Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 88

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Dr. Blofeld in topic Provinces of Laos
Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 87 Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90 → Archive 95

Occupy Harvard

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
 
 
 

I'd like to point out two issues with the lead hook in Prep 1: The photo is of rather poor quality, and it's not used in the target article (maybe for that reason?). My understanding is that a photo must be included in an article to be eligible at DYK. Schwede66 17:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no photo requirement for DYK. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
"Pictures and videos accompanying the DYK hook should be already in the article" is what it says in the rules. I wasn't aware that it says 'should' and not 'must'. Either way, it's a poor photo. Schwede66 17:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know/Image
J2 "suitable, attractive, and interesting"
J3 "already in the article"
Excuse me, but there seem to be the above rules. — Maile (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, I misread that it was saying, irregardless of a hook photo, that a photo must be in an article for DYK (which is still not true), but it is true that a hook photo does need to be used in the article. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
So, it needs to be pulled as the lead hook. — Maile (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The second hook in the set was nominated with an image suggestion. While not perfect, the second nom's image is somewhat better and the two hooks and associated image have been swapped. --Allen3 talk 20:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I make a plug for using a different Occupy Harvard image? The one provided was from a series, to which File:Thayer gate - funnel.png, which is in the article, also belongs. There are many other attention grabbing images in the article, including this logo. Both of these images look good at 100px. I think it would be really cool to feature Occupy Harvard, since it's the anniversary and also a totally fascinating event in world history. Thanks, groupuscule, article creator and nominator (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Added File:OccupyHarvardCloseup.png, which is a closeup from an image currently in the article, looks nice and iconic at 100px. (Interested parties who click the image on the front page could be linked through to the high-res full version.) groupuscule (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
By now it's of course an issue to sort out for an admin. But I concur that it's a worthy article. Impressive piece of work. Schwede66 04:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :-) . So, should I try to attract administrative attention? It's not the biggest deal ever and I'm definitely not trying to hate on the Ellen Southard, but I'm still feelin' like I'm feelin'. (See discussion of 'endorphins', below...) groupuscule (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
And there I was about to put a plug in for Ellen, when the whole slot was reset and everyone was sent home. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

5 days?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

How etched in stone is the 5-day rule? I could have swore it was 10 days, but that just may be senility setting in... and I had a great hook for two timely Supreme Court articles that I had put a LOT of time into. One reviewer said "awesome article, good job!". If anyone wants to see the hook that I created before I realized I was too late, you can find it here. Grollτech (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you put this nomination out there for review. 5-DAY timeline, Not exactly You're probably thinking 10 days, because there was a recent discussion about that same issue. But nothing is etched in stone. It all depends on the reviewer you get. The 5-day rule can be overlooked. And if you get one of those reviewers who wants to be hard-nosed about it, just appeal it directly on the nomination template. One person's opinion is not the next person's opinion. And IMO, the really well-written good articles don't usually get tossed on the 5-day rule, because DYK needs the really good stuff. You might want to take care of those sections that are labeled "needs expansion". — Maile (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
And, BTW, if you look at the section above this, it will give you an idea of how long this could possibly sit before being reviewed. Has nothig to do with you - there's just a running backlog these days. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I was about to give up without asking, and I never would have found that! Grollτech (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Double linking?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Both bolded phrases link to the same article; I wonder if double-linking is allowed. --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The same article shouldn't be bold-linked twice; a second bold link should indicate a second article. Looks like the reviewer and the promoters missed this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there a rule against this? --George Ho (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a rule about over linking in an article, where a link should only appear once in the lead and once in the body. I think it should be obvious that hooks shouldn't allow over linking, and certainly not wih the bold. Yazan (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Zenbook - second opinion

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could somebody else please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Zenbook. I'm concerned that any hook used would come across too much like an advert. violet/riga [talk] 23:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The way to avoid this is to create a hook about the product that does not compare it to other products in a promotional, competitive manner. For example, a good hook would talk about the origin of the name and its zen design or some other conceptual design component discussed in the article. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers for older nominations, please

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

First, we have a special request: Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice needs to be reviewed in the next 24 hours, so it can run on November 11, Remembrance Day. As a Gibraltar hook, it needs two review approvals, and has only had one so far. Done. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to commend to your attention the three remaining pre-October reviews, which are badly overdue some attention, two of which are multis. They're included among the over two dozen of our older nominations that need reviewing. Some only need a hook reviewed, some are regular reviews, some are multi-article hooks. Please pitch in and do what you can. Newer nominations also need attention. Many thanks.

Also, here are seven more of the oldest Gilbraltar-related hooks that need review; all are in the special holding area, where it's hard to find them. Gibraltar hooks need two careful reviews; some of these already have their first. You can also look there for many other more recent hooks needing review. Thank you.

Please be sure to strike out entries once you've reviewed them. Thanks again for helping out. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Experimenting a photo-less queue?`

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In the News... right now does not have a photo. I wonder if a photo is no longer required for one time. --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

But... Why? Yazan (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Mainly out of curiosity. I'm not sure if we'll be running out of photos or any other files, but I don't think shortage is the main reason, even if it is the reason. --George Ho (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
ITN commonly has difficulties finding freely licensed images to pair with blurbs about current events. This is not a problem for DYK. While there have been instances where there was a limited selection of nominations with usable images, I have never seen a situation where DYK had no usable images. If such a situation were to occur then there is no technical reason why we could not run a set without an image (it might require a manual update if the bot complains, but it could be done). --Allen3 talk 12:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Nadj currently on Main Page

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Did you know says that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals ... should be avoided" (emphasis in original). In my opinion, the Alexander Nadj hook currently on the main page is another one that does not meet this requirement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem here. (But I'm also the expander and nominator, so I might be a little biased) Nadj played 13 minutes of a game, when he came on as a substitute and the next game Andreas Fjeldstad were playing instead. From my point of view, a hook with "focus unduly on negative aspect" would not include the 13 minutes where Nadj was on top of his career. Yes the hook is "hooky", so the hook might be worse then the article is, but I think the hook is within the requirements. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Article in Prep 3 currently in AfD

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 is currently in Prep 3 and up at AfD. I don't know if the AfD will close before it's set to be promoted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Should not be a problem. The AfD is currently dominated by keeps, so article deletion or an extension of the discsussion is highly unlikely. The set is tentatively scheduled to appear 16 hours after the AfD completes its normally scheduled time to be open. I will make sure the AfD is closed or, if an unexpected change occurs within the AfD, a replacement hook is swapped in before the set loads. --Allen3 talk 22:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I find it disturbing that the article was approved even knowing that an AfD was ongoing. Rule D5: "Articles nominated for deletion will not be used unless they have survived the deletion process." Until the AfD is completed, approval should be withheld, and that hook therefore does not belong in prep. It's easy enough to promote it again later should it be properly approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

1-21 Cornwall Terrace in Queue 1

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

1-21 Cornwall Terrace is currently in Queue 1, but seems to have a number of MOS and other issues. To begin with the title, surely it should adopt an endash rather than a hyphen? Beyond that, it links to the City of West Minister in the lead, which I assume should be the City of Westminster? Wikilinking heated swimming pool seems either very inclusionist, or just bad linking. The lead also includes a quote which is not attributed in the text, and is in italics, in contravention of WP:ITALIC and MOS:QUOTE. The Architecture section includes a number of peacock terms, saying "very pleasing to the eyes". It is also extremely hard to read, bordering on non-sensical in other places: "The ground floor or the basement of "scholastic regularity", and which projects beyond the face of the upper stories and over which the other decorative floors are built, is plain, simple and well proportioned." All in all, I don't think this article is ready to appear on the front page. Harrias talk 18:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I "fixed" a couple of those redlinks. However, I find that the article is poorly written and not well-supported by its sources, and the hook (which is taken from the lead section of the article) is not worded well. I'm pulling the hook from the queue to allow time for repairs. --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a poor translation, and given that none of the cited sources are in another language, that makes me suspicious of copyvio from an uncited source. Kevin McE (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI: The nom is at Template:Did you know nominations/1-21 Cornwall Terrace. --Orlady (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If the manual of style errors were the only issue this would not be of any importance for DYK. ndash use is so minor that 99 of readers will not notice, and correct spelling is not required for DYK. However the peacock terms are a problem for DYK. Any one is free to fix these problems of course. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Problematic hook

Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

"... that 28 U.S. states have asked the Supreme Court to allow police dogs (pictured) to sniff at the front door of any house – without a search warrant or even probable cause – even if the dog is wrong four out of five times?" This is not even close to encyclopedic tone. It is closer to a tabloid sensationalist title. If you take the time to read the referenced article, you will learn that this statistic is based on Australian data about dogs sniffing people, not houses, and that, from the police point of view, the dog is at least 80% correct because the person admitted to prior contact with drugs and explains why traces are detected.Astator (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it troubling that this wording was approved. As you noted, it a presented a statistic outside the appropriate context, thereby implying that it reflected an acknowledgement on the part of the 28 U.S. states (i.e. that they approached the Supreme Court with a request to permit the sniffing "even if the dog is wrong four out of five times"). And yes, the tone seemed rather non-neutral. (The two uses of the word "even" conveyed that the request is extreme and unreasonable.)
I've done my best to address these issues via rewording. I'm going to notify the parties involved in the discussion. —David Levy 03:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Note: After moving this discussion from the error report page to the DYK talk page, I posted pointers on the talk pages of the nominator and the four other users who edited the nomination page. —David Levy 03:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hold up!
  • It doesn't matter that the statistic is from Australia! dogs (and their handlers) behave the same whether they are in Australia or in the United States. It's not like they behave "upside-down" in Australia!
  • Florida v. Jardines is about houses. Florida v. Harris is about the dog's reliability, regardless of whether they are sniffing houses, vehicles, people, or what-have-you.
  • That Australian study (and those statistics) were brought up in many of the briefs that were filed before the Supreme Court, and was even discussed during Oral Argument! So why can't we mention it here?
  • That study is but one of the numerous studies mentioned in the briefs. It is established fact that : (a) detection-dogs false-alert more often than they correctly alert; and (b) individual dogs vary tremendously in their accuracy. Much of that is due to handler's influence, or cueing, and law enforcement will always claim "residual odors" before they admit that they prompted the dog, or that the dog smelled a dog biscuit.
If I may be blunt, "despite assertions of unreliability?" is pathetically weak. Why can't it say:
  • "despite assertions that the dog is wrong four out of five times?"
  • "despite assertions that dog sniffs are wrong more often than they are right?"
Either of those would be true statements. Grollτech (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
As Astator noted (and you acknowledged in your above reply), these assertions are contested (in part because definitions of "false alerts" vary). Going into that degree of detail – without mentioning the counterarguments – is non-neutral. And given your above criticism of those with opposing views, this doesn't appear to be accidental. —David Levy 04:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand and acknowledge the implication of a non-neutral tone (the word "even", etc). I like the phrase "despite assertions", and I wish I had thought of it.
My objection is over the rest of the hook, which is so watered down as to be boring. What is wrong with the two alternatives I proposed?

"Empirical evidence from the United States confirms the Australian studies' findings. In 2011, for example, the Chicago Tribune studied police use of narcotics-detection dogs during traffic stops. ... The records covered stops from 2007 to 2009 conducted by several suburban police departments near Chicago. The analysis revealed that drugs or paraphernalia were found after only 44% of alerts. The accuracy rate varied significantly by police department; for the department with the most alerts, the accuracy rate was only 32%. The rate was even lower when the dog alerted to a car with a Hispanic driver; across all departments, only 27% of such alerts led to the discovery of illegal drugs. For one police department, the accuracy of alerts to Hispanic drivers was a mere 8%—or a false-alert rate of 92%."

— Brief of amici curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the ACLU, et al., citing Hinkel & Mahr, Drug Dogs Often Wrong, Chicago Tribune, Jan. 26, 2011 p.C1
Grollτech (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2012 UTC}}
With respect to my "criticism of those with opposing views", I apologize that I reacted strongly, and have redacted the statements to which I think you are referring. I still feel that the change to the second article's hook was an over-correction that unfairly 'gutted' the hook. What upset me even more was that "If you take the time to read the referenced article, you will learn that this statistic is based on Australian data about dogs sniffing people, not houses" was part of the justification for making the hook blasé enough that one would not want to read the article. A reasonable compromise was proposed and ignored, which doesn't matter now, it's a done deal. Boy, I'm "0 for 2" on DYK being a fulfilling experience – I think I'll stop while I'm behind. Grollτech (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that the hook has been "gutted", I think it reads well and gets its point across. The articles are interesting and informative and a worthwhile contribution to DYK, so I hope you will continue to contribute here. Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the remarks that you redacted (or to incivility at all, actually). I was referring to your comment that "law enforcement will always claim 'residual odors' before they admit that they prompted the dog, or that the dog smelled a dog biscuit."
You inquired as to "what [was] wrong with the two alternatives [you] proposed". As I explained above, they were slanted (much like the hook's original wording).
The description "assertions of unreliability" conveyed that the dogs' reliability is disputed (and encouraged readers to visit the article for details). Presenting specific claims regarding the extent of an alleged problem (while omitting prominent arguments to the contrary) doesn't reflect a neutral point of view.
Like Gatoclass, I hope that you don't become discouraged and stop contributing here. Setting aside personal bias can be challenging (particularly when writing in the format employed at DYK, which greatly limits the amount of information conveyed). Sometimes, an outside view is needed. —David Levy 11:08/11:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Flaws and etc

David Levy posted about this on my Talk Page because I had commented on the 5-day qualification and the QPQ guideline. I did not review or promote the nomination, nor did I have anything to do with the article or the hook. However, I think this is a classic example of why it is so hard to attract and retain quality on DYK. Editors who are qualified by background, knowledge, and talent to write the better articles, will not find an incentive in donating their skills for free, only to be subjected to this baptism of fire that happens on DYK. I mean, if you've got the kind of talent - and are willing to put in the time to produce something like the above articles - wouldn't you have enough ego to dust off your heels and move to greener pastures?

