook say he "criticized her"? Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO they amount to the same thing. "Criticize" is briefer though so keeps the hook succinct. Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

The Russell Wilson (mayor) article features very close paraphrasing to the source which is being used in the hook. I suggest it is fixed or the hook pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Errors

So, WP:DYKE. We agreed to hold off using this until some other proposals got passed through, which seem to have stalled, so what should we do with it? We could either move all error related threads there, guide people onto using it but keep existing threads where they are (my preference), or get rid of it. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 07:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see much point in retaining it ATM. We've seen some discussions recently that should have been posted on nominations pages rather than here, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to open a whole new discussion page. Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Get rid of it is my vote. There were objections to it in the earlier discussion (certainly no consensus for it), and I still think it's a bad idea. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You prefer to see the errors all listed here? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I said earlier, yes. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• I delinked it in the infobox pending consensus. Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful: in times of high debate like we've had recently it is easy for the queries on the queues to either get lost among the posts or break up the discussion. It might be less intimidating for editors to report errors there too (I remember going backwards and forwards a few times before making an error report here for the first time) Belle (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like there's no consensus on putting errors on a separate page, or at best a 50:50 split. Ritchie333 12:14, 2 July 2014 (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) 09:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've built a prep if someone could kindly promote it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  Please note the Wilson article (last time I looked) contained very close paraphrasing, i.e. near-copyvio. Is that what we want on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  Appears to still be there. Pulling. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks to all users who contributed to the set. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2014 (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) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Floating posts

On the noms page, there are unrelated postings under the nom for Template:Did you know nominations/Oley Creek. Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved Oley Creek to prep. Now the posts are floating around under Center of Alcohol Studies. They're signed by User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Nathan121212. Yoninah (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I just found the correct template: Template:Did you know nominations/26th South African Parliament. The floating posts are under the "Please do not write below this line" line. Yoninah (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3  00:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate detector

I was unable to access "Duplicate detector" and got a toolserver error message stating that the user account had expired. Is this a known problem? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Toolserver has been shut down effective 1 July 2014. See this for further details. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Fixed. The nom template link now goes to Dup Detector at Labs. — Maile (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Queue 4

@Gatoclass: The Yank Robinson hook states that he was "among his league's offensive WAR leaders for three consecutive years". I have a problem in that I can't see clearly in the single reference given where he finished each season in that ranking (but that could be because I find baseballreference.com inpenetrable). Any advice on where to find this information in that ref would be great. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand baseball either, so I decided to AGF it. Cbl62 is one of our most experienced and competent contributors and I doubt he would make an error of this type. Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be wiser to stick with the facts are referenced clearly by that reference. The hook has plenty in it without the "offensive WAR" claim anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed it, but then I decided to replace it with another hook so I have pulled the set until I can find one. Cbl might not be happy to have one of his hooks unnecessarily trimmed so it's probabaly best to give him a chance to respond. Gatoclass (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Second column, first row under "Appearances on Leader Boards, Awards, and Honors" (I don't understand baseball either but I think you can safely put the hook back) Belle (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks, works for me. I'm sure somewhere someone finds a retrospectively calculated metric of "offensive wins above replacement (everything but fielding)" informative and interesting! I would have thought coming 2nd in the whole league with strikeouts would be much more accessible and notable, but hey, like I said, what do I know about baseball? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You should have pinged me Belle, I completely missed this post and have already replaced the hook. Never mind, it can be promoted to the next set if everyone is happy with it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, got distracted by a man working outside (not in the Etta James Coke advert way, believe me). Belle (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Belle, when they made you they broke the mold. Jury's still out on whether that was before or after, however. EEng (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a manual update as the bot appears to be asleep. Hope I did it right because it's a very long time since I had to do that. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the manual update made us lose a set of hooks at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions. A bit exploration revealed what happened: The bot was not asleep, but reported an error (11:15) as the image file in Q4 was not protected. This was done by an admin 11:21, the manual update was done 11:22, and the bot did the "same" update 11:25, thus archiving the wrong hook set at "Recent additions" (which will even be duplicated after next update). The bot then updated article talk pages correctly, gave correct credits to user talk pages, and reset the queue. Oceanh (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that bit of sleuthing OceanH! You have refreshed and updated my knowledge of the process very handily. I will go and fix the archive, thanks for the alert. Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification, please

I (and other prep builders) are under the distinct impression that we cannot promote our own hooks (not our own articles, but our own ALT hooks which have been approved by other editors). The only place I can find a written rule to this effect is in Rule N1: When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created. Am I interpreting this rule correctly? Yoninah (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yoninah, I see by the history of that page that the rule has undergone some prose changes, but essentially was set down in 2009 by Art LaPella. Pinging him here, as he might be the best person to clarify this. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• I can't see a problem with promoting your own ALT so long as it's been approved by somebody else. It's promoting an ALT of your own without somebody else's approval that is potentially problematic, because it means the hook hasn't been independently checked. Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I wrote rules like that because they were being used, but unknown to anyone but insiders. Although I gave up years ago, I still believe Misplaced Pages would run more smoothly if rules were updated to match the current consensus. How else do we know consensus has really changed, and how else are newcomers expected to know about that change? Art LaPella (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Queue 5 ("pictured" issue)

First hook claims "Stephen II of Hungary (pictured)" but the image is an historical artist's impression of what Stevo may have looked like. It's a depiction of him. Perhaps it's conventional to just claim that ancient drawings of people can be referred to as such, I'm not sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"Picture: A representation of anything (as a person, a landscape, a building) upon canvas, paper, or other surface, by drawing, painting, printing, photography, etc." AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, all good. Thanks for the dictionary link Andy, very much appreciated. Having said that, I'd hardly consider Wiktionary to be a reliable source, but no issue here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Having said that, I see "screenshot pictured" in one nomination, why not "depicted" here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

TRM, with the usual caveats to soften the blow (I'm your best friend at DYK, etc etc) you're beginning to sound completely crazy. Everything short of a photograph (and often those as well) is some kind of artistic interpretation. Having said that, it wouldn't hurt to just always say (in this hook and most others) (image) to indicate to the reader that this hook is the one related to the image, without really saying anything more than that (assuming there's no potential for the reader to be seriously misled). But really, TRM, pick your battles. EEng (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Knock it off, EEng. TRM asked a perfectly sensible question. TFAs frequently use something other than the bare word "pictured" e.g. Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/July 9, 2014 ("1770 depiction shown"), and it's particularly appropriate to change the normal wording when the picture is not a contemporaneous one, as here. Bencherlite 18:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite, we're hardly brothers in arms, your continual reference to you being my best friend at DYK is wearing thin. The point I'm making is that we need to be consistent on the way we present images on our main page, taking into account the way in which TFA, TFP, TFL, OTD etc refer to anything that illustrates their chosen article. I don't need you to advise me on how to "pick battles", in fact you could learn from your own advice having recently sanctioned a DYK with clear copyvio all over it, you really should do better. EEng, learn your lesson. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't say it would be inappropriate to change the normal wording when , but I maintain it's inappropriate to fuss that it wasn't so changed. (Pictured) is fine, if for no other reason than, as ATG points out, it really does comprehendq the meaning needed here -- though I repeat that (image) is even vaguer.
• Pending clarification of the very confusing mishmash of unclear responsibilities, I'm not aware that in moving approved hooks to prep I'm supposed to repeat the copyvio check, though I wouldn't be surprised if it says I am, somewhere amid the rules, additional rules, supplementary rules, edit notices, unwritten rules, consensus lost in the mists of time, regulations set down in undeciphered Mayan script, and so on. EEng (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• It's a shame that my expressions of sympathy for your exasperation with DYK are growing thin, because you really aren't going to get them from many others, and even that small number is dropping. You're just way too acerbic, and that says a lot coming from me.

EEng (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• • More to the shame is that you have spectacularly undermined your own rants with negligence in agreeing to promote a hook which was utterly and obviously a copyvio. I think we both want the same thing, to drag DYK from the mire, but you're happy to compromise those values and play along with the poor quality approach. I am not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, I was just unclear as to what my job as prep builder was, I guess. And I'm still unclear -- can anyone point me to something explaining what doublechecks the prep builder is responsible for? As to you, my friend, I quote from a biography of library pioneer, metrification zealot, and spelling reformer Melvil Dewey:

Although he did not lack friends, they were weary of coming to his defense, so endless a process it had become.

EEng (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/St John the Evangelist's Church, Kirkham

I promoted this hook to Prep 3, but cannot close the nomination for some reason. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is due to missing brackets "}}" at the end, which somehow have been replaced by the template "{{-}}". Compare with other nominations. Oceanh (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC) (Striking incomplete (thus unhelpful) description of the problem. Oceanh (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC) )

Sorry, I can't fix it. Could an administrator help, please? Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is the edit where the template broke, not with your trying to close it. I can see what it did - Peter Vardy's post and an accidental change in the formatting of the post above it. But I can't remedy it. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I did it! Two little minor formatting things threw it off, and neither were about how you did the promotion. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh! I moved this hook from Prep 3 (the next set to go up) to Prep 2 (due to go up about 24 hours later) because I found yet another unresolved issue -- one that should be resolvable within 24 hours. The issue is that the "Interior" section of the article still indicates that the rood screen was moved in 1906 (not 1895-6 as the hook and another article section now state). Paging User:Peter I. Vardy, User:Martinevans123, and User:Storye book. --Orlady (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

Saint

Apparently "... the final version of The Saint on radio ran for 16 months ... " but I'm seeing nothing specific in the target article to substantiate that, moreover I'm seeing a crappy "for this version, which ended. October 14, 1951." I'm sure the people that reviewed the article and the hook knew what they were doing, but this needs to be tweaked before it hits the main page. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You just need to add up the months between these two sentences:

The program's final run began June 11, 1950, as a summer replacement for The Phil Harris-Alice Faye Show. The Saint was back on its original network, NBC, for this version, which ended October 14, 1951. (Deleted the errant period.) Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

a Sorry, I thought hooks should be explicitly referenced, not rely on readers to find stuff like this and work it out for themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Often we extrapolate (sourced) information from different places to make a good hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Which would be a good answer if this was a good hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Vincent Price is inherently interesting, why not mention him in the hook? Or do the kids not know who he is anymore? How about "...that Billboard called Vincent Price's performance as The Saint "frightfully dull"? Or call him "horror actor Vincent Price" to pun off "frightfully". Never mind, I should read the damn hook first instead of assuming that the bit quoted here was the whole thing. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OT, Gamaliel, I was about to say that at the time of that radio program, Vincent Price was more known for his dramatic roles in film. But your comment about "do the kids know who he is"...oh, my, we may have gotten to a place in time where the so-called kids don't know he was the voice on Michael Jackson's "Thriller". — Maile (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Frick