I'm not arguing the pros and cons of the above issue, because it is beyond my expertise to do so. However, it should be noted that the editor who first posted the complaint about this has a TOTAL of 159 edits since January 2005. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that editor doesn't have a lot of experience in the DYK process. Of course, the complaint could have come from someone who has never edited at Wikipedia at all. And it would have been better if the above discussion took place on the nomination template before it went to the main page. But the woulda-coulda-shoulda didn't happen. I'm just saying what happened here does not seem like a likely road to keeping editors who can produce quality.

While acknowledging that DYK does have some gifted frequent contributors, the last several months have not been encouraging to enlarging the talent pool. And given the intense drama that's been happening at DYK including the failed witch hunt aimed at banning one lone editor for their errors, I'm surprised anybody wants to contribute to DYK at all. — Maile (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

David Levy posted about this on my Talk Page because I had commented on the 5-day qualification and the QPQ guideline. I did not review or promote the nomination, nor did I have anything to do with the article or the hook.
As indicated above, I notified everyone who edited the nomination page. No implication of blame is intended.
However, I think this is a classic example of why it is so hard to attract and retain quality on DYK. Editors who are qualified by background, knowledge, and talent to write the better articles, will not find an incentive in donating their skills for free, only to be subjected to this baptism of fire that happens on DYK.
"Baptism of fire"? That's how you describe constructive criticism and relatively minor rewording for neutrality?
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of the above issue, because it is beyond my expertise to do so. However, it should be noted that the editor who first posted the complaint about this has a TOTAL of 159 edits since January 2005. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that editor doesn't have a lot of experience in the DYK process.
A reader, who edits occasionally, noticed an issue on the main page and reported it at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (the correct page). And...?
Of course, the complaint could have come from someone who has never edited at Wikipedia at all.
Indeed. Are you suggesting that this is a problem?
And it would have been better if the above discussion took place on the nomination template before it went to the main page.
Agreed. It's my hope that this discussion will increase the likelihood of that occurring in the future.
But the woulda-coulda-shoulda didn't happen. I'm just saying what happened here does not seem like a likely road to keeping editors who can produce quality.
What are you suggesting should have occurred when the issue was reported? You seem to be implying that we should discount/disregard input from persons not directly involved in the DYK process (because by taking it seriously, we stand to alienate DYK's contributors). Perhaps that isn't what you meant, in which case I apologize and welcome your clarification. —David Levy 17:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
David, please chill out. I was not going after you personally, but the DYK process that needs fixing, or boosting up, or something. It was NOT about you personally. And I'm sorry if my wording caused you to take it that way. I only mentioned you posted on my talk page, in regards to why I was even commenting about this - not that you were blaming me or anyone else.
By classic example, I meant the process, not you. With that in mind, stepping into the author's shoes for a moment, this being such a new contributor...well, the author spoke for himself about the DYK process.
My comment that the complaint could have come from anyone, just meant that who made the complaint was, in the long run, irrelevant. Wikipedia is open to all - which is what I meant that it could have come from someone who had never edited at Wikipedia at all. It could have.
The "woulda-coulda-shoulda" is mostly about how it woulda-coulda-shoulda been better had this happened on the nomination template first, and the timing of all this had been a little different.
Seriously, David, I'm not blaming you. Really, I have no feelings about you in the process, except you're the one who reacted quickly - as you should have. So, please, please don't take this as a criticism of you personally. Actually, I don't remember having seen your name before, so I have no feelings about you whatsoever.
There's a problem at DYK, I think, about attracting and keeping good contributors and good reviewers. Also, there are a number of long-time Wikipedia contributors who have recently decided to leave WP. As for DYK, I will only mention Dr. Blofeld who is now gone from WP.
This was not a positive experience for this author. It's not that there wasn't a valid criticism of the hook - or that it was right or wrong to challenge it. It's the way it happened with this particular nomination that made it a deterrent for this author in particular. It made it to the front page so quickly that it didn't get all this ironed out on the template. Nobody's fault. But I see this author is ready to throw in the towel on DYK already.
And a lot of other stuff has happened - that's had nothing to do with you. All the drama that's happened since summer began, for one. Some of it has been really out of hand and non-productive. Again, I'm sorry if you felt this was about you, but it wasn't. But DYK wants to attract and keep talent, it needs something. Maybe you have ideas. — Maile (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't take your comments personally. That you were referring to the process was clear.
You noted that the issues with the hook should have been addressed during the nomination discussion. Again, I agree.
Your remarks about what actually occurred appeared to imply that we're driving away valuable contributors by allowing outsiders to influence content. If that isn't what you meant, I'm glad. —David Levy 03:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Correct - that wasn't what I meant. So, we're ok on this, I hope. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it appears that we're largely in agreement (and I doubt that anyone disagrees that it would have been better to address the hook's issues before it appeared on the main page). —David Levy 17:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that Grolltech feels discouraged, but I don't see how his/her experience has been particularly bad. The hook was approved and placed on the main page as the illustrated DYK item. When problems were noticed, it was modified slightly (not removed or altered fundamentally). Grolltech preferred different wording (which was unsuitable, for the reasons discussed above) and obviously would have objected regardless of when the change occurred. So I don't see how intervention during the nomination stage would have made a difference on that front. —David Levy 03:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's a matter of perspective. When this happens on the nomination page, it's a learning process. Sometimes that's instructive, and sometimes it's locking horns - every case is different. If something makes it all the way to the Main page, you get a lift that it made it. And then...there's issues that take that lift down a little, no matter how well-meant that is. It's just better if it gets ironed out before the Main page. And, perhaps, for editors who have been here a while, it's still not a thrill to have this happen on the Main page, but the seasoned DYK editors are semi-used to seeing it happen now and then. And they hopefully keep going. It's more like a blast of cold air if it's a new editor who thought they'd had clear sailing. And maybe they don't want to try again. That's all. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
You asked whether I have any ideas on how to improve the process (and hopefully reduce the likelihood of similar situations arising). I should note that my experience with the DYK process is very limited, so I can't claim to be an expert in this area. But from what I've seen, the hooks simply aren't always sufficiently vetted. Promoters follow a checklist focused primarily on DYK's update requirements, with some evidently paying little attention to other elements.
Last night, I noticed an error report that unfortunately wasn't acted on in time. A DYK item contained an accidental link to an irrelevant article (Avatar instead of Avatar (computing)). I've asked the promoter (who also promoted the hook discussed above) whether non-bold links are routinely checked. If they aren't, they certainly should be. —David Levy 17:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. One of the known issues is that because reviewing is a learned process, the newbies do the best they can. Or they green check an article as a Go just to get a QPQ. Or a seasoned reviewer misses something. I'll admit to reviewing and missing things that (thankfully) get caught by someone else. And sometimes it doesn't get caught. Or, I've missed something that wasn't on the DYK checklist, but still should have been caught. We had one incident a few weeks/months ago, where a hook never got reviewed and for whatever reason went to the main page. No one caught it even then. It was noticed when it was in archive. I think DYK would love to have a process where this could be tightened up. But exactly how that could be executed, I don't know. — Maile (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK is overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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) 06:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's now overdue. Prep 2 is full, and ready to be checked and moved to Queue 4. There are two more prep areas filled after that, and a third that needs two final hooks. Any admin with DYK experience is urged to see what they can do. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think someone may need to do something more, since Queue 4 is just sitting there. Unfortunately, I have no idea what that is. Unless the bot wakes up automatically (say, every half hour), and does something on its own ... but somehow I doubt we're that lucky... BlueMoonset (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ... and no sooner do I write the above but the bot wakes up and takes care of it, even while I was typing. Thanks, Crisco, for getting us up and running again. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You're very welcome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Shortage of queues and hooks?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

We are down to one full queue and one incomplete prep area. The rest are empty. If reducing hooks or queues is not the answer, then what else shall we do? Review more articles? --George Ho (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

George, we have 45 approved hooks (you can see here). I'm filling a prep now. Cheers. Yazan (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Now we have one queue and 2 preps ready so we're fine for a day. If no one comes along to fill other preps by the morning, I can do that. The point is, we still have 38 "approved" hooks (obviously, some of them will have issues with the reviews, but still, a good proportion of these are genuinely ready), which is not bad. Yazan (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
We are missing Dr. Blofeld and PumpkinSky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This article can be found in Prep 3 but should not be found on the Main Page

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Brookesia betschi (Blanc's Leaf Chameleon), currently in Prep 3, has been achingly padded to 1530 prose characters. For example: "is endemic to Madagascar ... can be found in northern Madagascar ... was found in 1974 ... can also be found in Tsaratanana ... can also be found in Manongarivo ... can be found in two national parks ... can be found over an area ..." This bloated stub should not appear on the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've gone and varied it up. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I've removed some of the bloat, without removing any facts. It's now 1230 characters. We should not be promoting stubs which have been inflated just to achieve the minimum prose requirement. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the hook from the prep area for the time being, as at 1230 characters it isn't eligible, and added new material would need reviewing. There have been similar problems with bloat noted on some other articles currently under review, including Template:Did you know nominations/Beth Rodford and Template:Did you know nominations/Alejandro Gómez (swimmer). Given the sheer volume of recent DYK submissions, I would be interested to see whether Cwmhiraeth, who has submitted a great many fauna articles, thought that the dozen articles on Furcifer chameleons created and submitted on November 11 were good exemplars. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not Cwmhiraeth, but based on this and this, I'd say that all of these submissions should be checked for bloat. Additionally, the taxonomy is incorrect in some articles (e.g., parentheses around the author names are not there arbitrarily, they have a specific meaning and should not be removed), and some incorrect conclusions are drawn from the limited sources. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
You're the other name I would have mentioned, given your extensive experience with taxonomy in the dozens of fungi articles you submitted over the past months. Thank you so much for checking two that had been given a green light. Any suggestions on who else might be sufficiently knowledgeable to do the remaining checking? While you've examined two premature approvals, another three of the article nominations from that day have also been approved, and it's only a matter of time before they find their way into prep areas. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
After belatedly seeing this, I have looked at this nomination and removed bloat from one of the two articles which is now too short. I will look at some more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll stop doing species articles for a considerable amount of time until I can make them without the bloat. I'd been looking at some other species articles and had noticed that they were often worded in this way. This discussion has lead to this. :/ Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

TFA and DYK

Latest comment: 11 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion

Does anyone object to an article running in TFA before it runs in DYK? Frank's Cock (currently nominated for April Fools' Day) was just promoted to FA and I'd like to try and run it as TFA on World Aids Day on 1 December. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no issue with it. It'd be interesting to see an article of such calibre in the DYK box; has a featured article run as a hook before? GRAPPLE X 23:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Dunno. I've never seen one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think this should be done. The convention has always been that if it's previously had a bold link anywhere on the Main Page, then it's not eligible for DYK. And in this case, it would only be four months between TFA and DYK. This April Fools' nomination, submitted in August, is already subject to the usual extended time exception, and I don't think we should make an additional exception. If you've got a little patience, I would recommend letting it run for the April Fools' DYK and then getting it featured on World AIDS Day 2013. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Articles that have been featured on the main page's In the news section are ineligible. If an article is linked to at ITN but not the featured ITN article, it is still eligible for DYK."