Tim Frick's hook is referenced by a YouTube video, since when did that become reliable? More importantly, why is it interesting that a bunch of six-year-olds have a twelve-year-old "coach"? It happens all the time. I thought dyk hooks were supposed to be interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, folks to the crystal waters of DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I just thought, as most of readers perhaps do, that hooks should be reliably sourced and interesting. I used to coach six- and seven-year-olds when I was eleven/twelve. It's completely commonplace. And just because I don't have my own Misplaced Pages article, it doesn't make this hook any less DULLLLLL. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha. Yep, you have a natural ability in "coaching", boss. Martinevans123 (Aged 6-and-a-half) 20:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It was all about not just running towards the ball. You can call me "the Gaffer" from now on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen you make quite a few gaffes before now, Incey. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ... or maybe "Ron Manager" would be better, ooh, wasn't it? you know, jumpers for hooks? all in a queue for the front page, wasn't it

• The YouTube video is produced by the Canadian Paralympic Committee. And yes, I do think that's a cute hook to finish off the set. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I asked when YouTube became a reliable source, not who claimed to produce this video. As for "cute", read dull and not at all interesting and entirely commonplace. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Video links: "There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources". It appears to be the official channel of the Canadian Paralympic Committee. You're right about the hook, it's terrible. Why not a reference to the three consecutive gold medals? That seems more interesting. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wheelchair basketball Canada had the video professionally produced and put it up on their website. It was showed many times on the big screen at the event venue, and during ad breaks in the webcast. The YouTube channel is an official one. I thought and they thought that this was an interesting hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to Rambling Man

For the past two days I've been watching and waiting for those prep sets to be filled by all the people you drove away from DYK. I took the plunge, spent between 30 minutes and 90 minutes to assemble each set, held my breath and posted it. Bingo! In rushes Rambling Man to pick apart and dissect anything he can find. May I point out that you will find much more fodder for your red pen on the nominations page? There are plenty of hooks that have been approved that you can criticize, nitpick, and fault while the nomination is still open – which is obviously the most appropriate and accepted time to make changes. Think a hook is dull? X it out on the nomination page, rather than arguing with the prep builder who thinks it is interesting. You might also consider rolling up your sleeves and making the necessary tweaks to a hook or article (really now, spouting off over a misplaced period?) rather than criticizing the prep builder in front of everyone else on the talk page. I really miss the days when civility was upheld as one of the 5 pillars on DYK, too. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that two editors - the nominator and the prep builder - have already disagreed about the dullness of a hook puts a complaint of dullness under a WP:SNOW cloud from the word go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No thanks, I'll continue to keep the queues and prep areas on my watchlist and do my best to stop errors and dull hooks from getting to the main page. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If I may use the AfD analogy (since DYK seems to be kind of AfD in reverse), what TRM is doing is basically roughly equivalent to sitting an AfD out, finding it closed as "Keep", and then starting a second nomination. I think if that happened over more than 5 iterations, somebody would get upset and want to complain. If we want to sort out errors before ERRORS, they really do need to be spotted and logged as soon as possible in the process. Now, there's an argument to be made that it's easier to comment on hooks once they're assembled in prep or queue, but that's a fault with the setup of DYK, not with anyone person. In any case, if we don't change it, I fear that pulling hooks in prep because it's "easier" than failing it at nomination time is going to gradually upset more and more people. Ritchie333 11:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, if I'm still able to find issues by the time these hooks go to prep/queues, you should be thanking me, not berating me, for trying to prevent DYK humiliating itself again and again all over the main page. Fix your process, don't complain about the people fixing the mess it outputs. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

An excellent question - how would you fix the process? Ritchie333 12:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've gone round this buoy too many times and been shot down too many times. Variously: remove QPQ, instigate consensus-based reviews (this is a great example of why we shouldn't allow one individual to decide whether a hook is correct or not), don't offer guaranteed posts, slow down rate of main page switches. All straightforward stuff but the project is being run to the ground by people suggesting there's nothing wrong. In the meantime, I feel justified in monitoring the prep/queue areas as errors are all too frequently passed through, all the way to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Almost every suggestion offered to change the DYK process is immediately shot down. Gamaliel (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to people making "suggestions" to me

While the DYK process remains as it is, review each hook as if it has never been reviewed. That's what I'm doing. If you do that, and do it properly, then last minute corrections, pulls, ERROR reports, trips to ANI can be avoided, or at least reduced. Until you do this, or fix the system that produces erroneous hooks, don't blame me for finding issues in most queues. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to everyone else

Ignore him. People who are in it for the attention tend to go away when they don't get any. Prioryman (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's just keep putting errors on the front page and everything will be fine. Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere Prioryman. Unlike you, I'm trying to fix the garbage that sometimes leaks out onto the main page despite the DYK system being just fine according to some people. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

QPQ For non self-nom

It seems a bit unfair when I peruse the nomination page and see that loads of nominations seem to be exempt from QPQ because they are "not self noms". This is totally ridiculous! The purpose of QPQ is to eliminate BACKLOG. But since now we have nominators who basically on do non-self-noms, this should be changed to make non self noms require QPQs. wirenote (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK QPQ Checker in development - please comment

A developer has a link to Village Pump- Scottywong tools for the replacement on the DYK (QPQ) Checker. Please post any comments on the Village Pump thread. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and put this in the DYK Tools template, so you can try this out there. But you can also give your comments about it over at the Village Pump link above. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please rewrite and consolidate Prep guidelines

EEng, per your request above. As important as this is now becoming, I would like to suggest that the Prep guidelines be consolidated and clarified so anybody and everybody can understand them with no gray areas. It's no wonder there is confusion on this. I found all these mentioning how to handle the preparations:

• Misplaced Pages:Did you know
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Guide
• Preparation areas
• Supplementary guidelines

And I frequently see unlinked references to the "Suggestions page", and have no idea what that is. I'm still looking for the Klingon language supplement to the supplement to the regular rules as amended by that elusive Suggestions page, because it's probably out there somewhere. Really, the prep areas are a hot button issue. Please make these guidelines as concise and easy to understand as possible. All on one page, perhaps bullet points, with as few words as possible. We shouldn't be having personality spats over this. We should be getting this down to be understood. If someone could come up with a separate RFC on what the prep guidelines should be, it would probably go a long ways towards healing here at DYK. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely "let's" (i.e. not me) first pull together all the stuff M just listed above, to see what it all says currently, then we can talk about changes. I don't think an RfC project-wide is a good idea -- what the prep builder does vs. the admin promoting to Q vs. nom vs. reviewer is, in a sense, a technical question. There are lingering questions about what DYK should be overall, its standards, its mission -- those are RfC questions -- but let's just try to rationalize what we're doing in-house on this prep-building thing. EEng (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I'm beginning to ramble again.

By RFC, I mean a separate subpage of this talk page, where we can list what this should be. It will have to be voted on. So, in effect, that is an RFC. We don't have to make it a Misplaced Pages-wide RFC. Just make it a subpage of this, so we don't clog down the already clogged talk page here. It's time for everybody to stop butting heads and finger pointing, and get this done. Everybody needs to park their egos at the door. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT1: Everyone needs to park his or her ego at the door.

ALT2: It's time everyone stopped butting heads and pointing fingers.

EEng (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. Note that "preparation areas" above is part of Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Learning DYK, which was intended to unify all that (for all our rules, not just preparation); it replaces the first and fourth items above, and it links to the second. Instead it became just another system. Art LaPella (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Suggestions" means nominations. Art LaPella (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"it replaces the first and fourth items above, and it links to the second". Um, let's see... first and four... carry the one... um... Seventeen? EEng (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's a lot of history behind the confusingness. What we now call "nominations" used to be called "suggestions". There also was a time when there was only one set of hooks -- assembled by an administrator -- queued to move to the main page; some references in the instructions date from that time. There has been a long-recognized need to consolidate and reorganize all of the instructions so they describe the current rules as they are understood by the active participants in DYK. Pieces of the job have been done at various times, but it seems like every time someone gets started on a comprehensive rewrite, they give up on it after someone suggests (or demands) a complete reexamination of the process. (Don't assume that those demands always come from people who have the same motives. Sometimes it's been people complaining that DYK should have less stringent rules, other times it's been people who want more stringent rules, other times it's a desire for new technical tools, and there have also been people asking to have designated delegates put in charge.) Many of these reexaminations have led to changes in the rules, which often results in additional internal inconsistencies when new "rules" are created but some of the old "rules" aren't edited to conform to the changes. --Orlady (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To that I might add - the notion of an RFC on this, quite frankly, fills me with horror. Much better IMO to simply have one of the more experienced and competent regulars just go through it WP:BOLDly weeding out all the redundant crap and inconsistencies and we can all argue about how well or badly they did it later. Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

...in an RFC. Belle (talk)

(I agree with Gatoclass, if some brave soul wants to try that; it seems like we are all discussed out for the moment, as the lack of input on some of the later proposals demonstrates) Belle (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some humor above. OK, so let's not strike terror in the hearts of everyone by doing an RFC. Gatoclass has suggested a/the correct path forward. Start with just this part of the process, getting the Prep instructions down to something understandable on one page. Something everyone agrees on. After that is done, address the other parts of the process. We can't remedy the entire DYK process at once, but we can proactively do it one piece at a time. — Maile (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the condensed version

These are the only two pages that really detail the Prep guidelines, and are somewhat duplicated but not exactly

• Preparation areas Labeled as "N" and a number
• Supplementary guidelines Labeled as "J" and a number

I have condensed them below. EEng, what you were earlier looking for is N14, and I did not condense that one - it's as it was originally written. I found nothing that specified the Prep person has to check for copyvio or paraphrasing. I shuffled it up to the top, because I don't think it should have been at the bottom.