They do not say anything about POTD, OTD, or TFA. I personally think that if an article was at 2000 characters when it was shown on POTD then subsequently expanded for a DYK, for example, that should be a viable nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I had checked the rules before I wrote that, which is why I used "convention" rather than "rule". But I'm sure that the no previous Main Page bold links "rule" has been cited here on WT:DYK. I think the reason that only ITN is cited in the official rule is because that's the most likely place where it was reasonably anticipated that a new or newly expanded article, as required by DYK except for April Fools' Day, would potentially appear. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If there are no precedents, how can there be a convention? Do you have any precedents of an article which had been OTD, POTD, or TFA being refused or accepted? This may (not going to say is) be a first in that regard. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said, the rule may have been intended to address reasonable anticipations at the time of writing it. To me, the spirit of the rule is very clear – DYK is for highlighting content which is new to Main Page readers. (The rules can't specify every possibility. Note that if you go solely by the rules on WP:DYK which you linked to for the rule, previous DYKs would not be ineligible; for that you have to go to the supplementary rules.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I accept the fact that there's consensus to run jokey DYK hooks on April Fools' Day, but why are we planning one related to such a serious topic? TFA or not, this seems astonishingly distasteful. —David Levy 02:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of April Fools' Day articles are fairly serious. Last April I had ? (about religious tolerance) and Maria Ulfah Santoso (a women's rights activist) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Both were GAs at the time, coincidentally. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
That's bad enough. Now we're making light of a film about someone dying of AIDS? Is no subject off-limits from the April foolery? —David Levy 02:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I would hope the Holocaust. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
That's where you draw the line?
Most of my paternal grandparents' relatives died in the Holocaust, but HIV has claimed about three times as many victims. To me, spinning jokes from a critically acclaimed film about a person dying of AIDS seems comparable to doing so with The Diary of a Young Girl. This is Wikipedia, not Family Guy. —David Levy 03:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be taking this much more seriously than the director did. From the article: "Never has Frank's Cock seemed so large". Double entendres, anyone? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
We're operating an encyclopedia, not marketing a film. —David Levy 03:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
"I accept the fact that there's consensus to run jokey DYK hooks on April Fools' Day, but ... [w]e're operating an encyclopedia, not marketing a film." This seems rather contradictory. You could make the same point about the two lesbian ships in 200(6?) or indeed almost any AF DYK hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not fond of jokey DYK hooks in general. But I'm in the minority, which I accept.
However, there's longstanding consensus against dragging subjects such as disease and death into the April foolery or juxtaposing them with silly nonsense. (That's why we stopped including ITN.) We compromise our usual main page standards for the day, but we don't go this far (which isn't encyclopedic or funny). —David Levy 03:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The tradition of April Fools is to trick the unwary, not to throw double entendres around with all the subtlety of a hailstorm. We are not running a joke site for 14 year old boys. Pathetic and puerile (the DYK nom, not the film or the article). Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Since there seems to be a lot of opposition against this as an April Fools' DYK, would anyone mind running a serious hook for World AIDS Day? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If it isn't also running as the featured article that day, I don't see why not. If the hook hadn't been sequestered for April 1, it would have run already; now that April 1 is deemed inappropriate, I think it makes sense to hold it for two weeks until December 1 and run it then, which gives plenty of time for a serious hook to be proposed and approved. However, I don't think the same article should be featured in two different places on the main page on the same day. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you should look to run it before it appears as TFA (December 1). The idea is to highlight new content to WP audience who wouldn't have had a chance to see it before. Having been featured prominently on the main page as a TFA, I would think, disqualifies it for DYK. Yazan (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This is an exception which I've always thought should exist. If a nomination was saved in good faith for April Fools' Day, but it is later determined that it can't be used there (or a better use becomes apparent), then, subject to reasonable circumstances, it should be allowed as a regular hook. This is still assuming that it hasn't previously appeared and won't simultaneously appear elsewhere as a bold link on the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No, I wouldn't go simultaneously. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure, run it. But this just proves why the current DYK social-welfare system is badly broken. Why can't we get rid of these baby rules for DYK? Tony (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with "moon rock" hook (Q4)

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is currently a multi-hook about moon rocks in Q4. However, there is a significant amount of content overlap between the articles involved: at least four of them (Nicaragua, Colorado, Hawaii and New York) don't have enough original content to meet the 1500-character minimum. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I promoted that to the prep, and I might've missed it. Can an admin pull it out of the queue and replace it with the the one from the prep, so that the problems could be fixed. Thanks Yazan (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 14:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Allen3 (talk · contribs) has thankfully moved the prep to the queue. Hopefully we can move another prep to Queue 6 to avoid this happening again in the next update? Yazan (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

November 23rd (24th UTC) date request

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have just nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Glenn Robinson III as a date request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I have removed the {{underconstruction}} tag from this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Mandarax (talk · contribs), thanks for fixing my typos. Any chance you could do this review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I have zero interest in any sports articles (well, less than zero if I'm really being honest), so I think it would be best if someone else took care of this. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This has been reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

F1 nationalities

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Formula One nationalities is ready for a slot on the Main Page (even if some more QPQ work is set to be done). It is possible that one of the drivers will seal the title later today and so including this article soon after would be great. If the title isn't wrapped up it will be next Sunday, so delaying it until then would be preferable. Would it be a good idea to place it in the Queue (with the relevant image) for midnight tonight, then delay it if needs be? violet/riga [talk] 10:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, those queues are full. If an admin is willing to take this on, it's possible, but means delaying another hook. (I'm not an admin, so I can't help in this.) If the title isn't decided, then the clear thing to do is to move the hook. However, this is premature: the submission has not yet acquired an approval tick, though I believe that the QPQ, by rule H4, has been technically satisfied, despite what Poeticbent wrote. It certainly cannot be promoted without that formal approval notation. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Well it could really. It's merely the contentious QPQ situation that is stopping it. The reviewer simply neglected to put in the green tick. violet/riga [talk] 18:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
As someone who promotes hooks into prep areas, green ticks are sometimes left off because a check or two is pending, such as the time-consuming close paraphrasing checks, even though the reviewer mentions all the things that are okay. Without that green tick affirmation from Thine Antique Pen, the review isn't ready. Get that tick, and there is no contentious QPQ in the way; the tick settles that, too, at which point the hook can be moved into the special occasion holding area for November 25. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Right, it's still open so we have time until next weekend. violet/riga [talk] 21:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Queues are now empty

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Let's make sure we beat the bot. I would rather let you know. --George Ho (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why new articles?

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I've never been involved with any of this, so reading the rules came as something of a surprise. Why new articles only? It's not like we have any shortage of facts.

If you answer my question, please also consider adding the explanation to the rules, to save other people having to come in here and ask.

Thanks, — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC).

If only the opening paragraph of the rules said something like " The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review. This publicity rewards editors for their contributions." Oh, wait a minute... Kevin McE (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Talk about not reading the question. Jeez Louise. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
That is the whole raison d'etre of DYK: pat on the back for creators of new articles. Rather than insulting the answer, and the answerer, consider the meaning of the words. Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Mmm, pot and kettle. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
DYK's size and age requirements do have an important secondary benefit, they provide a simple, objective, and quickly calculated means to filter out most potential nominations and keep the backlog at semi-manageable levels. --Allen3 talk 18:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

New reviewers for waiting nominations

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

We have a large number of older unreviewed hooks, and we're starting to fall behind in the number of approved reviews we need to fill open slots in the preps and queues. Please, if you can pitch in, do so.

Also, here are six eight of the oldest Gilbraltar-related hooks that need review; all are in the special holding area, where it's hard to find them. Gibraltar hooks need two careful reviews, and for the first time in a while, none of them are ready to be promoted, though some of these already have a completed first review. You can also look in the holding area for many other more recent hooks needing review. Thank you.

Thanks for the excellent initial response. I've finished off the November 3 hooks, and added a couple of additional Gibraltar hooks as old as the initial six. Please take a look at both sets of hooks as you can. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Prep 1

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

... that the saree (typical wearing style pictured), a common costume worn by females in the Indian subcontinent, can cause skin cancer around the waistline?

  • "can cause" is not the same as "can make the wearer more vulnerable to". --70.31.10.112 (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you propose an alternative? perhaps
  • skin cancer around the waistline is more common in sari wearers (pictured)?
  • This is delaying prep to queue move. I don't think we have to explain what a sari is in the hook, especially with an image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and changed the hook into:
  • ... that women who wear saree (typical wearing style pictured) are more vulnerable to skin cancer around the waistline?
I think this should be okay, but feel free to tweak as needed. Yazan (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Although the original hook may unduly emphasize the role of the saree in causing skin cancer, I think it's difficult to make a formal distinction between "can cause" and "can make more vulnerable to" in a world governed by probabilities. Causality" ≠ efficient causality, which is difficult to demonstrate. groupuscule (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(nevermind)74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have enqueued Yazan's version, as we need to get this moving for the main page appearance in less than one hour. (I think that the sari actually prevents skin cancer on the rest of the body, rather than causing it on the wast!) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

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) 06:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Now resolved, but all prep areas are empty! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It's thanksgiving week, and we miss PumpkinSky, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
We could use an admin to move the filled preps to the queues, before we get stuck again! :) Yazan (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Still no prep areas to move, and the last lot had 4 articles I reviewed yesterday, DYK process flow must be getting tight! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have filled up Q6 with a 6th hook, so all queues have six items. We can review the above hook that has been removed if there is consensus it meets requirements. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Casliber's "above hook" comment refers to Gibraltar Falls, which I sectioned off below, so it can be dealt with separate from the hook line up. — Maile (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar Falls pulled from queue

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I have pulled one article from the queue: Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Falls no longer meets the requirements for a DYK. Fram (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I will restore it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Why? Fram (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
So the information from e.g. Bonzle is correct? And correctly interpreted? Perhaps we should let some unbiased observers decide this, not you or I. Fram (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Taking a look now. Generally concur with the thrust of Fram's removal. That Bonzle source - well my comments are on the talkpage. Shocking. Fram I am having a look at the stuff you have posted there, could you update it with any specifics you feel you may have missed? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There is relevant information about this currently happening on Talk:Gibraltar_Falls — Maile (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Screwed up DYK date request – needs admin

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Glenn Robinson III has been promoted to Prep 1, which is 5 queues too early for its date request. An admin needs to undo this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • It's now in Queue 1. According to the NIT website, the championship game begins at 4:30pmET on November 23. This puts it in the middle of the 16:00UTC slot, which runs from 11:00am to 7:00pm Eastern. According to my calculations, that means the hook would need to be moved to the currently empty Prep 1, which could be done at any time; be sure to put a comment noting that it needs to be in that prep area so no one moves it once it's there. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Wow, I assumed the championship game would be a primetime broadcast. I guess it is only 4 queues too early. Help still needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Moved it to Prep 1. Queue 2 needs to be fixed kind of urgently. NW (Talk) 05:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Women's football in Africa

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Having encountered a problematic DYK again, right before it hit the main page, I looked a bit further to similar DYKs. I noticed that a few days ago, Women's football in Africa hit the main page, despite being full of problems. This DYK was checked by at least 7 people (the creator, nominator, and 5 people editing Template:Did you know nominations/Women's football in Africa), only one of whom found problems with the article or the DYK.

Strange, because it is a very poor article, badly written.

  • Major problem: what is the hook for Women's football in Africa about? "that by the 1960s female leaders of women's football in Africa began to emerge?" This refers to the local school girls in South Africa who tried with little or no success to start a local team, only to fade back into obscurity immediately afterwards, without making an impact beyond their city? How are they "leaders of women's football in Africa"?
  • "During the late 1970s, the national football federation started to set up women's league across the country" is a nice sentence, but which country? This omission renders it meaningless.
  • "While women were not always playing the game, they supported Footballs development by the 1920s women took on support roles that freed up time and resources which allowed men to actively participate" needs some work to become intelligible.
  • "In South Africa in the 1960s, women several tried to create women's football clubs including Jessie Maseko who tried to create a girls high school football club in 1962." Women several tried?
  • Mother City Girls is described as a high school team, but the source[1] doesn't mention any link to a high school.
  • "In Africa, this was true with for many countries including Burundi and Madagascar with their senior national sides having yet to play a FIFA sanctioned match" Um, what? Even after deciphering what is meant, what makes Burundi and Madagascar so special that they deserve a separate mention, and e.g. Togo doesn't?

Why do you let such articles grace the Main Page? DYKs don't need to be exhaustive and they don't need to be flawless, but they do need to be intelligible, basically correct, and give the impression of providing a minimal overview of the topic. Why are there e.g. no mentions of the appearances and results at the FIFA Women's World Cup, where African teams have been present from the first edition on? Or no informantion on the African Women's Championship?[2]. It's hard to take an article on "Women's football in Africa" serious when it doesn't even mention this Championship, and coupled with all the problems present in the article and the hook, I fail to see why so many reviewers found it acceptable to promote this... Fram (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, after the above Gibraltar Falls article I had a look at, I have some questions for the article reviewers who monitor here. In the linked review guide at the top I see a lot of technical 'it should have X' requirements to be checked off. But there is not one for 'Does the article read well?' Is this intentional? Or is readability not a requirement for the main page? (See Fram's post above for some particularly bad examples. I have taken a look at some recent past DYKs and seen worse.) Secondly, when you do review articles, to what depth do you actually read the prose and sourcing? Do you check the sources support the text? Or is a case of 'There is prose, there are sources listed - tick'. I understand that this is not GA or FA level of article reviewing, but when the text is at (and I am being kind here) awful rising to mediocre, should not closer attention be paid to the specifics? Is it not possible to decline an article with 'This is terrible to read'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Personally, I take a quick look through most things. For the reference citing the hook, I'll always check that the reference includes what the hook is claiming, and anything else contentious that I come across I'll check the same. I check some, not all, of the references using the duplication detector, and generally run through any major sources a little more closely. In regards to how the article reads, I do check this, but in a discussion higher up the page 1-21 Cornwall Terrace in Queue 1 it was suggested that this wasn't necessary, though I carry on doing this anyway. I tend to clean up any minor issues in the articles myself though. Harrias talk 16:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "there are sources listed" would not be an adequate check on its own, because the requirements specifically include checking that the cited source for the hook fact supports the hook fact (unless the reviewer decides to accept an offline source on good faith). Personally when I'm reviewing a DYK I do read the whole article, and if the prose is incomprehensible to the extent of sounding like a machine translation then I would either fix it myself or ask the nominator to do something about it before it's passed. The prose examples cited above by Fram are not as bad as sounding like a machine translation, in fact the error in one of them is merely two juxtaposed words being swapped over. Checking for potential copyvio issues is also a requirement of a DYK review; I have a pretty good feel for these so, like Harrias, I would check some of the sources, but not all of them, against the article. Those checks might also throw up other sourcing problems unrelated to copyvio, but equally they might not. In the process of reading the article it's also easy to check for basic notability (in the past I have AFD'd some nominated articles as a result of having reviewed them), BLP problems or similar. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of DYK Rules

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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.