I don't believe N1 should even have a number, but should be an introductory stand-alone paragraph. N10/J8 specifically focused on the Preparer's right to trim a hook, and did not mention changing the hook's wording. N7/J5 seems strange to me to even have to mention it - it's worded as it was originally written. Fellow DYK travelers, please review and offer comments below the rules.— Maile (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• N1: Users are encouraged to help out by preparing updates on the preparation area pages. You don't have to be an administrator. Note that promoting your own articles is generally discouraged, and promoting your own articles before they have been independently verified is disallowed. When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created.
• N14: It is the promoter's responsibility to make sure all review issues have been resolved, that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. The promoter acts as a secondary verification of the review.
• N2: Choose approved hooks ( or ).
• N3/J1: The number of hooks per Prep set varies according to the backlog and is determined on WT:DYK. The number is usually six, seven or eight hooks.
• N4/N5/J2/J3: Choose a varied selection of topics and countries, not limiting the Prep set to one or two countries.
• N6/J4: Shuffle the hooks so like topics and geographical areas are not next to each other.
• N7/J5: Try to avoid putting inappropriate hooks next to one another. For example, don't put a sad hook next to a funny one; it looks incongruous and jerks the reader uncomfortably from one emotion to another.
• N8/J6: Hooks on the nominations page that include images cannot all be a lead hook.
• N9/J7: The last hook should be funny/quirky.
• N10/J8: Preparers may trim hooks to make them more interesting.
• N11: Please disambiguate linked words in the hook. Here is the Misplaced Pages guideline.
• N12: Replace the * in each entry with the {{*mp}} that is already provided on the preparation area pages.
• N13: Make sure to include the article name, date, nominator, and creator under the "Credits" section to allow others to return it if a dispute arises.

Comments

Great work! Some suggestions:

• N7 should instead read something like "Try to avoid placing hooks together inappropriately" because each hook by itself should be appropriate or it shouldn't pass.
• N11 should be done by the reviewer, it should already be fixed by the time we get to prep. Maybe fold it into another rule that covers verifying the hook, like N14.
• N4 and N6 can be combined into something like "Choose a varied selection of topics and countries, not limiting the Prep set to one or two countries, and place them so that hooks on similar topics and geographical areas are not next to each other."
• N8 is a little too condensed and is now unclear.

Original wording N8: Hooks on the Suggestions page that include images often get verified first. Users sometimes then just go and grab a bunch of the nearest verified hooks for the preparation areas, which can often include several of these verified picture hooks. Not every submitted picture can be featured in the picture slot of course, but since only one picture can be featured per update, try to leave the good picture hooks behind for another update if you possibly can. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• N12 is redundant, {{*mp}} isn't used anymore. N13 is clearly outdated with the existing nom templates. Other than that, I wasn't really anticipating this sort of condensation but it probably won't do much harm. Gatoclass (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Redux

The following is a rearrangement and copyedit of (I hope) everything above, incorporating (I hope) the comments so far, none of which I think needed discussion. I've removed redundancy and excess verbiage, and made some slight additions and rewordings which I hope will be non-controversial.

• You don't have to be an admin to prepare an update "set" on the preparation area pages. (N1 -- partial)
• Selecting hooks

• Choose approved hooks ( or ). (N2)

EEng has wondered for a long time what the difference is between the blue and the green -- you mean they're the same???

• You are the secondary verification that the nomination was reviewed properly.

• Check that all review issues have been resolved, and that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. (N14)
• If you created/expanded the article, made the nomination, or were heavily involved in the review (especially with regard to the hooks) let "fresh eyes" (i.e. not you) check the review and promote. (N1 -- partial)

• Choose a variety of topics and countries. (N4/N5/J2/J3)
• There aren't enough first-slot openings for all the nominations with images, so if an image seems "low-value" consider using the hook without its image. (N8/J6)

• Arranging the set

• Use the number of hooks-per-set you see currently on the main page. (If you think the number should be raised or lowered, open at discussion at WT:DYK.) (N3/J1)
• Shuffle hooks so similar topics and geographical areas aren't clumped. (N6/J4)
• Avoid inappropriate or awkward juxtapositions e.g. a disaster hook next to a funny one. (N7/J5)
• The bottom slot is for the funny, quirky hooks. (N9/J7)

• For each hook...:

• Before you forget...

• ... open the nom page for editing and set up the subst:, the passed=yes, and a note at the end about which hook you promoted, any changes you make to the hook, and other notes
• ... copy the credits/article/nom info from the nom page to the "Credits" section of the prep set. Fill in details. (N13)

• You may trim a hook to make it more interesting. (N10/J8)

Discussion is needed here, I think. EEng (talk)

• Check that links point to the right target; disambiguate as necessary. (N11)
• To include an image (first slot only)

Thoughts so far? EEng (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the redux

Comments should be droll and include inside jokes if possible.

• I really think we should remove this provision

• You are the secondary verification that the nomination was reviewed properly. - Check that all review issues have been resolved, and that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. (N14)

There's a lot to do in trawling the noms, finding a good mix of green-ticked hooks, arranging them, checking the links don't need dab-ing, pulling in the credits, etc. -- plus maybe modifying the hook (which I think is a whole other discussion that's needed). I think it's very hard to do all that and then concentrate on doublechecking the review. I want to propose that the set prep's job be everything but the doublecheck. Then once the set is full in prep, an admin takes it over for checking.

This way the admin doesn't have to edit and subst the nom pages, tinker with the hooks, etc. His/her job is "read only" -- look over the nom page, check the hook through to the source, etc. If everything goes well he/she has nothing else to do but move the set to Q.

If there's a problem the admin pulls the hook from prep (leaving a hole, or filling the hole if he wants) and reopening the nom page. (I don't think we need to consider this as "/Removed", BTW. In fact I'm not sure what /Removed is really for anymore, as long as anything pulled gets its nom page reopened.)

To reinforce: I think it compromises the "checking" step to mix it with the "select/modify-hook/arrange/credit/etc" step. Separate them, giving the first to the prep builder (which can be several people each contributing one or two hooks) and the second to the admin promoting to Q.

EEng (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I like the general idea of updating instructions. I won't say much about the details because I've never prepared my own batch for the queue (I pretty much copied existing instructions when I wrote mine.) Remember, we aren't done until we agree on putting the instructions someplace where they will actually be found. Art LaPella (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps once we get agreement on the instructions, an expanded prose version should remain under DYK/Preparation areas. The condensed version should replace what is at Supplementary guidelines. However, while much of the updating might be uncontested, the bone of contention that needs a consensus is the very provision EEng has mentioned right above this. I'm neutral. But if we are going to eliminate that the Preparer is the second verification that the nom was reviewed properly, we need a consensus. If we leave it, we need to be very specific what that means, leaving no assumptions for interpretation. As is, it does not state the Preparer is responsible for checking copyvio, but proponents of that have interpreted it as such. We need a clarification. — Maile (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This is really something that should be addressed by a general overhaul of the procedures and I hope it doesn't stop us from condensing and clarifying these rules, because this baby step is the only thing we've managed to do so far in the face of the general footdragging and ostrich imitating here. Can we just leave it ambiguous for now? Something like "some editors feel it is the role of the preparer to be responsible for verifying that there are no copyright violations in the article"? Gamaliel (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this... But first... is the redux OK as a reorganization of all the prior provisions? Anything need adjusting? EEng (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, Changes come in small increments. We fix what we can, and save the rest for another day. Your redux above is, IMO, a more effective visual guideline than how I had it. Easy and to the point. Visuals are everything if you want someone to read and comprehend. The comments above the redux by Gatoclass and Gamaliel should be incorporated. But I'd like more than my opinion on that.— Maile (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My bad feeling was only about the eventual discussion re who's responsible for what. But we little group here can enjoy a little peace among ourselves, before throwing the doors open to the madding hordes. I actually thought I'd incorporated everyone's comments. But if I missed something, or to make other noncontroversial changes, go ahead and just edit directly -- for now it's just the 3 or 4 of us, so we can all just watch the diffs and we don't need to talk about such little changes here directly, unless someone sees a problem with one of them. EEng (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess maybe you did incorporate the comments into your redux. I'm not changing anything. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the more checking that the prep set creator has to do, the longer the process will take and the greater the likelihood that there will be an edit conflict. When such a conflict happened to me I found it very difficult to sort out and now use an "inuse" tag to try to discourage others from editing the hook set that I am working on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin guidelines

Given all the information above about promoting to a prep, this is almost funny. The only place I find where it mentions specifically what admins are supposed to do in the promoting process is Misplaced Pages:Did you know, way down at the bottom:

• Administrators: when you add an image to DYK, it is automatically protected, so simply add an {{mprotected} notice to the image description page (or {{C-uploaded} plus a copy of the author attribution and the licence tag if you have uploaded a temporary copy from Commons).

and

• 3. When an update is fully prepared in one of the prep areas, an administrator will copy the prep area into one of the queues. The admin moving the hooks to the live template may edit or reject any hook at their discretion. The queues are also copies of the main template, but are protected so they can only be added by administrators.

and

Admins

• If a factual error is reported when the hooks are on the front page, try to replace the hook with another fact from the article, rather than just removing it.
• In the case it has to be removed, try to replace it with another hook from the suggestions page.
• If it is the first hook and hence has an associated picture, you must replace it with another hook with a picture.

So, the admins get simplified instructions. Hmmmm. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Special occasion date request – July 10

Sorry for the late notice, but could someone please review Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Bahamas by July 10? I don't normally ask for this, but having it hit the MP on that date will coincide with the Independence Day of the Bahamas. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (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) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (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) 09:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - but we could use some more updates please. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

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.

The old "Beef Stew" hook claims the magazine said it "was one of the most unusual nicknames", but the article says it was just featured in a piece about unusual nicknames, no claims of it being "one of the most unusual". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ooo, you can't trust that beef stew, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is too much of a leap for the hook purposes (unless it was only included as an example of a "normal" nickname; which it wasn't). Belle (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It potentially misrepresents the article in the magazine. It was just about "unusual nicknames". It appears no claim was made, either by the magazine or the writer of the article within the magazine, that it was "one of the most unusual"... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The potential misrepresentation is quite trivial though (I can't see anybody running to ERRORS to complain that they are outraged about the hook because the nickname was only thought to be unusual and might not be thought of as one of the most unusual). Your correction to the hook was good (I was just going to do that) but you have more important things to do than worry about this (come and join me in the sun in the garden; we can have cocktails) Belle (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it seems an endemic failure of the system that people struggle to find an interesting hook, so that just make one up. If it just said "blah blah Beef Stew blah was an unusual nickname" which is what the source says, it wouldn't make a hook and wouldn't be DYK-able. People are scratching around, making things up to get a main page appearance. All wrong. As for cocktails in the sun, I'd be delighted. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I've always seen DYK as more of a quaint regional dish. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What an ego, TRM! Maybe Hawkeye7 meant me. (It's probably cocktail invite envy; you can come too Hawkeye7) Belle (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that's it, you're the one harassing and edit warring....! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree @Bellemora, that is quite an unusual edit and then to close the discussion as if there was some kind of consensus is also quite ... unusual. I have never seen this behaviour here before - is this normal elsewhere? The reasons for rejecting the hook were not persuasive (to anyone I could see) and I cannot see evidence that anyone was persuaded by the argument. How do we put the consensus back in charge? I have reserved a space for any ranting below, but your thoughts would also be welcomed. Victuallers (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Orlady pulled the hook and returned it to the nominations page while TRM and I were discussing it, so I think TRM was just trying to ensure that the discussion didn't happen in two places. Hawkeye7 was just fishing for a free martini. Belle (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And VIctuallers was looking for a stirrer. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone is as lost as I am, the article in question is Template:Did you know nominations/Lou Marconi. 17:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Georg Poplutz

Transformations of a hook:

• Georg Poplutz performing in the complete works by Schütz
• also (!) mentioning Schubert, approved in the nom

I slept through the next steps:

• only mentioning Schubert
• adding a (literally) unspeakable genitive

Did you know that we now have a hook with the subject's name in a genitive (which I dislike even if you can pronounce it) and which doesn't mention what he is known for: ensemble singing. - I will watch more closely next time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop being so Latinate. Can't you just say possessive like normal people? Anyway, this is just another example of why hooks shouldn't be tinkered with in prep -- a disease with which I am now infected. But there are so many clearly wrong, or nonsense, hooks coming through -- I'm not saying this was one of those -- that something has to be done -- yet people get pissed off if you push it back to the nom page. EEng (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know "possessive", nor "Latinate"", sorry, - I am here with my limited English and my VERY limited knowledge of grammar terms which I learned in German. Don't push back to nom page, just ping me saying that all I wanted to say is gone and what I was talked into appears in a strange way. I would still say that he created the emotions, not his performance (can a performance create?), perhaps by his performance, - anyway, I keep learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I've been running into you for almost two years and it never occurred to me that your English was limited, so maybe you're doing better than you thought. Yes, a performance can create something, such as emotions (just as it can inspire or disappoint). EEng (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing in translation

The article now in prep 4 on the composer Mansoor Hosseini is based on a translation from the Swedish article mostly by Hafspajen with me filling in a few bits where he got stuck. Gerda Arendt requested the translation and did a lot of work on it subsequently to get it to a DYK worthy state, so it is only right that she should get the credit. The problem with the article is that a lot of the Swedish article is almost a straight lift from the cited reference, and this closeness in structure and wording has been carried over in the translation (of course it has, because Hafspajen and I are excellent translators. No sniggering at the back!). I think the hook should be pulled until the close paraphrasing can be sorted out (but if consensus says it isn't a problem, I will swap sides and try to pretend that I never wrote this.) Belle (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I think I've fixed it up enough. Belle (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Dab links and External Links tools gone

Per Village pump discussion, any tool that was Dispenser's was not migrated to Labs. What this means for DYK is that on the nomination template, the Dab links and External links tools are no more. Also, if you've been using Reflinks to clear up bare URLs, that's gone also.. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For those trying to keep track of the disappearing and migrated tools from Toolserver to Labs, there has been a lengthy discussion over at the Village pump (technical). Anna Frodesiak posted this table to help users find where their favorite tool went: Wikimedia Labs/Toolserver replacements — Maile (talk)

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) 00:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Icky comic relief

This conversation arose between two highly respected editors on the Talk page of a recent DYK article. We felt it would be selfish of us not to share it with our esteemed colleagues.

Hey, I thought you were going to tell us all about Dr Young and the FDA? It's obvious that Rectal dilator is in need of its own article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Now there's a DYK to break all records:

Did you know... that Dr. Young's Rectal Dilators were withdrawn abruptly by the FDA etc etc and so on and so forth.

Note the phrasing rectal dilators withdrawn abruptly. I'll see what I can come up with source-wise. EEng (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Alternative phrasing: forced out of the stream of commerce

Who could possibly dispute the "interesting hook" factor there?! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

DO NOT MIX THE CONCEPTS OF RECTAL AND HOOK. NEVER. NOT EVER. Anyway... here ya go EEng (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Goodness me, several articles worth of material there, in Notice of Judgement No.335. Edited highlights: ".. extracts of drugs including a mydriatic drug such as belladonna"; "It is advisable to use occasionally as a precautionary measure. You need have no fear of using them too much"; "On December 6, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgements of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed." How dramatic. So actually, rare and illegal artefacts, sorry artifacts. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait. How about clamped down on the sale? EEng (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Put the squeeze on..." EEng (talk)

Surely a musical angle is needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You are truly the master of the "mouseover-to-make-'em-laugh-so-they-spit-their-coffee". EEng (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I can deal with rodents ... but let's steer clear of other dubious practices at this juncture, shall we? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

But this is the way ahead folks - agree on a hook first and write the article to match. Well, get EEng to write the hook, actually. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Listen, keep your hands off my junctures or you're gonna find out what's what. I can't believe there hasn't been any tsk-tsking about this. EEng (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2

Lady Gaga's G.U.Y. video duration claim is not inline referenced in the target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a new GA. The reviewer on the nom page states that Misplaced Pages film plot guidelines apply to music video synopsis, therefore a source isn't required. I wasn't aware of this, but it might be correct. Can someone point to a policy or guideline that confirms this? Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the youtube link - looks like it is 11:47 long. Gatoclass (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No doubt, just applying the DYK rules that state "The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I've usually interpreted that rule to mean that the inline cite should be to the work of art itself, but IIRC there's been some disagreement about this, some people think that isn't necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're saying, the rule seems very clear – "the fact must be cited with an inline citation since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article" (my emphasis). If there are suddenly exceptions to this, the rule should be re-written to take that into account. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted in another section above - the ruleset needs clarifying and updating. This may be one of the rules that needs some attention. Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

So in the meantime, the hooked statement does not have an inline citation to support the specific statement within the article, so it should be fixed or pulled. The rule is clear, claiming it not to be is mystifying. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've pulled the hook. Not because it doesn't have a cite, but because, having watched the video, while technically it is nearly 12 minutes long, four of those minutes are taken up by credits, so arguably the hook is a bit misleading. Regarding the other issue, a discussion may be required on this page as to whether we make an exception to the cite rule for plots, film and videos, or whether we follow MOS and don't require it, as I think this has been a bit of a grey area for a while. Gatoclass (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pull. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've supported the pull. I'm not really interested in the rules in this instance, but in this case I would simply say that if it was important or significant to say that a video was 12 minutes in length, it would be easy to dig out a reliable source that said so. Ritchie333 09:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That point is not being disputed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A beautiful example, BTW, of why WP has rules re OR and PRIMARY, and why secondary sources are our primary sources (ha, ha, little joke there...). While a robotic look at the little MM:SS display on youtube may, technically, justify a statement of "almost twelve minutes", there's a least a good chance that a secondary source would distinguish the wheat from the chaff. EEng (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2 needs promoter

I have completed Prep 2 but need someone to load it into the Queue, is anyone available? Gatoclass (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoter still needed. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done But now we need another update ... Gatoclass (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Shame on you, GC! Surely you know that Misplaced Pages is not a means of promotion. EEng (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK Check

Shubinator, has there been a change in the coding of DYK Check recently? Maybe my memory is off on this. But I was just running a routine check and it read "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (2251 days) ". I remember that the time period was recently changed from 5 days to 7 days. Maybe I missed something in all the discussion on this page. I don't understand either the 10 days or 2251 days mentioned. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in the past week I added Good Article detection to DYKcheck.

The Good Article detection code is related to, but independent from, the "10 days" logic. The 10 days code hasn't changed since DYKcheck was first rolled out five years ago. So why 10 days and not 7 (or previously, 5)? The 7-day "rule" applies to the time between when the article was created/expanded/Good Article'd to the time it was nominated for DYK. Noms often sit around for a few days though between nomination and "promotion" to a set, and during this time, someone might run DYKcheck. So the extra few days allows some wiggle room for the time it takes to review the nom. If there's consensus to change this logic, I can tweak it.

2251 days is how much time has elapsed since the article was created/expanded/Good Article'd according to DYKcheck. Shubinator (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, if 10-7=3 days is what's being allowed for review of DYK noms, there's a serious communication problem somewhere. EEng (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It used to be 10-5=5 days, which was a reasonable window when DYKcheck was first created. I agree that 3 days is too short, especially these days; feel free to suggest a more accurate number. Even before though, inevitably the oldest nominations would be more stale than DYKcheck's window, DYKcheck also displays the actual number of days so a human can make the call. Shubinator (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if that came across as critical of you -- wasn't meant to be. I don't know what would be right. I've always said this whole idea of rewarding work done in a rush is idiotic. EEng (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. In this case I don't think DYKcheck is affecting review times; I'm guessing that if I changed it to a 100-day window, the average review time per nom would stay the same. Shubinator (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2014 (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) 17:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