  Resolved

Hi. DYK Rule 4 states that articles should conform to the policy on Verifiability. The policy requires that quotations and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported using inline citations, however, the DYK Guide seems to use its own verifiability: "The article in general should use inline cited sources. A rule of thumb for DYK is a minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere." It is confusing to see two different requirements here: one where only quotations and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be supported by inline citations, and one where you should throw them in at least one per paragraph. The Good Article criteria do not even require one inline citation per paragraph. Should the guide be changed to match the rule, or the rule changed to match the guide, or leave both as is?

Wikipedia:Citation density seems to support what you say here - the one citation per paragraph is not Wikipedia policy. — Maile (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, one of the requirements in the guide is, "References may not have bare URLs". I do not see any DYK Rule that corresponds to this requirement. Given that DYK is meant to showcase new articles, ones which are quite possibly contributed by new editors, I don't think we should be requiring lengthy citations. Even the Good Article criteria do not require full citations. I believe the requirement should be removed from the guide. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

However, if the URL dies, then the article will likely fail WP:V without the additional citation information. Also, bare URLs don't look very professional, and DYK gets enough flak for not looking complete that we shouldn't worsen the perception. Chris857 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:BURL — Maile (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • So should we change the DYK Rules to disallow bare urls? --Odie5533 (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The queue

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Queue 2, due to go live in a few hours time, is lacking two hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Done. I need to get back to my school stuff so I'll let someone else deal with the preps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll fill the preps, but Crisco, you forgot to copy the DYKmake credits for the two hooks to the queue. An admin needs to do that before the next update:
Yazan (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Allen3 talk 15:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
The preps are all filled, we need an admin to verify and move to queues! :) Yazan (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Long hook; also unsourced

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 first hook on George Hele looks to be too long to me, it is 227 characters long. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how you came up with 227. The most I can find is 225 characters. That being said, the three ellipsis points and the space before "that" do not count towards the hook length and the "(pictured)", or in this case "(caricatured together)", is traditionally not counted. These corrections reduce the size to 198 characters. Pushing things, but still within acceptable limits. --Allen3 talk 21:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Need an admin to fix this, since it's recently moved into Queue 2 Queue 6. The hook claims that Hele and Borwick officiated the tour together, yet there is nothing in the Hele article proper that sources this statement; indeed, Borwick's sole mention is in the caption to the photo (the caption is also unsourced).
At this point, either the hook needs to be removed entirely, or Borwick needs to be removed from it. My suggestion for a replacement hook sans Borwick, which will also have the advantage of being short enough at 196 characters even including the parenthetical note:

50% USA?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This line still shows up on every prep area:

  • NOTE: 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.

This is obviously not true anymore, in fact if you look at the assembled queues and preps at the moment there's only 4 hooks (out of 24) that are remotely related to the US. Anyone who is assembling preps can confirm that US topics no longer constitute that great a portion of the DYK submissions rendering this a confusing cultural relic at best. I suggest we don't need it anymore. Yazan (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It varies over time. I notice that you've just started working on Prep 4, which has three empty hooks and three already filled. All three of those filled ones are US hooks, two people and a double hook with two bridges: what this tells you is that none of the three hooks you add while I'm typing this should be from the US. Obviously, no one is going to try to assemble a set with 50% US hooks if there aren't that many ready. However, I think it's useful to indicate that 50% is where the line should be drawn, so that no more than half of the hooks are US. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up: Prep 4 now has five US hooks, and one historical one from where Turkey is now. I think you've just demonstrated why we still need it: 83% is way too many US-based hooks, and an unbalanced set. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. I'll re-work the set! Yazan (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Alfonso Litta

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Today I took a peek at the main page and then at Alfonso Litta which interested me. Nom here. In terms of writing, I think we should be doing a better job than this version that went to the main page. It appears that reviewers aren't actually reading the articles they're passing. Which is a problem. Just wanted to mention. (Btw - I would have done more in terms of clean-up but was simply supposed to be a quick read whilst waiting for a turkey to finish cooking and guests to arrive.) Perhaps someone else can take over. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

They are not reviewing the writing style. It is not a criterion at DYK, or for a Start class article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
"We dont care about writing. If its long enough we throw it on the main page". Least yer honest about it. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Obvious bad grammar like what Truthkeeper cleaned up should be fixed in the review process. I've held many noms back because they needed a copyedit, and the authors have always appreciated it. I'd support adding "free from bad grammar" or such to the DYK rules. The Interior (Talk) 20:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles should be grammatical and get rejected for poor English. Secretlondon (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dev Deepawali (Varanasi)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Review requested as requested for 28 Nov. with "today" in hook. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

all queues are empty

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

please reload from preps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.10.112 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Done one, just in case nobody acts on the rest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Some older nominations awaiting your review

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The rate of hook reviews is running a bit behind what we need to keep all the queues and prep areas full. Here are some of the older ones that need attention.

Also, here are six of the oldest Gilbraltar-related hooks that need reviews; all are in the special holding area, where it's hard to find them. Gibraltar hooks need two careful reviews, and only some of these already have a completed first review. You can also look in the holding area for many other more recent hooks needing review. Thank you.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Bending the rules for a slightly late new article

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Legislative Sejm (Second Polish Republic) was nominated at 01:19 on 12 November, while its expansion from stub status occurred at about 22:30 on 6 November — just three hours after the five-day deadline passed, so I've declined it. Other than the date, this article is definitely ready for DYK. Will anyone object if I un-decline it? Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I replied on the template. — Maile (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hook text

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

The wording of the third hook in Prep 4 is weird: "that Nawaz Sharif, during his both terms, served as the Prime Minister of Pakistan for the longest period?" I don't have time to look into this right now. Schwede66 09:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not only so poorly phrased (pre Crisco) as to be scarcely English, but inaccurate (post Crisco): he has had three periods as PM. How does stuff like this get passed? If there is no greater commitment to quality control than this, how can readers have any confidence in DYK? And yet this is given a prestigious place on the main page, unbelievable. Far greater scrutiny needed. Kevin McE (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it may have been considered two terms, with Sher Mazari in power owing to political manoevering. I don't think three terms is necessarily accurate. This should be pulled until another hook can be hammered out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see scrutiny can be effective. I still believe that it is sadly lacking in DYK. Kevin McE (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Was that regarding the below hook? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The bit about scrutiny being, sometimes, effective was in relation to the above (your 10:10 posting); the comment about the lack of adequate scrutiny is a general observation re DYK. As to the below, I'm not keen myself on the rather informal and unspecific lasted less than six years: I'd suggest Although he spent a total of less than six years in the position, Nawaz Sharif served longer as Prime Minister of Pakistan than anyone else. Kevin McE (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • And thereby dropping the non-consecutive bit altogether. Sounds good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Implemented. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Creation

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

When is an article considered created? Does it become new after I move it out of my namespace? Or does the date of creation date to the creation of the namespace?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If you created it in your namespace, it's considered "created" from the date it's moved to the main article title. GRAPPLE X 21:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria 1d. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Error on mainpage

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Does anyone actually check these hooks? I just pulled a blatantly incorrect one from the mainpage this time, [3]. The hook claimed "that skiing guide Andy Bor helped visually impaired skiier Melissa Perrine win medals at the 2010 Winter Paralympics by directing her with microphones and speakers?", but she hasn't won any medals at the Paralympics, so hwo can he have helped her doing this? This is not some obscure, hard to find error, it's a basic discrepancy between the articles and the hook. I have notified the author who approved the hook of this discussion, the one who proposed it and the one who said it "sounds fine" should probably reflect on this at well. The number of problems with approved DYK hooks is getting ridiculous. Fram (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems the answear is "no". Why the community allows these people to represent us on the main page is staggering. See TKs question above re prose and the dismissive responce from hawkeye. "we dont care about prose" (effictively). Nor facts either it seems from your endlessly unansweared or torn apart posts. Hands over ears. Ceoil (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I used to, but basically got harassed away by people who considered "hookiness" more important than accuracy, brevity of front page exposure as an excuse for sloppy grammar and semantics, and protection of the sensitivities of editors as more important than trying to preserve any possibility of the project being considered remotely professional or reliable. Poor scrutiny standards should not be allowed to enable access to the high profile Main Page, but they are. I've learned to ignore the bottom left quadrant of the main page, as there is nothing that can be relied upon to be found there. Kevin McE (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I'll continue to remove pages from the queues or the main page aggresively if necessary, every time I stumble upon such non-mainpage worthy or blatantly incorrect articles or hooks. I'm not easily harassed, and as long as make certain that you remove pages for the right reasons (i.e. that they indeed are badly sourced or simply incorrect), the harassment will only come back to haunt the harassers in the end. Fram (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"harassment will only come back to haunt the harassers in the end" - amen to that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Sowell

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ms.K is on me again about unimportant 19th century Texans & poor references... and that muster rolls used in books to show where people served don't mean diddly...I always thought it was positive proof, anyways if you got an opinion on my article, see the discussion for deletion page ? If you like it, I would appreciate you saying so, DLS Texas (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Dan

Dan, please post this same message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States. Emphasize in the message that you could use help with sourcing on this article. Since this is not a DYK nomination, you might get some help over at the WUPS talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Number of Characters Needed

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I expanded this article (Race, ethnicity and religion in censuses) by a huge amount over the last several days. How many more characters do I need to add to it before it becomes eligible for a Did You Know? nomination? Also, it is possible to bend the 5x requirement a little for this article due to its massive size? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The previous version of the article was 6112 characters, and the current version is 20,998. Basic arithmetic says you are 9562 characters short of a 5x expansion (you've only expanded it 3.4-fold).
No, the 5x requirement cannot be relaxed due to the size of the article; the whole point of this is that if an article was already pretty well-developed (i.e., large) and you have improved it, you should be taking it to WP:GAN rather than WP:DYK, as an article like this is outside the scope of the DYK project. This is a perennial question and if you search the WT:DYK archives you will find many discussions of it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That being said (I agree with Rjanag here), a lot of the article is template-style text and should not be given main page coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

How many characters do I need now? Also, as for the template stuff, I could try improving parts of this article later on, though I do want to point out that all the info in this article is useful and that I initially planned to resubmit this page for a DYK? nomination two months ago or so (whenever I did my last large expansion) but did not because I was unsure how to do it back then. Futurist110 (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You need 5,886 more characters for a 5x expansion at the moment. Froggerlaura ribbit 01:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Allright, let me do that when I'll have some more time. Hopefully I'll be able to finish it in several days. Futurist110 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria explains how to count the number of characters in your article, so you don't need to keep asking. Also, you should look at Crisco's comment about the suitability of your article and take it into consideration. Reaching 5x expansion doesn't automatically entitle you to a DYK, it's just one of several criteria. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I tried calculating the word count myself following these instructions but unfortunately I'm not very tech savvy (plus my computer features might not allow it). And Yes, as I said before I'm trying hard to improve the quality of this article as well. Futurist110 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You don't need to be tech savvy, just follow the instructions at User:Dr pda/prosesize. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not doing something correctly, but I followed the instructions on this part ("To try without installing") and it didn't work. I pasted the stuff that it said into my Internet address bar (instead of the www.wikipedia.org) and put the page name in there. Futurist110 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it indeed looks like this part of the script doesn't work on some new browsers (at least, I'm using Firefox 16 and it's not working for me). The user who used to maintain this has not been active for some time. You'll have to install the script instead (there are instructions at that page). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A review request

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I realize this is terribly last minute, but is it possible to expedite the review for this hook, for inclusion on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (November 29). I wouldn't ask if I wasn't certain that the articles shouldn't be controversial and shouldn't need much work; but I understand if it's too late. Yazan (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm on it. groupuscule (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Approved after some revisions—seems like we should be able to run it on November 29. groupuscule (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the expedited review groupuscule, I do appreciate it. I've moved to the special occasion holding area! :) Yazan (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Links in successful-nomination template

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{UpdatedDYK}} has a link to the article's hit counter, so when the template is on your user talk page, you can go directly to the counter. Why doesn't {{UpdatedDYKNom}} have a comparable link? I, at least, pay attention to hits, both for creation and for nominations. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess this should make it appear now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Archiving DYK

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I added the hook for the DYK nomination of National Registry of Exonerations to Prep 2 but when I came to archive the DYK template it did not work properly. On further inspection I see that the final line was missing. Sorry! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Nothing for you to be sorry for; once again a nominator didn't follow the instructions for nominating, which is why that problem was there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to why this hook was promoted, as it hasn't been approved. It's good that the template is fixed, but I've removed the hook from Prep 2 pending actual approval. (The person approving should not also be the person promoting, if that's what was the plan here.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The review does approve the article with the ALT hook. Just didn't have the green tick. No comment on the review itself though; just trying to explain what might've prompted Cwmhiraeth to promote the article. Yazan (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I promoted it because it had been approved as Yazan states and I thought others might not notice this fact. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The way I read it, there could have been more wrong with it than the two extra words in the hook. Indeed, I've run across similar wording where there were indeed other things preventing passage. I think it's important not to promote without that approving tick; there's nothing wrong with pinging the reviewer for a clarification and waiting a little longer. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Alt 1 is fine to run from my perspective, but it hasn't been approved by the nominator/creator. I don't know if this is a necessary step. The user in question, Lawnaut, does seem to be a little inexperienced. I mentioned the review on their talk page but I'm not sure they saw it. groupuscule (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  By the way there is also something wrong with the nomination of Fins on November 14th. An attempt to review it produces a blank page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Yazan (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin needed for DYK template fix

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please see "Article title in plain text; no [[ ]]", which right now is the bottom entry for November 28. I'm pretty sure this editor meant to nominate Gap dynamics. It's another one of those student things that seems to have started Here. — Maile (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted and removed it, as it had no chance anyway: I have explained this action on the talk page of the user that created the DYK. The nominated page was Gap dynamics. Fram (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The future of QPQ

Latest comment: 11 years ago31 comments11 people in discussion

This is a follow-up on a discussion originating at the Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Rule H4. I'm posting it here to get a wider pool of commenters. On 20 April 2012 Schwede66 added a new "rule H4" to WP:DYKSG. The rule was created in good faith but regrettably, added without positive feedback. The only other participant who commented on this proposal, Orlady – didn't agree with it. As it stands, the rule WP:DYKSG#H4 contributes to the ongoing crisis affecting older nominations. Here's what it says, quote:

  • H4: Where hooks have more than one new or expanded article, there is no consensus whether an article-for-article or hook-for-hook QPQ is required. An article-for-article review is encouraged, but a hook-for-hook review is acceptable.