• I've made some changes to the Hamish Peacock article, but seriously, the article is really poor, the hook was too; I adjusted the hook just in case it makes it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In fact, is this hook remarkable at all? Most successful athletes participate in youth, junior and senior competitions, they don't just suddenly arrive at the Olympics without working their way there. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @User:The Rambling Man you chose that hook so if you secretly think that it is not good you should of chosen one of the other hooks. Also,[REDACTED] is not for making defamatory comments behind someones back but for improving the encyclopaedia. NickGibson3900 (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • @NickGibson3900: No, I fixed the garbage hook that was there in the first place. Are you making a legal claim against my actions, by the way? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
        • @User:The Rambling Man Sorry, i went over the top their didn't i and it isn't a legal claim. I just think that you should of said what you said on my talk page. "but seriously, the article is really poor" isn't the nicest thing you could of said. NickGibson3900 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
          • If you don't like honest appraisals of an article with which you have some kind of involvement, perhaps Misplaced Pages isn't the project for you. It needed (and still does need) serious attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
            • @User:The Rambling Man Just as a side note you can take won of the three other hooks on the page if you think they are better. Page: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamish Peacock NickGibson3900 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Great British Meal" - firstly the hook doesn't use the same nomenclature as the article (where it refers to the concept as "Great British Meal Out"), secondly, if anyone bothered reading all the references, the claim is highly disputed, so the overall hook is not great either. Other sources state that curry was the most popular "meal out", and other sources claim the whole thing is bollocks. This is neither interesting nor appropriately written/sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have tweaked the hook, but contrary to your claim, I read all the sources and they virtually all support the hook - even the one that mentions curry as the favourite meal states that it is arguably the favourite meal now but that it used to be prawn cocktail and etc. No "dispute", no claims that the whole thing is "bollocks". If you want to check nominations, fine - but please don't make false claims as you only waste the time of other reviewers by doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Of course, the sources in the article itself would naturally support the article itself, I wonder if anyone counter checks these "it is claimed" style hooks, it could be equally suggested "it is claimed that curry was the most popular meal out". And claiming that something was "dubbed Britain's favourite of the 1980s" with a hook that's referenced by something referring to an annual survey by a trade magazine which made no such claim, other than the "cooked dinner type meal prevailed, often in the form..." of this meal type. But hey, let's just make stuff up as we go along. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You already made a bunch of transparently false claims about the sources for this article, so I don't intend to waste any more time on this. The hook states that this was "dubbed Britain's favourite dining out meal of the 1980s", which it clearly was by a number of sources. Your speculative claim that maybe some other source somewhere said different does not change the fact that the hook as stated is correct. Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not dubbed as you claim at all. And the inline reference apparently supporting it doesn't claim that either. But let's not let veracity get in the way of a dull hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarama: I'm sorry to notice this so late, and not to know where to report it. But the Sarama hook is wrong. As the article points out, in nearly all versions of the Ramayana Sarama is a heroine character. It is only in the one version, mentioned in the last line of the article, that she is seen in a negative light. At a minimum it should say "in post-Ramayana literature" rather than "in the Ramayana" but strictly it is only in the Sita Puranamu in Telegu.174.88.8.213 (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. That set is still under review so I'll take a close look at that hook when I resume. Gatoclass (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate it. It's essentially as wrong as something like "in the Bible, John the Baptist is criticized for betraying Jesus to Herod" when that is only one regional folk tradition. 174.88.8.213 (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored the original reference to the Sita Puranamu but it's a little inaccessible to non-experts as we don't have a link for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

More updates needed!

Yesterday, we went 20 hours without a new update because nobody built one. We need more updaters! Don't worry too much about loading a hook with an error, I check all the hooks before promoting to the Queue in any case. Just make sure that as a minimum you have read the nomination page discussion and have selected an approved hook or ALT, that the hook is interesting and that the article looks presentable, I can pretty much do the rest. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Gatoclass Ping, Prep 4 has all its buns in the oven for you. — Maile (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Maile66, sorry I didn't get back to it in time, but I have to sleep sometimes :) Gatoclass (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

... "that Thea Austin has had five hits as a member of three groups?"

I checked the rules ("The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it, since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable. (Note, "extraordinary" is used here to mean "out of the ordinary", not "exceptional to a very marked extent.") Nominations are to be rejected if the claim made in the hook is not present in the source, or if the source is not a reliable source.") and I checked the article, but I couldn't see how the article and its hook met the rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, unless this is dealt with, I'll pull the hook in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Pulled now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

... "that's a remake"

Per WP:MOS, ("Uncontracted forms such as do not or it is are the default in encyclopedic style; don't and it's are too informal. But contractions should not be expanded mechanically. Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable; occasionally contractions provide the best solution anyway.") we avoid contractions. I made a minor correction yet it was reverted twice. If this isn't fixed now, it'll be picked up at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What TRM's complaining about is

* ... that Mr. Burns, a Post-Electric Play retells an episode of The Simpsons that parodies a movie that's a remake of another movie which is based on a book?

DYK "violates" MOS in many ways, including addressing the reader with a rhetorical question (Did you know...?), and knowingly employing phrasing which is ambiguous or misleading in a harmless way. The informality of a contraction is entirely consistent and appropriate to DYK's "gestalt". To fuss about this when there are things actually wrong with DYK makes me want to cry out, "TRM, get off my side!" EEng (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we follow MOS wherever possible, and here, it's possible. I don't care if you want to "cry out". Do it in your own time, in a room of your own with your own comfort aids. This is Misplaced Pages, not EEng's play tool. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS itself says, Use common sense in applying ... will have occasional exceptions. So in using common sense to identify an appropriate exception we are following MOS.

Your recent post to my talk, "I'll just wait for main page and report ERRORS" typifies your blow-it-up, take-no-prisoners attitude. A more construct approach would be to say (as I will now)...

Let's see what other editors think. EEng (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really, my post was to mean that it'll be picked up at ERRORS as a MOS fail, whether it's me or someone else who does it. Just better to fix it beforehand to help DYK's improving error statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, I think it would be better to see what other editors think. EEng (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, sure, but again, it'll be raised at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Currently we have "that parodies a movie that's a remake of another movie which is based on a book", why not "that parodies a movie which is a remake of another movie that was based on a book"? Or are your grammar bells shaking and jangling about this? If you like, I can recommend places to have your bells waxed, just let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's meant to have a bit of "This Is the House That Jack Built" flavor, and it's fine as is, IMO. But let's wait to hear what others think. EEng (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

... "but had a son who became"

Awkward and clumsy phrasing, should be "but whose son became". I made a minor correction yet it was reverted twice. If this isn't fixed now, it'll be picked up at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The hook now in prep is

... that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but had a son who became a poet?

TRM wants it to read

that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but whose son who became a poet?

-- which is patent nonsense. EEng (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So we delete the last "who" and we all chill out. (done) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You most recently proposed

that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but whose son became a poet?

-- which is still nonsense. In all seriousness, TRM, you seem to be running off the rails. I mean it. There's something going on with you recently and it's not good. EEng (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In what sense is that nonsense? Step me through the nonsense, one step at a time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing irrelevant phrases one at a time

that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but whose son became a poet?

that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, but whose son became a poet?

that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science, but whose son became a poet?

I wonder if what you mean is but his son became a poet ??? EEng (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you like, that's also a massive improvement on the hook you edit-warred on to keep. Thanks for thinking it through and coming up with your own and better solution! I suggest you implement it post-haste and give yourself some well-earned pats on the back. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I was only speculating on what you might have meant. In fact it's not better since "but his son" implies he only had one son, and we don't know that. I think it's best if we wait for others to give their opinions. EEng (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you need to "speculate", it was pretty clear. Your rewrite is better. And at the article corroborates the phrasing (e.g. "he was saddened to see his son adopt it as a profession", not "he was saddened to see one of his sons adopt it as a profession"). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

With that additional information, you're right and I've changed the hook to read

* ... that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, yet his son became a poet?

Nonetheless, you do see, don't you, that the text you kept trying to install made no sense? EEng (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There's "making no sense" and "making not any sense not". I'm just really glad you took the time to read the article! It must have enriched your day, as it did mine, and thanks for finally seeing some sense. Now, just two more hooks in this particular queue of doom to worry about! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

... SITI: An Iconic Exhibition of Dato' Siti Nurhaliza ...

I'm struggling (mainly because its white text on a black background) to see where the hook's claim that the exhibition "is among the first of its kind in Malaysia where the main subject is solely based on a single celebrity". Any pointers from anyone who can read inverse colour text would be helpful here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Source is much simpler: "Gallery manager Farida Mazlan says Siti is its first pop icon to have her very own exhibition". There's an implied after first, one would think. Needs to be rephrased. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK eligibility

An article I would like to write a DYK for was previously nominated and rejected in 2013 because the 5x expansion was over four weeks old. Since then, the article was promoted to Good Article status and is now eligible. Am I able to nominate a new DYK hook for the article? If so, where would I place the nomination as the original (rejected) nomination exists on the page where one would normally nominate it. MJ94 (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's within 7 days you can nominate. The name of the nomination doesn't matter, you could have it at Template:Did you know nominations/July 4 2014, but you just need to fill it in right. Something like 'Article (2nd nomination)' will probably be fine. Thanks, Matty.007 20:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007:  Done at Template:Did you know nominations/Olivia Pope (2nd nomination). Thanks! MJ94 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the explanation was poor, well done on understanding. Looks to be done correctly. Thanks, Matty.007 20:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin help needed

On the nominations page under July 1, if you click on Astronomical Society of New South Wales, it brings up Template:Did you know nominations/Did you know, which opens a blank page. To fnd out what was meant, I clicked on July 1 and found out the editor manually input the text for Astronomical Society of New South Wales directly under that date and inadvertently created a blank template as above. To correct that, I created Template:Did you know nominations/Astronomical Society of New South Wales and replaced the prose under July 1 with this template. However, something is not correct. If you click on that nomination under July 1, the old blank page template still pulls up. Can an admin please correct this? — Maile (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a shot at fixing it. I'm not too familiar with the structure of the nom pages, so it would be great if someone could double-check my work. Shubinator (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you did, it worked. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem :) Shubinator (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2014 (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) 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

More updates needed

Preps are empty again, we need more updates. Updaters - don't worry too much about loading a hook with an error, I check all the hooks before promoting to the Queue in any case. Just make sure that as a minimum you have read the nomination page discussion and have selected an approved hook or ALT, that the hook is interesting and that the article looks presentable, I can pretty much do the rest. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I can live with that! What do you think about #Comments_on_the_redux? EEng (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention to that discussion, for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure what you're actually asking me to comment on, but with regard to the respective responsibilities of reviewers, updaters, and queue promoters, which I have raised elsewhere, I'm considering making a concrete proposal of my own about that sometime in the next few days. I just need a little more time to think about it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The struck-out text you see when following the link proposes a division of responsibility very much along the lines of what you outlined above. Sorry for the strikeout (I decided I was diverting the conversation too much) but I'd be interested to know what you think. EEng (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of it, in fact I already proposed much the same thing myself in this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2014 (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) 08:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• And image protected locally, as it hadn't been protected on Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong credits

For the current set I noticed missing dyk credit on the talk page of Frequent subtree mining, and similarly missing credits on the creator's talk page. This hook was moved from one prep set to another, without the accompanying credit template. Similarly, there is a wrong dyk note on the talk page of the pulled Thea Austin, and undue credits on the creators' talk pages.

I would recommend that those who move hooks between prep sets, also move the credit templates accordingly, because it is much more time consuming to clean up manually afterwards.