The multiple-article submissions have been soaring lately. The problem is that a "hook-for-hook" review option becomes a gaping loophole in the case of all really large submissions. Let's take as an example the most recent all-time record, the amazing 30-in-1 submission. Technically speaking, the nominator can provide just one QPQ review to meet the H4 requirement. However, without the corresponding number of reviews, the 30-in-1 submission would deprive single-article nominators waiting in the same lineup of 30 QPQ opportunities. Luckily, one of the creators of that 30-in-1 submission agreed to review 30 other noms on his own... He did not have to do that, because "a hook-for-hook review is acceptable", but he did it anyway, sensing, that it wouldn't be fair to others. Even Schwede66 himself expressed similar sentiment following my inquiry. We need a discussion about the future of QPQ please, because listing overdue reviews in here and waiting for random helpers to cross them out cannot be a permanent solution to this crisis. Poeticbent talk 14:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

 Here's a copy of the archived proposal initiated by Schwede66 on 19 April 2012, commented on by Orlady

QPQ for multi hooks I propose that we write down what the story is with QPQ for hooks that have more than one new or expanded article.

H4: Where hooks have more than one new or expanded article, there is no consensus whether an article-for-article or hook-for-hook QPQ is required. An article-for-article review is encouraged, but a hook-for-hook review is acceptable.

I've looked through the discussion archive and it has been discussed numerous times. I nominate multi-hooks with some regularity, and I do get asked about the rules from time to time. It would certainly be easier if we synthesised the outcome of the discussions, which is what I have tried to do above. I've reviewed the following discussions:

Rules for evaluating other people's hooks and articles on the Supplementary guidelines page would appear to be the right spot for the proposed rule clarification. Schwede66 19:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that "what's fair" varies greatly with the articles involved. I've dealt with some multi-article hooks in which all of the articles were short and based on the same short list of sources, so it was no harder to review three articles than it was to review one. In other cases I've seen, a hook lists several long articles, each of which has its own separate sources, and a lot of reading and crosschecking is necessary to verify hook facts and check for things like absence of close paraphrasing. I suppose that self-nominators who are not honest in assessing whether their review "quid" matches their nomination "quo" should expect to be beaten around the eyebrows by reviewers. --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't question the "what's fair" issue at all. What I'm suggesting is that we finally write this into the rules, so that there's one place where one can look up what the story is rather than having to trawl through the archives or having to ask the regulars who might remember. I believe the draft rule text above captures all the previous discussions, but by all means, let's amend those words to deal with the "what's fair" issue. Schwede66 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I've added additional rule H4 now. Schwede66 20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed by Poeticbent. A hook for hook is exceptionally unfair to the volunteers involved in the runnings of DYK. Moreover, it favors the more experienced and prolific authors who are able to write multi-hook articles. Reviewing multi-hook articles is never easy; especially if you take into consideration the added emphasis on original content (which is not repeated in the articles) and checking for bloat. I would certainly support rephrasing the current rule. Yazan (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I would favour article-for-article in general. However, having recently placed a 14-article hook up for nomination I can tell you that it's a big drain trying to get that many reviews done in a reasonable time. My worry is that we might have people not doing the reviews properly because they are trying to do so many. Further, it can delay a nomination for quite some time if the nominator is taking a while to get them all done. It's unusual to have such multi-article hooks but our rules should cover it. Perhaps we should have it so that people have to do at least half as many reviews as they have articles. violet/riga [talk] 16:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The reviews can always be done ahead of time... and collected on the side for weeks if need be, until there is enough of them to fulfill the expectations of Quid pro quo for a brand new multi-article hook. With equal number of reviews in the bag, the nominator can then post their own multiple hook without stress. Poeticbent talk 06:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. That's what I personally do. See User:Zozo2kx/QPQ. Yazan (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I am supporting article for article, and support putting it in the H4 rule. In the past I have demanded that those that put in a multi-article hook do that, and they usually reluctantly agree. But it should be codified. Otherwise we are just going to have to reject multi-article hooks that no one is prepared to review. We may as well just set the requirement up front to avoid this situation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
As someone who sometimes nominates multiple-article hooks, I support the proposal for article for article reviews. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I did propose this when QPQ was initiated but it failed to gain consensus. I guess if multis are becoming more frequent, this would be a useful way of discouraging the more excessive examples, especially given the negative view of multis amongst some users. Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with going to article-for-article reviews. It has always seemed only fair that the creator be asked to review as many articles as are being submitted. I think that we should be willing to give a reasonable amount of time after the nomination is submitted to fulfill the requirement; some of the longer multis are hard enough to complete within five days without adding a bunch of reviews to the mix. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I still contend that some multi-article hooks aren't much harder to review than single-article hooks, but that's true only when the articles are closely related (minimizing the number of sources to check) and the article creators and nominators have done a good job. Recent experience has led me to conclude that when there are serious problems with article quality, the burden of review for a multi-article hook can be exponentially greater than with a single-article hook (because all of the articles -- and thus their issues -- are intertwined in the hook). A month or two ago, I tackled the review of a couple of 7-article hooks. I never finished either review, largely because I found serious problems with the articles I reviewed, which got me embroiled in complex discussions on the noms pages. Maybe multi-article hook creators should be required to review multi-article hooks including the same number of articles -- with luck, that would discourage lousy multi-article noms... --Orlady (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You must be kidding. How long would someone with a 30-hook nomination have to wait for another 30-hook to come along? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Would anybody please draft a proposal here for the new H4 rule, reflecting our (so far) rather unanimous opinions about what the QPQ stands for? Thanks, Poeticbent talk 01:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:DYKSG#H4 proposal to change the QPQ Guidelines

  • (see below) H4: Reviewing another nomination is one of DYK core requirements. Quid pro quo (QPQ) means a more-or-less equal exchange. When hooks have more than one new or expanded article in it, the creators and nominators receive credits for each article separately; therefore, they are expected to collect additional reviews ahead of time and provide them in exchange for each credit in order to fulfill the expectations of QPQ.

(please comment) Poeticbent talk 20:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - Did you mean this for everybody, or would the rule still apply that it's only for editors with 5 or more DYKs to their credit? I just realized something inconsistent about how DYK lays out the "salad bowl" of DYK rules:
Rules - the QPQ is listed at number 5 (no alpha with it)
Supplementary guidelines - Is this the "H4" you refer to?
Reviewing Guide - nothing is numbered, and QPQ is not mentioned there
DYK Onepage - QPQ is not mentioned, but "H4" here is about the hook neutrality
Seems to me, there ought to be some consistency in how these different versions overall are laid out. Things are really confusing with diffrent formats and the rules scattered out over four different places. How is a new reviewer supposed to know what is where? Some months back, Yngvadottir offered to rework all this - but that might not be his/her biggest priority. — Maile (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to take it one step at the time. The Supplementary guidelines go first because that's where our debate originated. Apparently, there are two H4 in the system, thanks for noticing that, Maile. However, I think Onepage would have to be dealt with later. It was created by Resident Mario (talk · contribs) only by transclusion. It can be easily fixed with Art LaPella's blessing. See my revised H4 below taking into account your feedback. Poeticbent talk 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • H4: Reviewing another nomination is one of DYK core requirements. Quid pro quo (QPQ) means a more-or-less equal exchange. When hooks have more than one new or expanded article in it, the creators and nominators receive credits for each article separately; therefore, they are expected to collect additional QPQ reviews ahead of time and provide them in exchange for each separate credit. The rule does not apply to newbies with less than 5 DYKs, for as long as their multiple hooks do not exceed that number.
  • Conditional Support - This is the way it should work. If editors are going to put in the time it takes to create/expand/nominate multiple hooks, then they should have the corresponding QPQ lined up. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Added thoughts
1) QPQ has applied only to self-noms. Maybe it should apply to all, except the less-than-5 DYK credit editors.
2) Suppose someone who has less than 5 DYK nominates multiple hooks that in and of themselves are 5 or more hooks? Should this rule then apply right there and then? Like 30 hooks, for instance. Even if they're new at this, if they add multiple hooks that are excessive, increasing the backlog, they should be pulling their equal weight.
— Maile (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said, Maile. It's only fair that all DYK editors should have the same rights and responsibilities. Please make whatever changes are necessary for your full support... and lets put a diesel engine in WP:DYKSG#H4. We can transclude it from Supplementary guidelines to other places later. I would suggest that we deal with Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria exemptions after this. Poeticbent talk 18:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Poeticbent, I have no problem with full support of what we have discussed. You need more than my support, if the QPQ will apply to all nominators straight across the board. I recall seeing past discussions on the QPQ idea, and that some feel it is too difficult for newbies. And if you are noticing Fram's concerns of late, newbies are going to add to that problem because reviewing is a learned process. There's a lot to take into consideration on making this applicable to all nominees. You need some feedback from people like Bluemoonset, Orlady, Fram, Prioryman, Dr. Blofeld, Yngvadottir, Mandarax, Gerda Arendt, Cwmhiraeth, Miyagawa, Allen3, Doug Coldwell, Yazan, Nyttend, etc. etc. etc. I'm not calling out any of these contributors. But what you are proposing will affect all future nominations, so there needs to be input from multiple editors who have been around a long time - longer than I have. — Maile (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, too, if you try to make the change with just you and me agreeing, it will be blown out of the water - reversed. If recent history is any indication, this needs to be put up for a vote and left out there for voting for a few weeks. You can't change the rules with just two people. — Maile (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note, some of our most valued volunteers have already given their support to the idea. Look above: Graeme Bartlett, Cwmhiraeth, Gatoclass, BlueMoonset, and of course Orlady (way back when). I don't think we need to ask them to repeat again what they just said... This is about the actual wording of H4. It goes without saying that anyone can join up and contribute at any time. Poeticbent talk 20:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Having made the formal proposal here, it behooves you to wait to get approval for your wording. While I support the general concept, I oppose what you've written: first, the use of "newbies", and second, the assertion that people are expected to have all their reviews done prior to submission. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written: as noted above, I'm fine with the general principle, but there are significant problems with the proposed wording. If the wording can be fixed, I could easily shift over to support. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Bluemoonset, why don't you propose wording that would pass here. I don't feel I have enough insight to past history here to word anything. And I believe Poeticbent might be open to suggested wording. — Maile (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The existing H4 could be modified only as much as needed (a few variants here; take what's useful):
  • H4. Where hooks have more than one new or expanded article, an article-for-article QPQ is required: one article reviewed for each [bolded] article in the hook. [A possible addition:] The consensus is that hook-for-hook reviewing is not acceptable.
The other points, such as non-creator nominations and folks who have fewer than five create/noms, are in rule 5 of WP:DYK. I suppose an extra sentence could be added to H4 to cover that special exception if we want, something like: "If a new nominator's hook includes any articles beyond their fifth, each of those require a QPQ review." BlueMoonset (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I like your proposal, BlueMoonset. The reason I tried to phrase the new H4 beyond simple modification of present wording is that I planned to tranclude it instead of having to start a new debate every time the requirement is (or needs to be) mentioned. Please take a look at the DYK rules: 5. Review. It includes a few words of introduction. – We have three more pages independent of each other which require fixing: the DYK Onepage, the Reviewing Guide, and the Supplementary guidelines. Your (extended) version could be used three times in a row, but it needs a single line of introduction to what QPQ stands for, so flipping back and forth between pages won't be necessary for a basic understanding of the concept. Poeticbent talk 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well....I think someone just went for the DYK record. - Paleontology in the United States - I count 54 articles involved. The nominator has been courteous enough to supply a link to what they say is the corresponding number of reviews (I didn't count). — Maile (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Cantata for Sunday

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I just managed to expand Schwingt freudig euch empor, BWV 36, enough. It was first performed on 2 December, - the only cantata in 2012 performed on the very date of that Sunday. Therefore, although a bit late (I wanted to improve Faure's Requiem first), I ask to kindly process this fast to appear that Sunday. - Relief: no cantata until Christmas, Leipzig observed Advent as a quiet time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's now reviewed (thank you!) and placed in special occasions, so hopefully can appear tomorrow. I will come sooner for the next one, for Christmas, because we will sing it 9 Dec ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Bill Whittle template out of whack

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think an IP address has nominated Bill Whittle. The template needs a little fixing identifying the nominator. However, the template is also not accessible. Click it, and it comes up a blank new page. — Maile (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed some of its issues. Chris857 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

When a new special occasion section is created, is it possible to have a page dedicated to discuss the DYK special occasion? I would like to write an article for the Christmas 2012 Special occasion holding area, but can't think of any Christams topics to write about. I saw Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2009, so I added "Discuss this topic and get ideas for articles at Wikipedia:Did you know/Christmas 2012" to the Christmas area in case someone has an idea for other Christmas articles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You could write about Christmas in France or other country specific tradition articles. See Category:Christmas traditions by country for the limited coverage we have in this dimension. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I have the same problem with special occasions - perhaps rather than creating a specific talk page per special occasion, a separate talk page could be created? I'm currently considering creating an article on the Christmas tree in the Grand Place in Brussels, Belgium as there's been a bit of hullabaloo about it this year as they've gone for some fancy box shaped art installation, and I'm going there next weekend so I'd be able to get the photo for the nomination. But outside creating new articles, I tend to do searches on Christmas related words and then browse through the list - when I see the combination of an interesting topic combined with a small sized article, I take a look. I also favour browsing the Christmas categories to look up articles I've not heard of, on the presumption that they'll also be small articles. Miyagawa (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A hook, explanation

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I just have a quick question. If the hook that was approved for the article Sentimientos (Ivy Queen song) was:

  • ...that the lyrics of the song "Sentimientos" by Ivy Queen describe how doing things that are nice or romantic "are more important than material things"?

Why the hook showed at the main page was:

  • ...that the song "Sentimientos" by Ivy Queen combines the Latin styles of reggaeton and bachata?

Someone could explain what happened here? I lived this situation before, when one of my hooks was suddently changed and with no advice. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the change, you may want to ask the editor who changed it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou for your inquiry, Hahc. In response, I would first point you to our rules page, which clearly states that A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit.
With regard to the hook itself, I replaced it because in my view it failed the requirement that a hook has to be interesting. Although what constitutes "interesting" is not currently clearly defined in our rules, there is a broad consensus among experienced DYK reviewers that hooks referring to common, everyday phenomena are by definition uninteresting. In this case, your hook was based on a sentiment expressed in a song. This is usually a really bad idea for a hook, because most popular songs express one of a small number of very common themes, for example, about love gone wrong, or that romantic love is the most wonderful experience one can have, and so on. I mention these two themes because it so happens that I had to alter a couple of other hooks based on them in the last few days. The hook in question here was another variation on one of those themes, ie that romance is more important than "material things".
Apart from that, I am concerned about the number of complaints we have been getting recently regarding such mundane hook material, and am trying to ensure that hooks which reach the main page are of an appropriate standard. I could of course have removed your hook from the queue and returned it to T:TDYK for further discussion, but doing so is quite disruptive to our processes and I prefer not to do that if I think it unnecessary. In this case, with all due respect I think it would have been a waste of time returning the hook for discussion, as I think the result would have been a foregone conclusion. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, actually, the hook is not mine. I just saw it and wanted to know what happened there. Thanks for the explanation Gatoclass. I appreciate that you took your time to address my concerns. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the statement A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit., this is indeed clearly stated on the rules page, however what you did was not copy-editing instead you changed the hook completely. Four editors came to a consensus that my hook met all of the DYK standards (this includes being interesting). If you thought the hook was uninteresting, a different action should of be chosen. If you have doubts of how interesting something is than what should have been done was you should of re-opened the discussion. Yes, it would of been a waste of time to re-open the discussion because four editors had already agreed that the hook met all DYK standards (again this includes being interesting). I would just like to express my feelings about why the hook was changed and nor am I discouraged from it being changed. Thank you. DivaKnockouts (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
IIRC it used to say a hook is subject to "changes" or something similar, but at some stage its meaning has migrated, a chronic problem with policy pages. There was not a "consensus of four editors" approving your hook, it finally obtained the approval of only one reviewer, however, DYK reviewers are chronically overworked and hook quality in particular is an aspect that is often overlooked. I have had a lot of experience as a DYK reviewer, and am confident your hook would not have withstood closer scrutiny, otherwise I would indeed have returned it for discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Eligibility criteria

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I was told that the prose of an article must be at least 15000 characters, but is not it should be 1500 instead. I ask, therefore, reviewing this DYN request, I think the hook is a curiosity really tasty. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The 1500 criteria is for new articles (i.e. articles that were created within the last 5 days). Older articles need to be expanded five times. At any rate, the length is only problem; I'm afraid the article's language is barely English, and hardly encyclopedic... I suggest you ask someone to copy edit it for you. Yazan (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is now English. It has expanded from 13k to 23k in the past 15 days [which IMO seems pretty much like streching the limit of this article's extents], and makes up for a fairly interesting hook.
Regarding how encyclopediac the article needs to be, I shall need some feedback on how to do it
My personal suggestion (needs imporvement) - Did you know that the 1.63 m tall Antonietta Di Martino, by jumping 2.04m holds the world record for jumping the highest above her own height TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

More older nominations awaiting your review

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The rate of hook reviews remains behind what we need to keep all the queues and prep areas full. (At posting time there are 40 open slots, 32 approved hooks to fill them, and another six slots opening up in 75 minutes.) Here are some of the older submissions that need attention.

Also, here are eight of the oldest Gilbraltar-related hooks that need reviews; all are in the special holding area, where it's hard to find them. Gibraltar hooks need two careful reviews, and only some of these already have a completed first review. You can also look in the holding area for many other more recent hooks needing review. Thank you.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sky City

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

This looks like an article which certainly is new and will make for a greak DYK hook-

For example, Did you know that the proposed Sky City skyscraper in Changsha, China will be the world's tallest building and be built in just 90 days?

The only problem with the article here is that though it is new, it hasnt seen huge expansion in a very small time frame of the past 7 days. I am willing to expand it, but I doubt there will be 5-fold expansion or will follow the 7-day window.

But considering how awesome the hook could be, can we try to be WP:BOLD and allow an exception for this article? It certianly will be great both for DYK (In terms of avery interesting hook) and for the article(which, considering the claim, looks very much likely to be getting more interesting as time passes)

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Started on June 19, 2012 and needs a fair amount of work. The 90 day thing seems to be contested according to the article. Secretlondon (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In short: I'm afraid not. There is leeway in the rules when it comes to date of creation but the article is hardly new (created 19 June), and hasn't been even minimally expanded in the past month. For a project this size (if the claims are true), I'm sure the article could be expanded well beyond 5x if a determined editor is there. (See for example the Burj Khalifa article). Yazan (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
As a side note, it very much is unlikely that the claims will be followed up, but this project just might do it quite a lot faster than usual.
More importantly, I think coverage for this topic shall increase quite a bit, and DYK would be good to give it a boost.
What will the be the approximate size of the article wehn finished, if it to be allowed under the 'new' criteria? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
If expansion is to start from the current version (2263 characters) it would need to be expanded to around 11,000 characters. (for comparison, the Burj Khalifa article is well over 25,000 characters). Yazan (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The Burj is already the world's tallest building, and hence the huge coverage. Anyways, i shall try to do whatever I can.
Can you just point out what needs to be done to the article? Also, if anyone can help me with referencing and citations [not my strong field; I always do badly at it], I shall highly appreciate the help. Thanks and cheers! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It might be desirable to perform the update in your userspace so you can have a little extra time if needed. Alternatively, you can check who the contributors are of the other supertall buildings like the Burj Khalifa and see if they'll help you expand the article so it can be completed faster. Ryan Vesey 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
User:TheOriginalSoni/Sky city - Help to make the article better is very much needed and appreciated. Thanks TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It now meets the character limit. Asking for review on the page now - User:TheOriginalSoni/Sky city TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The page you listed is only 4561 characters. thats little more than 2x expansion. Yazan (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
But it is showing 10700 bytes to me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Since it's not a new article, it needs to be expanded to 5 times its size. Ryan Vesey 05:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
What is measured is prose characters, not bytes. It's a 5x expansion of the article's prose, excluding lists, blockquotes, and the various article boilerplate like section headers. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

GA on DYK

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Finally, what happened with that proposal? Would recently promoted GAs be eligible for DYK? — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think an official RFC hasn't been put out there yet. What was out there before was not well done and inconclusive. Prioryman was working on a formalized RFC, the last I heard. You might want to inquire at his talk page. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and apologies for the delay (and my recent lull in activity) - I've been recovering from a hand injury that has made typing and mousing rather awkward. I'm getting back into the swing of things now, though, so I'll get on with taking this forward. Prioryman (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay. If you need any help, I'd be glad to assist, Prioryman. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Again pulled a hook from the queue for very poor sourcing.

Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion

I have yet again pulled a hook from the queue for unacceptable sourcing. In this case, the article Grand Casemates Gates was nominated with the hook "that at the Ceremony of the Keys, drums and fifes are played at the Grand Casemates Gates (pictured) in Gibraltar to warn aliens to leave before the gates are locked?" This sentence of the article is sourced to here, but that source has in red letters, beneath the pictures but above the text: "THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION IS COURTESY OF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremony_of_the_Keys" So this hook is sourced to Wikipedia, not to a reliable source... I have just been accused at Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Bickerton of using DYK as my "personal playground", but perhaps I should indeed start doing that to prevent such things happening again, and again, and again... Fram (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks like an inexcusable miss, given that Bluemoonset had already raised a query over the source in question on the nom page - it appears his concerns were simply ignored.
I have been toying for a while with the idea of establishing some sort of sanction for reviewers who pass articles which fail basic DYK compliance tests like sourcing of the hook, article length etc. QPQ reviewers could have a current or future DYK submission of their own automatically disqualified for failing to do the appropriate checks on a QPQ review. I have come across a disturbing number of sloppy reviews in recent days, it's clear that at least some QPQ reviewers are simply not taking their responsibilities seriously enough. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Gato, have you considered asking the hook promoter, BlueMoonset, if BlueMoonset's concerns had been addressed before the promotion was performed? --Allen3 talk 12:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I missed the fact that Bluemoonset did the promotion, and have struck some of my remarks accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Odd. As a fairly experienced author, I would not have used a source marked in red with "courtesy of Wikipedia". Two reviewers confirmed that the source supported the hook. They would have spotted the red warning if it were there. Bluemoonset saw that this source referred to a 1951 ceremony and was copyright 2002 by a person, so might be out of date and perhaps unreliable. She pointed this out, but did not mention the "courtesy of Wikipedia" notice. I rechecked, sort-of-agreed, and added about ten better sources on the modern ceremony. I left this source mainly because of the pictures. On the recheck I did not see the "courtesy of Wikipedia" notice. I am sure that Bluemoonset and the two other reviewers would have seen it if it were there. My guess that that the website owner added the notice very recently. Unfortunately there is no way of verifying that. I will tweak the article to drop this source and point to another one, but not immediately. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does appear that something very odd has occurred here, since it otherwise suggests that two experienced reviewers inexplicably missed a bright red link that said "courtesy of wikipedia", which seems unlikely. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe there is an evil conspiracy to destroy Wikipedia by sneaking articles with poor-quality sources into DYK. Or maybe it is just that shit happens. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Calm down. Its only wikipedia. Noone in the real world cares.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
False dilemma, obviously. Maybe it's just that too many people think that nominating and promoting articles to DYK is more important than having good enough quality content on the main page. Even assuming that that disclaimer just popped up between the nomination/promotion and my removal, how was that ever a reliable source for that information? It's a hobbyist history site, not a professional reliable source. And the number of articles that were approved for main page placement, and then had to be taken out of the queue (or even from the main page) is alarmingly high; nothing to do with conspiracies, just sloppy work, wrong priorities, or whatever other reason. If it isn't possible to check so many articles thoroughly, then reduce the number of articles that make it to DYK main page. Fram (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like I'm definitely deserving of the trout. Although I wouldn't call it silly so much as apparently oblivious when doing my original check. I questioned the reliability of the source in question even though I didn't take in the (bright red) Wikipedia link—it would have been the first thing I mentioned if so, since at the time it would have disallowed the entire ceremony section. What had struck me about that source was that it had refuted a major claim in the original hook and ALT1, about two ceremonies a year since 1933, in April and October, just by showing pictures of a January ceremony in 1951.
I have to take another hit for relying on memory, since having been to that site once to check a hook that included fife and drum and not mentioned an issue with that fact in my note, I apparently thought I was safe. My apologies to all for the error. By my count, four key people managed to miss this one: the two reviewers, me, and the person who promoted it from prep to queue. (PS: note to Aymatth2: I'm definitely "he", not "she".) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't believe the red notice was present at the top of the text and got missed by all the reviewers. A simple explanation is that the site owner was checking their usage statistics, saw a flurry of viewers coming in from Wikipedia, and decided they really should acknowledge that was where they got the text. Bluemoonset was very alert in spotting that although the text in the source said "is currently performed twice a year (in April and October)" the photos showed a ceremony in January 1951. Checking further, he questioned whether the source was accurate, up to date and reliable. I scrabbled around and found a bunch of other sources confirming that the ceremony is indeed still being held, but that "April and October" is no longer accurate, so tweaked the hook. There is no doubt at all that the ceremony is held twice a year with pipes and drums, antique uniforms, stamping feet, salutes and shouted orders and all the other tourist stuff. The article is accurate and so is the hook. Just a poor-quality source was retained - my fault. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the ceremony of locking the gates was a nightly occurrence in 1908 and did mean no one (including citizens) was allowed to leave/enter the city. I think the courtesy tag was added later. Froggerlaura ribbit 16:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
As a reviewer who was whacked by a wet trout, I can state in my defence that the three references that I checked were the 3rd, 4th and 5th under "Sources" and I must admit to not have looked at the actual citations. My bad! However I was motivated to review some Gibraltar articles because they are tucked away where nobody looks at them and utterly neglected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Anyway, I have removed the offending source and added a selection of alternatives: snippet-view books from 1908-2001 and a lighthearted recent article from a travel company. I don't suppose anyone wants to give the DYK nomination a check mark? ... That's what I thought ... Aymatth2 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • No worries mate. I have reviewed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And I have "unreviewed" it again. One would expect that the second time around, the reviewer is extra careful, but apparently not. I have given a lengthy explanation at Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Casemates Gates, basically the section needs a rewrite, and of the 5 sources given for the hook, 4 definitely don't support it (or even contradict it), and one is not accessible to me. Fram (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • My review stands. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for helping to self-identify part of the problem. Now to find a way to remove this part of the problem to improve the level of the reviews and to decrease the number of errors... Fram (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • After further discussion, the hook that was approved (repeatedly!) by Hawkeye7 has now been struck by the article creator as he or she is unable to reliably and unambiguously source it (which is good), and a different hook proposed. It has already been approved again by Hawkeye7, but that's hardly a guarantee of anything, as can be seen from this discussion. Fram (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Htou-tjyen