I normally do not check this, only checked now because I was the one who promoted the hook (frequent subset mining), so I don't know how frequently this happens. Oceanh (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened with regards to hooks here, but what can happen if a hook is pulled in a hurry is that the credits are forgotten, and not pulled, so when the prep goes to the main page the credits are activated the same as normal despite the hook being pulled. Thanks, Matty.007 18:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This will require some tedious changes to templates and bots, but if the format of the prep sets would allow the credit template(s) for a given hook to be immediately adjacent to that hook, that would help a lot, not to mention making setting up the sets a bit easier. IOW: *... that blah blah hook1
{{DYKmake for hook1}}
*... that blah blah hook2
{{DYKmake for hook2}}
*... that blah blah hook3
{{DYKmake for hook3}}

EEng (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite of the nomination instruction pages (plural) needed

Per Admin help needed above, I posted a notice on the talk page of creator/nominator Gronk Oz on how to create a nomination. I've always thought the instructions at T:TDYK are fairly simplified in setting up a template. The nominator's response to me makes me understand why we sometimes get newbies manually creating the nomination directly beneath the T:TDYK date rather than the template. It seems there are three other instruction pages: Nomination and NewDYKnom, which has a link to Template:NewDYKnomination. Too many instructions in too many places. Comments, suggestions? — Maile (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Similarly to the preparation instructions issue, which I hope isn't being forgotten before it gets fixed, the "three other instruction pages" are from the Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Learning DYK system, which was originally intended to unify our rules, not add another set. There are 3 pages because my philosophy was that newcomers would be overwhelmed, confused and lost by too much irrelevant information on a page. The first page above is an overview of nomination, with links to each subset including the second page above. Similarly, that page describes several sets including a link to the third page (not mine; it came with the software). Other editors, perhaps including Maile66 above, thought the Learning DYK system was "too many places", and hence we have Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Onepage – but even the uncontroversial improvements were never implemented, although some of them were independently adopted later, one at a time. Art LaPella (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What we need is all the rules on one page, I frequently have to go looking for them, and then a simplified version for new DYKers. Thanks, Matty.007 16:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Which sounds like an endorsement of Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Onepage. Art LaPella (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact it hasn't been updated for 4 years. Perhaps keeping the basic format of it then updating it all, maybe shortening it a bit... Thanks, Matty.007 16:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir was going to revamp Onepage, but that was a long time ago. Onepage is fine, but it doesn't include instructions on filling out the nom template. I took a whack at rewriting Onepage, thinking (ha...ha...ha) it could be shrunk, and came up with DYKCheatsheet. I have no objections to Learning DYK staying in place. Just perhaps some good thinkers could come up with a way that all the pages, including "Onepage", have identical instructions. I guess it bears mention that "For simplified instructions, see Quick DYK 2" is also on the nominations page right below "To nominate an article". — Maile (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about creating a new page with the aim of simplifying it all for new DYKers? If everyone at DYK had a look/helped, it would get done quickly and hopefully to everyone's liking? Thanks, Matty.007 17:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

In a perfect world. You've come up with enough good ideas here to know what getting a coordinated effort, and/or consensus, is like. I have a fondness for Tabbed page headings, such as in use at WP:GA or WP:MIL. And a for instance, where WPMIL has "Academy", we could have "Learning DYK". Also, what DYK has in the little upper right-hand infobox would be Tabs instead. Tabs would be so much easier on the newcomer, big and at immediate eye level, very simple to navigate. Even if we kept the rules we can figure out just the way they are, this project could stand a revamp on the visuals and ease of accessibility to information. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is, as you say, consensus. Nonetheless, I'll think about some kind of userspace thing as a prototype. Thanks again, Matty.007 19:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you come up with something. It's going to take more than one person working on this. A suggested starting place on userspace would be a list of all the individual DYK information pages that exist, and then start figuring it out from there. Art LaPella might be a good help on what info pages are in existence. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What's in existence? My stuff is Category:Misplaced Pages Did you know rules, {{DYKbox}} has some well-known links, and the contents list shows all Did You Know subpages (ignore everything after about 1 1/2 screenfuls, where it no longer says Did You Know.)

Wow, these links are very helpful. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"a way that all the pages, including "Onepage", have identical instructions." That's built in; Onepage includes all (well, almost all, and easily changed to include all) the other Learning DYK pages in one big page. Hence the Onepage edit page is under 10% as long as its text: include this, include that, include ... Any updated version could use the same idea. Art LaPella (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving credit templates out of userspace

I'm going to start moving DYKmake and DYKnom's innards out of userspace and into the template namespace. While I'm doing this, the credit templates in the preps and queues might not work. Should be done in under an hour. Shubinator (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, I think there's an update in 55 minutes. Thanks, Matty.007 16:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, there's one coming in a bit under two hours. I should be done, complete with a bot update, by then :) Thanks for the reminder. Shubinator (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Scott, I remind you that the Klingon vessel will be within disruptor range in less than 30 seconds. EEng (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

At this point everything except the bot code has been updated, headed off to tweak the code next. Let me know if you spot anything amiss. Shubinator (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot code updated, at this point everything should be back to normal. Shubinator (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Thanks, Matty.007 17:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've filled Prep 1, if there are any takers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1 error

"Corfu Channel Case" should be italicized as a case name. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

On the Corfu hook (Prep 1)

Copied from my Talk EEng (talk)

As to the amount of gold, the print source (several actually) state it in kilograms. I have no objection to adding troy ounces except that it would probably push the hook over the limit.

I disagree with the term "using" insofar as the claim wasn't used to satisfy the ICJ judgment. The claim stemming from the judgment was settled at the same time that the claim to the gold was settled. Arguably, the judgment wasn't really satisfied, but that's another topic entirely. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary the final settlement had multiple shells being shuffled around. Without agreeing or disagreeing with what you say, if what you say is true, then "settled with" is just as wrong as "satisfied using". The fact is my first impulse was to pull this from prep because the article's discussion is so confusing, and I think I should have gone with the impulse. I have to run out for a bit so I'll post a pointer to this at WP:TDYK. EEng (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As to the phrasing, my intended meaning of "with" was that the ICJ judgment was satisfied at the same time as the Albanian claim. So I suppose I meant "settled along with". —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

And my meaning with the judgment not actually being satisfied was that arguably Albania's payment didn't even come close to compensating the time value of the money (as indicated in the article, the £843,947 judgement is equivalent to well over £20 million currently). As to the complexity of the situation... I agree, it is quite complex; it's a matter that lasted decades and involved another ICJ case with Italy. The relevant paragraph containing the hook is the third of the "Satisfaction of debt" section. It's not completely correct to say the claim satisfied the debt, because $2M also changed hands. Perhaps put more simply (though not precisely so in the sources): the UK gave some of the gold to Albania, Albania gave $2M to the UK, and both parties dropped their monetary claims. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this ? My ride is here, might be back soon or way late. EEng (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good with me. Safe travels! —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DYKs for blocked or banned users

We've tackled this in the past, but I think that it is worth revisiting. Looking at the description of DYK, it leads with "The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review. This publicity rewards editors for their contributions.". This raises a question for me. In cases where a banned or blocked editor has created an article using socks in violation of their ban, should their articles be eligible for DYK, especially if they have not been substantially edited by another editor? Under policy we can accept their contributions in spite of the ban or block if an editor in good standing chooses to take responsibility for the contributions. However, while there is a case to be made that doing so is a compromise between enforcing a ban and furthering the aims of the project, where on balance there is arguably a greater benefit to be gained from keeping their contributions over discouraging socking, the balance seems different in DYK. Having an article on the front page doesn't further the projects aims in the same way that simply accepting the content does, and the notion of "rewarding" a banned editor for violating their ban is certainly problematic.

This isn't a hypothetical question - currently we have to accepted nominations for articles created by User:Russavia after Russavia was community banned a week or so ago. Neither has been substantial edited by other contributors. But the issue, of course, is broader than one user. I'd suggest that one of the requirements for articles to be accepted for DYK is that the primary contributor of the new content must be in good standing. - Bilby (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly for a block other than indefinite things should proceed as normal, since the assumption is that the user will be back, and more, um, ... compliant after the compulsory lobotomy we now administer to anyone blocked for 1 week or more.

For indefinite blocks, or bans, I'm not sure we need to fuss either. Just let the machinery play itself out, and as far as I'm concerned the appearance of the DYK "credit" on the user's Talk is a bit of a reminder of how contradictory can one editor's behavior. My only caveat would be that, if the block/ban is for anything resembling hoaxing or fakery, a very high level of scrutiny should be brought to bear. EEng (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't read guidelines often, so didn't know about "This publicity rewards editors for their contributions." Perhaps we should change that? I at least am only interested in publicity for the facts, not the editors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with keeping contributions related to short-term blocks, although if the article was created by socking in violation of the block then there is some concern. However, I think a stronger stance is warranted for a banned editor, especially given that these situations normally arise when editors are gaming WP to make a point about their ban. The only previous situation I can think of was one of copying text written by a banned editor into an article. In this case it is more direct, as the article was created by a sock, so we have the problem of the article being written counter to policy to begin with. - Bilby (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the two that triggered this has been promoted, and I won't object. But I think we need to address this - if an article is known to have been made by a sock, in violation of a ban, then highlighting the article on the front page and rewarding the banned editor is not in the project's interests. I think there is room for flexibility in regard to blocks, and the previous 2010 discussion accepted appropriately licensed text written by a banned editor that was not posted by them, but socking seems to be the point where we should draw a line. Is there a way of wording this that would be viable? - Bilby (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The promoted article in question is a good one with no apparent defects. Given that text effectively becomes PD once posted on wikipedia, it doesn't "belong" to the originator and we are entitled to use it as we please, so I'm not too bothered if something originated with a sock. What I will say though is that I think anyone who tries to hoax or misuse DYK itself has forfeited their right to participate here. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can us it as we please, but we don't have to use it for rewarding the banned editor for socking. This isn't the same as keeping the content - this is about a process designed and intended to reward contributors for their work. It makes no sense to specifically reward people for violating a ban. Keep the content by all means, but don't reward them for their actions as well. - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

To some extent I sympathize with your views - I could hardly fail to do so, given that I have argued the same thing myself here on a number of occasions - but I never got much support for my views and I tend not to worry about it now. If it was a sock who had a reputation for submitting problematic content, I would say, strike the nomination on sight, but if the user is adding useful content, perhaps it's not so important. Gatoclass (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty, even if we did topic block for banned users, DYK has no list (such as convenient category) for anyone to go by. And those who will sock are sometimes adept at slipping past the guard shack: One, Two. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The text of an article does not become PD once posted on the Misplaced Pages. It is still copyright of the originator. It is under a CC BY-SA licence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

He said "effectively" PD, which to a first approximation is accurate enough for this discussion. EEng (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Queue 6

Sorry, this moved up so fast I didn't see this. Lead hook is only 13 words, and two of them are "Australian". Seems repetitive. Could we change one? Would it be offensive to say "Aboriginal" instead of "Indigenous Australian"? If not that, then how about changing "Australian ambassador" to "his country's ambassador"? Also, this may not be important, but am mentioning this to be sure - the image is copyrighted, but the licensing seems to say it's OK to use it with proper attribution. — Maile (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

While we're at it can we please have

annual jogging event in Stockholm where participants -->

annual jogging event in Stockholm in which participants

graduates including John Kalili as circuit judges -->

graduates, including John Kalili, as circuit judges

EEng (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think two Australians is repetitive, look at Prep 3 and count the "for/fours" in the Kylie hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the four for/fours are for, but they should be removed forthwith. EEng (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR in a single set of hooks

Is there anything anywhere suggesting we could/should/must use a consistent variety of English within a single set of hooks? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No. EEng (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So you think it's a good thing to have two hooks next to one another written in different variations of English? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Rambling Man, have you ever heard the expression "like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"? EEng (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A historical vignette...