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The hook "Did you know that the ancient Htou-tjyen playing cards (pictured) of Korea were only half an inch (1.27 cm) wide?" currently in Prep area 4 is misleading and should be changed. There is nothing in the Htou-tjyen article to indicate that these playing cards are particularly ancient. They are discussed in an 1896 work, but the article provides no evidence for how long they have been in use in Korea or that they even existed prior to the 19th century. 19th century is not ancient in my book. BabelStone (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

On another note, is it appropriate for it to go on the main page with the translate tag? Ryan Vesey 21:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
One of the sources discussed in the article says 6th century. The translate tag is gone. Secretlondon (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Post at the nomination, not here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 22:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've moved some prep areas - now three are empty. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet another bloated stub.

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Currently on the main page, Marc Salles, is yet another bloated stub by the editor User:Thine Antique Pen, which tell us how the Spain national field hockey team performed in the 2012 Summer Olympics. Given the recent problems with bloat in DYK-articles written by this user, I think it's more important to check this user's nominations twice, then checking those perferct Gilbraltar-articles twice. There were recently a proposal to ban LauraHale from DYK for some of the same reasons, but Thine Antique Pen's bloated stubs are much more worse than Laura's articles. What should be done about this user, and it's DYK's? Mentoz86 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  • That article was expanded on 9 November. Since then, I have requested and received advice from established editors on this and I am certain that my more recent creations and expansions such as Hyperolius ocellatus are improvements. Please do not describe me as "it". Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    Wouldn't you agree that it's a pretty dreadful article though, completely unfit for an appearance on the main page? Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    I can agree with that about the article about Salles, but not any after I had requested advice. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    But the article only appeared on the main page today, so why did you not apply the advice you'd been given to Salles? Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    I'd totally forgotten about that article until the credit arrived on my talk page. The DYK nomination had no activity until recently when I had a double loss. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Platymantis diesmosi, which was created and nominated on December 1, has some of the same problems as mentioned in WT:Did you know/Archive 88#This article can be found in Prep 3 but should not be found on the Main Page. While the newer one isn't as bad as the one in that thread (or the embarrassingly horrible Marc Salles), it includes in its 1646 characters: "has only been found on ... has only been found on ... commonly found ... has been found at ... has been found on ... can be found of". Another thing that is commonly found in the author's articles is the use of the |abbr=off parameter in {{convert}}, a sure sign of attempting to pad an article with every possible character. The full 20-character name "Platymantis diesmosi" appears seven times in the article prose. I checked articles about some others species without common names, written by other people, and although they were all much larger articles, they used the scientific name much less frequently. Plus such bloaty phrases as "brown in colour", which, again, is not as bad as "Salles is 141 pounds (64 kilograms) in weight". Little things done repeatedly, such as using "at between x and y" rather than "from x to y", add up. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a recurrent theme. I trimmed some of the padding and reduced it to 1467 characters. Let's hope the nominator will learn from this and improve future submissions. Sasata (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Writing concisely certainly isn't something TAP is good at yet, but Mandarax you seem to have a problem with assuming bad faith on at least some of these items. As regards abbr=off, Thine Antique Pen used it here as well, and that article is 43751 characters of prose, so hardly in need of padding. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've struck that. Although I feel that routinely disabling abbreviations in conversions is very bad form, I apologize for implying that it was done solely for padding purposes. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Funny: I was reading this upside down, so I got to the article before I saw who the author was--for a moment it looked like an old-fashioned Laura Hale article. Anyway, it's less bloated now. Again, I'm interested in who does quality control. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK submission

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Could somebody add Jeremy Boreing as a DYK nomination? This is the hook I'd like to use (unless there's a better one to suggest):

72.74.196.20 (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You can do it yourself if you like? Self nominations are acceptable. Click --> Template_talk:Did_you_know#How_to_post_a_new_nomination. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
To my knowledge, an IP can't create the nomination page. Ryan Vesey 04:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Jeremy Boreing. Ryan Vesey 05:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Ahh.. All the more reason to WP:REGISTER. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I've seen a number of "nominations" by IPs starting with 72.74; since this user's IP changes regularly, I think we need to consider that quid pro quo reviews ought to be required, since the user has almost certainly used up five freebies at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned that it should probably count as a self nom. I haven't seen any of the other articles before, and although I'll take your word for it, do you want to make the point that a QPQ from the IP should be required? Ryan Vesey 18:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • How could we enforce something like that, though, as 72.74 is probably pretty wide-reaching. Besides, this one isn't wrestling. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Paleontology multi

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For a few days, I've been slowly working my way through reviewing the 40-plus multi found at Template:Did you know nominations/Paleontology in the United States. This is a group of paleontology articles that User:Abyssal has been working on for months in his user space, and which he/she moved into main space last week. The articles appear to be well-sourced, though much of the source material is off-line. The review process is daunting. I've completed a review of the last 15 or so subparts and am keeping a running list within the template identifying the subparts that have been reviewed. I would welcome others jumping in and checking out some of the articles. If you choose to do so, simply make a note as to which article(s) you have reviewed. That way, we'll know which parts are done and which still need work. Another set of eyes on such a massive set of articles is probably a good idea in any event. Cbl62 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its the slightest bit hooky to be honest. Secretlondon (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Human rights movement?

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

This hook on the "human rights movement" is slated to hit the front page in four hours:

... that while the roots of the international human rights movement are about a century old, it grew in global significance around the 1970s?

The article was not very well developed, barely containing more information on "human rights movements" than the article on human rights does, and relying mostly on one source! I added a little more history about the origins of the "human rights" movement, which I think are improvements. But I'm still reluctant to send an article this lopsided to the front page.

If we do run this article, I think we should change the hook. I don't see "about a century old" sourced or explained (arguably it's much older or a little younger)—and the "global significance" claim is not very useful. (Pan-Africanists were conducting a global human rights movement in the 1940s; is Jimmy Carter, an American President, really the benchmark for a global movement?) I think it would be completely accurate to say that the international human rights movement grew in global significance in every decade beginning with the 1930s.

Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have pulled the article for further discussion as I am inclined to agree that the content mostly just recapitulates content from the human rights article. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
A replacement hook will be needed. May I suggest "Ejegod Windmill" from Prep 2? (We don't want another bio or another UK hook in that spot, and the US is asleep at that point.) We need an admin to do the moving. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy to make it. Thanks for the quick work. I've filled in the empty spot that made in Prep 2, and we're all set. In fact, all four prep areas are completely full now. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

And now what? I watch that the article is building. I think I should not be the reviewer in the next round. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So what's the issue here other than IDONTLIKE? The hook was referenced, the article is new and beyond stub, referenced, and even if it was mostly one-source, one source is not a problem for start-class articles such as DYKs. I have no problem with proposing alternate hooks, but pulling the article from the queue to do IDONTLIKE a hook seems excessive to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

One source is an issue for politically contested articles. Secretlondon (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Only if anyone can prove they are non-neutral and controversial, which I don't believe applies here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:DYKSG#D12: "Multiple sources are generally required, to ensure the article meets the general notability guideline." Having only a single source is an issue, period, according to the DYK rules. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but more sources have now been added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Under these scenarios what applies to them becoming new enough to be eligible for a DYK.

  • An article that was deleted and moved to a userspace and will be recreated again after improvement. Does the article become eligible the moment it moves out of the userspace or does it count as an old article that needs to be expand five-fold? Ex: User:KAVEBEAR/Moses Kekūāiwa
  • An article is proposed to be deleted by a user and that same user recreates it anew with a fresh history afterwards. Does the article become eligible when it was create the second time or is this not allowed. Ex: I wish to do this for Pauli Kaōleiokū and Kanekapolei which were poorly created but don't know if I can expand it five-fold.

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  1. It counts as a new article. The second one is bending the rules, but if the article is so bad as to be deleted in an AfD or a PROD, then it makes sense to consider the expansion as a new article. Be ware though, nominating valid articles (even if not of great quality) for deletion just to be able to score a DYK when you recreate it will probably be frowned upon, if not considered outright disruptive. Yazan (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I would say that in both cases it depends on how much time has passed. If it's a matter of days or weeks, then I wouldn't think it would qualify. If it is a matter of many months, then there's a good possibility that it would, depending on the judgment of the reviewer. However, if the old article had been published under DYK, then it wouldn't be eligible. I'm with Yazan: I don't like the notion of articles, even stubs, being deleted because a 5x expansion doesn't look feasible. DYK is not the end-all and the be-all, and to have an article deleted to qualify rather than just updating it in place seems wrong. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It just because of the obscurity of the subject makes it hard to do a 5x expansion all the time.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes articles can't be expanded enough; it happens. Similarly, sometimes articles just don't have anything in them that makes an interesting hook. That also happens. Not every article can make it as a DYK. I think, for some of those subjects, they won't ever be DYKs. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be worked on, it just means they don't get eight hours on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Older articles needing reviews

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

The rate of hook reviews has picked up a bit, but we're still barely at what we need to keep all the queues and prep areas full. (At posting time there are 36 open slots, and 39 approved hooks to fill them.) Here are some of the older submissions that need attention, including five still needing attention from October.

Also, here are eight of the oldest Gilbraltar-related hooks that need reviews; all are in the special holding area, where it's hard to find them. Gibraltar hooks need two careful reviews, and only some of these already have a completed first review. You can also look in the holding area for many other more recent hooks needing review. Thank you.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page error reports are ignored

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I posted about the Intraplage Deformation article 3 hours ago and it is still on the main page. The main page says this, "that tectonic plates in the Earth's crust are not completely rigid but can be deformed by the melting of an ice cap?"

The article does not say this. Someone posted on the error reports showing a past version that said that, but the author of the article created information to put in the article that is not in the sources, so I don't think that it should just use an old version.

This needs removed from the main page. Now, not 3 more hours from now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.131.23 (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Platypus -> Platypuses

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that my DYK got copied over without any pluralisation of platypus at Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1#Hooks, so I boldly fixed it. Just mentioning it in case anyone has any issues. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Separately, the first person who says that the plural should be platypi gets a face full of octopodes and rhinocerotes. ARGH DAMN YOU! ;) No, it isn't, it's from greek so the plural would be -podes, but plain English suggests -es is fine. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)Err? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, right. I was worried that I had screwed you up myself. Then my daughter distracted me. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Prep 1

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Menor que to cost $60,000. To do what? Produce? something is missing from that hook. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I think it's obvious that the production costs of the music video were $60,000. Though, I can't see for the life of me what could be interesting in that hook, but that's a different issue. Yazan (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Time to close above QPQ proposal?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Poeticbent's proposal has been out there for a while - Proposal to change the QPQ Guidelines Is it time to fish or cut bait on Bluemoonset's suggested wording? It seems like such a small thing. But it's just hanging in limbo right now. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Paleontology multi again

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've now reviewed 25 of the subparts at Template:Did you know nominations/Paleontology in the United States. Still another 25 to go. As noted previously, it would help a lot if others could taken on one or more of the subparts. Another set of eyes would also help on a body of work this large. Cbl62 (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The future of QPQ

Latest comment: 11 years ago37 comments11 people in discussion
RESOLVED
The WP:DYKSG#H4 rule concerning QPQ was changed to an article-for-article format based on consensus here. Yazan (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

This is a follow-up on a discussion originating at the Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Rule H4. I'm posting it here to get a wider pool of commenters. On 20 April 2012 Schwede66 added a new "rule H4" to WP:DYKSG. The rule was created in good faith but regrettably, added without positive feedback. The only other participant who commented on this proposal, Orlady – didn't agree with it. As it stands, the rule WP:DYKSG#H4 contributes to the ongoing crisis affecting older nominations. Here's what it says, quote:

  • H4: Where hooks have more than one new or expanded article, there is no consensus whether an article-for-article or hook-for-hook QPQ is required. An article-for-article review is encouraged, but a hook-for-hook review is acceptable.