First mate: Captain, we've struck an iceberg!

Captain Smith: Have the radio room broadcast distress signals!

The Rambling Man: Captain, radio is an Americanism. This is a British ship. You should say

ALT1 Have the wireless room broadcast distress signals!

Captain Smith: <smacks Rambling Man with nightstick>

The Rambling Man: nightstick is an Americanism. What you should do is

ALT2 <smack Rambling Man with truncehon>

EEng (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Since the quality of the hooks going to main page has been improving steadily given more thorough "gate reviews", it doesn't harm anyone or anything to just check these things off as they happen. But thanks for your constructive input on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, laughter is the best medicine. There's obviously never going to be a decision to make MP all American or all UK, so it's going to be a mixture no matter what we do (unless, I dunno, we go Brit on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, American on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, and Pidgin on Sundays). I can't think of a concern more trivial. EEng (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you missed the point, ITN for instance ensures that blurbs are consistent with one another, if common phrasing, terms etc are present at any one time. It's a simple task and one that is encouraged in the instructions. I'm glad you see it as trivial, hopefully you can stop commenting on it and allow someone else to get a word in edgeways now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Did You Know has a rule (sort of) that promotes the opposite of consistency. Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 for instance, in edit mode, says: "NOTE: Since a preponderance of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on U.S. topics in any given update, though never more than half, rounding up. Thanks." There is also an informal history of yielding to nationalist demands that the language variety of a hook should match its subject matter (U.S. English for a hook about George Washington). That should result in a mixture, not consistency. Art LaPella (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, okay, no problem. It should and will result in a mixture. If that's what DYK wants and is happy with, that's fine. Seems very strange to me, but hey, let's be consistently inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting question, this one. Personally I'd say that as long as hooks themselves are consistent, it's alright, although we should preferably aim for a more neutral variety of English where possible (which is why ITN uses constructs like "X competition ends with y team winning the gold medal" or whatever). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Dirty rotten shame

Not blaming anyone involved in this specific case (Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Clarence_Elkins) but it's a shame that arbitrary criteria about byte counts and nomination dates keep us from DYKing a man who, imprisoned for murder, cleared himself and proved who the true killer was, from prison (!) -- while we happily pass the most boring crap imaginable 10 times a day, just because someone did a better job of padding the article with fluff. EEng (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps take to GA? Thanks, Matty.007 18:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The simple[REDACTED] uses an "interesting" scale - if you would like to see examples of a less prescribed approach. It would be possible to "ignore all rules" as we do occasionally, but I'm not sure its warranted in this case. I'm assuming you do not mean that 10 of the hooks every day are "crap" padded with "fluff" and that you are padding out your argument. We do need to show respect for the editors who contribute here. Victuallers (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at Prep3 right now (reordered):

... that although the Kampoeng Rawa tourist attraction (dock pictured) was meant to raise awareness of the ecology of Lake Rawa Pening, it has been criticised for potentially damaging the ecosystem?

... that Frederic Bonney took photographs of the Paarkantji People, whom he respected for their loyalty and integrity?

... that the MMPL Kanpur is a rare example of an aircraft designed and built by a national air force for its own use?

... that the Texas pocket gopher examines its own fecal pellets, selecting some to consume and rejecting the rest?

... that the music video for Kylie Minogue's 2004 single "Chocolate" features a 40-second ballet routine which took the singer four days to rehearse?

... that Simone Kues was a member of the silver medal-winning team at the 2014 Women's World Wheelchair Basketball Championship in Toronto?

... that Australian actress Zoe Tuckwell-Smith made her major television acting debut playing Bec Gilbert in Winners & Losers?

The first four pass at least a threshold requirement for "interesting" because they relate something out of the ordinary or unexpected. The last three are (I am sorry to say) utterly pedestrian. Rehearsal for a music video took four days -- not surprising (I guess the ballet aspect might be considered somewhat different). Person X won a medal in event Y -- well, someone was going to win it. Actress A's first big role was in Production P -- every performer had a first role.

So, yeah, I'd say about half of hooks are dull as dishwater. One of DYK's problems is a determination to be like the Special Olympics -- everyone gets a medal! EEng (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with this 100%. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This was your other time to be right today (see below). You've used your quota now so let's hear from you in 24 hours. EEng (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. Just kidding!

Prep 3

"...the MMPL Kanpur is a rare example..."

This hook is cited by an inline reference which dates 26 July 1962, i.e. the (actually caveated) claim of "rarity" was made almost 62 years ago. The hook needs to be changed to the more accurate "was" a rare example, or we should have some evidence that "is a rare example" is still a valid claim. In other words, pull until this can be adequately fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Like a stopped clock, TRM is right twice a day, and this is one of his for today. EEng (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Just kidding, TRM -- you're right more than twice a day.

Well, I have to make sure at least 1% of my edits are usable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: perhaps you'd like to sort this one out? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal - broaden 2x expand criterion to all articles not just BLPs?

Was thinking about this - we have articles on some topics where material has been added but are wholly lacking in references, that makes it a hard 5x expand - these are almost always more accessible and less esoteric articles. Examples are Apple corer and Chocolate syrup.

Might it be worthwhile to broaden 2x expand criterion to all articles not just BLPs in the interests of (a) cleaning up articles with bits of text randomly added, that otherwise have little incentive to clean up, and (b) opening up some topics that may be more interesting/accessible for readers? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

How about just completely dropping the expansion and newness requirements, and make it plain and simple: GA (maybe with some double-check)? That would encourage real improvement. In addition, the nomination would start with just the hook being proposed, and we'd vote (yes, vote) on whether it's hooky enough to be used. If it passes that test then the article gets its double-check for GA. This would improve the interesting-ness of hooks, and remove the nonsense rush to nominate articles which clearly aren't ready yet, etc. EEng (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No. DYK should not be reformed into a child of GAN. Also, there are several articles that qualify for DYK that could probably never become GAs due to coverage issues and whatnot. Standards for DYK should be decently high but not that high. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well chocolate syrup and apple corer are only around 600 characters; this would mean a 5x expansion would make it around 3000 characters which is certainly feasible. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussed and rejected before. — Maile (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. For GA and even FA it's only required that coverage be as good as reasonably possible given the sources that exist. As for "decently high but not that high", the weird thing is that some around here seem to think DYK has higher standards than GA. The fact is DYK standards aren't higher or lower, just randomly different, and a huge amount of effort is put in, here, to meeting them for no apparent purpose. A good example is the obsession with banishing and tags -- even GA doesn't care about that, requiring only (WP:Good_article_criteria):

in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons

But if you think GA is too strict, I think B-class (WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment) would be fine too. But for God's sake let's use a set of criteria that can be related to the rest of WP. EEng (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Some old time Misplaced Pages owl once remarked to me that anything below GA has no meaning except to the projects. i.e. Many, if not most, projects are limping along and even effectively dead. Below A-class, any editor can self-assign any rating they want to their own article. Except for a really active project, there is nothing to prevent someone from assigning a B-class to a barely-above-start article, just because they can. Anything below A-class is truly meaningless for DYK to use as a measuring rod. A-class is assigned by projects, only if the project has a process for that. WP:MILHIST is really active and has a process to deal with backlog of articles, a process for assigning A-class ratings, etc. Their articles would be in better shape and probably engulf DYK. What about other subjects that don't have a project support group? — Maile (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying we should adopt the B or GA criteria (or maybe something in between -- call it "B+"), not that we should take anyone's word that those criteria have been met. EEng (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. And I'm also saying we drop the newness and expansion requirements in favor of a "hook is actually interesting" requirement -- see #Dirty_rotten_shame.

But ... but ... that would destroy our power as gatekeepers if anybody could understand DYK rules!!! </sarcasm> Art LaPella (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So, the truth comes out, eh, Art LaPella? All our suspicions and conspiracy theories were not unfounded, eh? :-) — Maile (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

B-class is too tough. Most DYK articles just don't have that level of comprehensiveness, for instance. I suppose C-class could be okay (but that should be judged in the nomination page, not by looking at the talk page, since there are those who mass-tag articles without really assessing them against the criteria ). --Jakob (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• A major problem with judging based on class and not absolute length is that the class rating is subjective. Gagak Item has passed the FAC process, yet someone unfamiliar with the topic were to try and judge it (99% of them simply use length, rather than comprehensiveness) I doubt they'd give it higher than a C. The ratings are completely arbitrary, and as such should not be used as a measuring stick. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Every time we have this discussion it gets derailed by confused comments like this.

• We can have or not have a minimum-length requirement -- that's of little concern. But a minimum-length requirement alone is meaningless as a measure of quality.
• I just said I'm not saying we would rely on anyone else's evaluation of whether a given article meets "the" criteria, whatever "they" end up being. What I have said is that we should use the C-B-GA-FA ladder as a touchstone, and have a good reason for departing from it.
• Of course determining whether a given article meets criteria is a subjective judgment, as almost all worthwhile judgments in life are. If we eliminate all criteria requiring subjective judgment, then we'll be left with a bunch of criteria which are, yes, objective, but meaningless (such as a length requirement).

EEng (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• You may consider comments such as that derailing the conversation, but I beg to differ. I think we have to remember that all laws (and rules, by extension) are expected to be at least somewhat objective, at the very least as a starting point, so that they can be applied consistently. A lack of consistency is simply going to frustrate reviewers and nominators, and also can make them feel as if they are being treated unfairly. There's a reason why murder in the first degree has a minimum sentence in many jurisdictions, and there's a reason why we generally try to use more objective criteria at DYK. Fine, look at the C-B-GA-FA ladder, but don't use it as the basis of any meaningful decisions (in the context of DYK, reviews). Look at the article itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Back to Casliber's proposal, I don't think it's a good idea right now, owing to the large number of proposals and possible changes in the near future. There may be merit there, particularly as it relates to more general articles, but I'm not sure the time is right to discuss it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've long thought the x5 requirement is too high for all but the shortest articles; the rule really needs some refinement but as you say, there are probably more important fish to fry at DYK ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's revisit it after the current chaos subsides. If it ever does... (I'm frankly wondering why we still have the unreferenced BLP rule at all any more, since I can't recall seeing one that qualifies in a very long time indeed, but quite a few that didn't. It seems to cause more bad feelings than anything else at this point.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As Crisco suggested

Prompted by Crisco's suggestion that subjective criteria are a bad idea, I propose what we strike the following from the rules:

There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive.

Though I'm taking Crisco's suggestion as an opportunity to raise this, I am serious. The "not work in progress" criterion has been the root of all kinds of trouble -- since every article below FA is a work in progress, this cannot mean what it purports to mean, and has become a cover for reviewers to impose personal pet requirements, such as "you can't have tags". As I've said a million times, if we want DYK articles to be exemplary in some way, then we should adopt GA (or higher) as the standard. Otherwise, we should just be up front that these are new articles needing work, and stop trying to dress them up as "not in progress." EEng (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: the hell? You think we should show thousands of viewers coming from our main page an article full of tags? Ed  02:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We needn't be embarrassed about that that if we are clear, up front, that these are new articles which need work. The fact is that most DYK articles do need work (including clarification and expansion) -- the only question is whether we admit that up front, or embarrass ourselves, as we do every day, by making it look like we don't realize they need work. Even GA doesn't forbid or even tags, which are simply honest statements that improvement is needed.

Here's a great example: a recent article, quoting a reliable source, narrates that some escapees stopped at "the Graham farm" in County C. Now, I don't know where the Graham Farm was, so I tagged it . What I was hoping is that when the article made its DYK appearance some interested reader would see the and say, "Oh, I know where that is" and suddenly we have a new editor!

Or maybe that wouldn't happen. But we'll never know because someone insisted that the article can't have tags, so the "Graham Farm" mention was simply removed.

Fellow editors, read that all again and tell me: is that what we want to happen at DYK? EEng (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a requirement of "the article must be comprehensive" should be imposed; I disagree with all these quality checks. I've never seen DYK as an "exemplary articles!" showcase, but a "new content" showcase, and that's what it's meant to be at its core. This is why all this talk about mandating GA-class is worrying - while that may lead to better hooks and less pullings, it would also probably lead to a lot less hooks being proposed in the first place. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 02:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Comprehensive" is a very high requirement -- how can we expect that within seven days of an article's creation? I think the last two posts (by ed and TT) very well exemplify the split-mind of DYK: one person wants and article free of even templates, and the other wants few requirements. Personally I would like the latter, with (I repeat) a disclaimer letting readers know that these are new articles needing work -- "Click here if you'd like to help!" EEng (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we really expect comprehensiveness in 7 days; it takes longer than that just to understand the red tape. We expect to exclude anyone who hasn't gone through the wringer often enough to know the user-space evasion of that limit; see F3. Art LaPella (talk) 11:35 pm, Today (UTC−4)

One must not only understand it but keep it in mind, lest one accidentally foreclose a good opportunity by running afoul of the seven days. Sadly, the world may be forever denied the delicious hook

... that Harvard Cop #1 Charles R. Apted identified the dynamite-wielding intruder who shot J. P. Morgan, Jr. as wife-poisoner, US Senate bomber, and deranged former Harvard German instructor Eric Muenter?"

because I, in an unguarded moment, created a short article on Apted, and left it for a few months, instead of craftily developing it offline and springing it on the world like Athena from the brow of Zeus. Too bad. EEng (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Unexpanded headers" is reasonably objective (there's either text under a header or there isn't). "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected." could be illustrated with a couple more examples to make the degree of subjectivity less influential (the current example is okay, but not necessarily applicable to all articles on written works - what if it's a lost book or manuscript known only through mentions in other sources?). I agree, we can make these more objective, and include tags such as "citation needed" and maybe "clarification needed".

Also, little point of contention regarding "every article below FA is a work in progress": even FAs are works in progress, as the prose can still be polished a bit more etc etc.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, yeah, "unexpanded headers" is objective, and also something that's never been observed as a problem -- we may has well have a rule warning against "long strings of repeated charactersssssssssssssssssssssssssss".

Giving a lot of examples of what you mean by a criterion doesn't make it less subjective; rather, it proves how subjective it really is, which is why the examples are needed.

Of course we all understand that even FAs are subject to additional editing, but it's also understood that the rough idea of an FA is that it is about as complete and polished as one could reasonably expect -- you can keep adding to it and polishing it, but it doesn't need that.

Please explain what you mean by "we can include" cite-needed and clar-needed tags -- include them in what's OK, or in what's not OK?

EEng (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you are quite wrong about that - we used to regularly get submissions with unexpanded headers, and clearly unfinished articles - that's why the rule was added in the first place. All those rules in the "supplementary" category were added because of recurring issues that had to be dealt with. Gatoclass (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, fine. We can say that articles shouldn't have easily-remediable formatting and layout problems such as unexpanded headers, broken templates, etc. I believe you that each rule was added in response to a recurring problem, but I'm beginning to think (see your comment below and my response) that the "not a work in progress" prohibition was really meant to be more like the "not half-finished" idea, but its unfortunate phrasing has let it morph into something way beyond what was meant. EEng (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Subjective criteria in a wiki environment are as a general rule not ideal, because they are bound to be applied inconsistently which frustrates nominators. However, subjectivity can never be totally eliminated from the process; for example, someone has to decide whether or not a hook is "interesting" enough. I think the meaning of "not a work in progress" ought to be clear enough however; it means articles shouldn't look or read as half-finished, like something you might find in a sandbox. In other words, it's not enough that an article merely have lots of sources and be 1500 bytes long in order to qualify, it also has to give adequate coverage of the topic, and that is not necessarily something you can or would want to "objectively" define. Gatoclass (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

GC, that's it exactly! We don't want things that look half-finished, but it's OK if they obviously can be expanded, improved, clarified, refs added. EEng (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

it's OK if they obviously can be expanded, improved, clarified, refs added. IMO, that's just stating the obvious. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It ought to be obvious, but apparently it's not -- if so we wouldn't have reviews criticizing "too many short sentences" like this one: Template:Did you know nominations/Wanlip Hall, or a complaint about comprehensiveness (which I don't even think would be a problem at GA) like this one: Template:Did you know nominations/Nossa Senhora da Graça incident EEng (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's rare to find reviewers trying to impose too high a standard at DYK though, the problem is usually the opposite. Occasionally a reviewer will need a little guidance to get them in line with prevailing standards, but IMO that's not really an issue that is likely to be effectively addressed by a rules change. Gatoclass (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Adding another opposition to EEng's proposal. This particular rule has been very useful in making it clear that 1500 prose characters is necessary, but in some cases not sufficient: articles should deal adequately with the topic, and DYK should continue to require same. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you and Crisco take a few moments to resolve the discrepancy between your requirement that articles "deal adequately" and his dislike of the subjective? EEng (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for his suggestion. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbor-treeish break

• How about we strike the and not some sort of work in progress part of that paragraph? The sentence would then read There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete. Would that address the concerns raised here? Shubinator (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a good start, but I still dislike "appear to be complete". I particularly dislike any provision that the article must "appear to be" something instead of actually being that thing. EEng (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the "not some sort of work in progress" phrase should probably stay; IMO the meaning of that should be clear enough from the following sentence which talks about blank sections. The "appears to be complete" phrase is arguably vague and redundant and might perhaps be eliminated without undue harm. Gatoclass (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

<rubs hands gleefully> So far we seem to have

Articles should not give the appearance being some sort of work in progress -- for example, with unexpanded headers. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive.

Can we take it a bit further?

Articles should not give the appearance being some sort of work in progress -- for example, with unexpanded headers. An article should also include, at least in outline, readily available factual material one would normally expect to find in such an article. For example, an article about a book should at least briefly summarize the book's contents along with author information, but might or might not include critics' views.

EEng (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but "deal adequately" removal is a deal breaker for me. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng when I am editing and overseeing articles, there is a 'production line' sense to it that I think is a good thing to preserve - a bit like the four award in that we get stub to DYK to GA to FA, with PR sprinkled in somewhere at an opportune moment. We need some carrot for the arly bits....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep your carrot away from my arly bits or you're gonna regret it! EEng (talk)

OK, everyone, I've struck it. How about this?

An article should not give the appearance being a work in progress seem "half-finished" -- for example, with unexpanded headers. It should deal adequately with the subject, including, at least in outline, readily available facts one would normally expect to find in such an article a basic article on the subject. For example, an article about a book should at least certainly briefly summarize the contents and give author information, but might or might not include critics' views.

But is there something better than "deal adequately"? Or some way of explicating what we mean by that? It's so open-ended. Remembering that we're talking about new articles, it seems to me that we want something far from "comprehensive" -- I'm thinking we want to capture the idea that the reader shouldn't say, "Um, couldn't they at least have told me ..." (Feel free to strike and rewrite the text above.) EEng (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No, an article about a book should as a rule include critics' views, why did you remove that? Gatoclass (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an article on a book should include critical reviews. But does it need to have that for DYK? For some books those might not be easy to find. EEng (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Coming to the discussion late, rubbing eyes: isn't the concept of Misplaced Pages that every article - even a FA - is a work in progress? Can we find a different wording?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes all articles "are work in progress". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to "shouldn't seem half-finished". (And a few other changes.) Thoughts? EEng (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-finished? Makes sense but you can suggest a lot better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I really need to get to bed but I'm glad we're getting somewhere. Are you suggesting "semi-finished", or what? EEng (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2014 (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) 01:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Updates please!

Can somebody please fill a prep or two so I can verify and queue them in time for the next update? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

1. "The Saint". The Montreal Gazette. June 10, 1950. Retrieved 16 June 2014.
2. Cite error: The named reference dunningota was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• DYK/Discussion pages