The multiple-article submissions have been soaring lately. The problem is that a "hook-for-hook" review option becomes a gaping loophole in the case of all really large submissions. Let's take as an example the most recent all-time record, the amazing 30-in-1 submission. Technically speaking, the nominator can provide just one QPQ review to meet the H4 requirement. However, without the corresponding number of reviews, the 30-in-1 submission would deprive single-article nominators waiting in the same lineup of 30 QPQ opportunities. Luckily, one of the creators of that 30-in-1 submission agreed to review 30 other noms on his own... He did not have to do that, because "a hook-for-hook review is acceptable", but he did it anyway, sensing, that it wouldn't be fair to others. Even Schwede66 himself expressed similar sentiment following my inquiry. We need a discussion about the future of QPQ please, because listing overdue reviews in here and waiting for random helpers to cross them out cannot be a permanent solution to this crisis. Poeticbent talk 14:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

 Here's a copy of the archived proposal initiated by Schwede66 on 19 April 2012, commented on by Orlady

QPQ for multi hooks I propose that we write down what the story is with QPQ for hooks that have more than one new or expanded article.

H4: Where hooks have more than one new or expanded article, there is no consensus whether an article-for-article or hook-for-hook QPQ is required. An article-for-article review is encouraged, but a hook-for-hook review is acceptable.

I've looked through the discussion archive and it has been discussed numerous times. I nominate multi-hooks with some regularity, and I do get asked about the rules from time to time. It would certainly be easier if we synthesised the outcome of the discussions, which is what I have tried to do above. I've reviewed the following discussions:

Rules for evaluating other people's hooks and articles on the Supplementary guidelines page would appear to be the right spot for the proposed rule clarification. Schwede66 19:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that "what's fair" varies greatly with the articles involved. I've dealt with some multi-article hooks in which all of the articles were short and based on the same short list of sources, so it was no harder to review three articles than it was to review one. In other cases I've seen, a hook lists several long articles, each of which has its own separate sources, and a lot of reading and crosschecking is necessary to verify hook facts and check for things like absence of close paraphrasing. I suppose that self-nominators who are not honest in assessing whether their review "quid" matches their nomination "quo" should expect to be beaten around the eyebrows by reviewers. --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't question the "what's fair" issue at all. What I'm suggesting is that we finally write this into the rules, so that there's one place where one can look up what the story is rather than having to trawl through the archives or having to ask the regulars who might remember. I believe the draft rule text above captures all the previous discussions, but by all means, let's amend those words to deal with the "what's fair" issue. Schwede66 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I've added additional rule H4 now. Schwede66 20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed by Poeticbent. A hook for hook is exceptionally unfair to the volunteers involved in the runnings of DYK. Moreover, it favors the more experienced and prolific authors who are able to write multi-hook articles. Reviewing multi-hook articles is never easy; especially if you take into consideration the added emphasis on original content (which is not repeated in the articles) and checking for bloat. I would certainly support rephrasing the current rule. Yazan (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I would favour article-for-article in general. However, having recently placed a 14-article hook up for nomination I can tell you that it's a big drain trying to get that many reviews done in a reasonable time. My worry is that we might have people not doing the reviews properly because they are trying to do so many. Further, it can delay a nomination for quite some time if the nominator is taking a while to get them all done. It's unusual to have such multi-article hooks but our rules should cover it. Perhaps we should have it so that people have to do at least half as many reviews as they have articles. violet/riga [talk] 16:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The reviews can always be done ahead of time... and collected on the side for weeks if need be, until there is enough of them to fulfill the expectations of Quid pro quo for a brand new multi-article hook. With equal number of reviews in the bag, the nominator can then post their own multiple hook without stress. Poeticbent talk 06:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. That's what I personally do. See User:Zozo2kx/QPQ. Yazan (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I am supporting article for article, and support putting it in the H4 rule. In the past I have demanded that those that put in a multi-article hook do that, and they usually reluctantly agree. But it should be codified. Otherwise we are just going to have to reject multi-article hooks that no one is prepared to review. We may as well just set the requirement up front to avoid this situation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
As someone who sometimes nominates multiple-article hooks, I support the proposal for article for article reviews. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I did propose this when QPQ was initiated but it failed to gain consensus. I guess if multis are becoming more frequent, this would be a useful way of discouraging the more excessive examples, especially given the negative view of multis amongst some users. Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with going to article-for-article reviews. It has always seemed only fair that the creator be asked to review as many articles as are being submitted. I think that we should be willing to give a reasonable amount of time after the nomination is submitted to fulfill the requirement; some of the longer multis are hard enough to complete within five days without adding a bunch of reviews to the mix. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I still contend that some multi-article hooks aren't much harder to review than single-article hooks, but that's true only when the articles are closely related (minimizing the number of sources to check) and the article creators and nominators have done a good job. Recent experience has led me to conclude that when there are serious problems with article quality, the burden of review for a multi-article hook can be exponentially greater than with a single-article hook (because all of the articles -- and thus their issues -- are intertwined in the hook). A month or two ago, I tackled the review of a couple of 7-article hooks. I never finished either review, largely because I found serious problems with the articles I reviewed, which got me embroiled in complex discussions on the noms pages. Maybe multi-article hook creators should be required to review multi-article hooks including the same number of articles -- with luck, that would discourage lousy multi-article noms... --Orlady (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You must be kidding. How long would someone with a 30-hook nomination have to wait for another 30-hook to come along? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Would anybody please draft a proposal here for the new H4 rule, reflecting our (so far) rather unanimous opinions about what the QPQ stands for? Thanks, Poeticbent talk 01:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:DYKSG#H4 proposal to change the QPQ Guidelines

  • (see below) H4: Reviewing another nomination is one of DYK core requirements. Quid pro quo (QPQ) means a more-or-less equal exchange. When hooks have more than one new or expanded article in it, the creators and nominators receive credits for each article separately; therefore, they are expected to collect additional reviews ahead of time and provide them in exchange for each credit in order to fulfill the expectations of QPQ.

(please comment) Poeticbent talk 20:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - Did you mean this for everybody, or would the rule still apply that it's only for editors with 5 or more DYKs to their credit? I just realized something inconsistent about how DYK lays out the "salad bowl" of DYK rules:
Rules - the QPQ is listed at number 5 (no alpha with it)
Supplementary guidelines - Is this the "H4" you refer to?
Reviewing Guide - nothing is numbered, and QPQ is not mentioned there
DYK Onepage - QPQ is not mentioned, but "H4" here is about the hook neutrality
Seems to me, there ought to be some consistency in how these different versions overall are laid out. Things are really confusing with diffrent formats and the rules scattered out over four different places. How is a new reviewer supposed to know what is where? Some months back, Yngvadottir offered to rework all this - but that might not be his/her biggest priority. — Maile (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to take it one step at the time. The Supplementary guidelines go first because that's where our debate originated. Apparently, there are two H4 in the system, thanks for noticing that, Maile. However, I think Onepage would have to be dealt with later. It was created by Resident Mario (talk · contribs) only by transclusion. It can be easily fixed with Art LaPella's blessing. See my revised H4 below taking into account your feedback. Poeticbent talk 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • H4: Reviewing another nomination is one of DYK core requirements. Quid pro quo (QPQ) means a more-or-less equal exchange. When hooks have more than one new or expanded article in it, the creators and nominators receive credits for each article separately; therefore, they are expected to collect additional QPQ reviews ahead of time and provide them in exchange for each separate credit. The rule does not apply to newbies with less than 5 DYKs, for as long as their multiple hooks do not exceed that number.
  • Conditional Support - This is the way it should work. If editors are going to put in the time it takes to create/expand/nominate multiple hooks, then they should have the corresponding QPQ lined up. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Added thoughts
1) QPQ has applied only to self-noms. Maybe it should apply to all, except the less-than-5 DYK credit editors.
2) Suppose someone who has less than 5 DYK nominates multiple hooks that in and of themselves are 5 or more hooks? Should this rule then apply right there and then? Like 30 hooks, for instance. Even if they're new at this, if they add multiple hooks that are excessive, increasing the backlog, they should be pulling their equal weight.
— Maile (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said, Maile. It's only fair that all DYK editors should have the same rights and responsibilities. Please make whatever changes are necessary for your full support... and lets put a diesel engine in WP:DYKSG#H4. We can transclude it from Supplementary guidelines to other places later. I would suggest that we deal with Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria exemptions after this. Poeticbent talk 18:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Poeticbent, I have no problem with full support of what we have discussed. You need more than my support, if the QPQ will apply to all nominators straight across the board. I recall seeing past discussions on the QPQ idea, and that some feel it is too difficult for newbies. And if you are noticing Fram's concerns of late, newbies are going to add to that problem because reviewing is a learned process. There's a lot to take into consideration on making this applicable to all nominees. You need some feedback from people like Bluemoonset, Orlady, Fram, Prioryman, Dr. Blofeld, Yngvadottir, Mandarax, Gerda Arendt, Cwmhiraeth, Miyagawa, Allen3, Doug Coldwell, Yazan, Nyttend, etc. etc. etc. I'm not calling out any of these contributors. But what you are proposing will affect all future nominations, so there needs to be input from multiple editors who have been around a long time - longer than I have. — Maile (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, too, if you try to make the change with just you and me agreeing, it will be blown out of the water - reversed. If recent history is any indication, this needs to be put up for a vote and left out there for voting for a few weeks. You can't change the rules with just two people. — Maile (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note, some of our most valued volunteers have already given their support to the idea. Look above: Graeme Bartlett, Cwmhiraeth, Gatoclass, BlueMoonset, and of course Orlady (way back when). I don't think we need to ask them to repeat again what they just said... This is about the actual wording of H4. It goes without saying that anyone can join up and contribute at any time. Poeticbent talk 20:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Having made the formal proposal here, it behooves you to wait to get approval for your wording. While I support the general concept, I oppose what you've written: first, the use of "newbies", and second, the assertion that people are expected to have all their reviews done prior to submission. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written: as noted above, I'm fine with the general principle, but there are significant problems with the proposed wording. If the wording can be fixed, I could easily shift over to support. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Bluemoonset, why don't you propose wording that would pass here. I don't feel I have enough insight to past history here to word anything. And I believe Poeticbent might be open to suggested wording. — Maile (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The existing H4 could be modified only as much as needed (a few variants here; take what's useful):
  • H4. Where hooks have more than one new or expanded article, an article-for-article QPQ is required: one article reviewed for each [bolded] article in the hook. [A possible addition:] The consensus is that hook-for-hook reviewing is not acceptable.
The other points, such as non-creator nominations and folks who have fewer than five create/noms, are in rule 5 of WP:DYK. I suppose an extra sentence could be added to H4 to cover that special exception if we want, something like: "If a new nominator's hook includes any articles beyond their fifth, each of those require a QPQ review." BlueMoonset (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I like your proposal, BlueMoonset. The reason I tried to phrase the new H4 beyond simple modification of present wording is that I planned to tranclude it instead of having to start a new debate every time the requirement is (or needs to be) mentioned. Please take a look at the DYK rules: 5. Review. It includes a few words of introduction. – We have three more pages independent of each other which require fixing: the DYK Onepage, the Reviewing Guide, and the Supplementary guidelines. Your (extended) version could be used three times in a row, but it needs a single line of introduction to what QPQ stands for, so flipping back and forth between pages won't be necessary for a basic understanding of the concept. Poeticbent talk 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well....I think someone just went for the DYK record. - Paleontology in the United States - I count 54 articles involved. The nominator has been courteous enough to supply a link to what they say is the corresponding number of reviews (I didn't count). — Maile (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(pulled back from archive)

I presume, enough time has passed for everyone to take a crack at it, since the thread has already been archived today. Here's my final proposed wording for H4 based on BlueMoonset's suggestion with a brief intro (comments welcome, as always). Poeticbent talk 18:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  • H4: Reviewing another nomination is one of DYK requirements. Quid pro quo (QPQ) means a more-or-less equal exchange. Where a hook has more than one new or expanded article in it, an article-for-article QPQ is required: one article reviewed for each bolded article in the hook. The consensus is that hook-for-hook reviewing is not acceptable in case of multiple nominations. As soon as new nominator's hook includes articles beyond their fifth DYK credit, each of those require a separate QPQ review.
  • I've only just seen this; good that the issue gets a good airing. I support this in principle (and always have), but have a preference for BlueMoonset's much simpler wording above, including the suggested possible addition. Note that I have amended Poeticbent's proposed wording with a missing 'a'. Schwede66 05:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I truly don't think the "brief intro" is necessary, all two sentences of it. H4 is on the supplementary guidelines page, and doesn't need a special intro: I think concise is best. Once it's there, it's the rule. Onepage and the Reviewing guide can be brought into line assuming H4 goes forward, but H4 has been the controlling rule for multi-article hooks for quite a while now without their concurrence, and that won't change even if the H4 wording does. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
OK then, let's put it in without the brief intro. I crossed it out from above. If there are no further comments here, may I ask you, Schwede, to please put it in? Thank you in advance, and thank you all who participated in the development of this rule including Maile. Poeticbent talk 07:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I changed WP:DYKSG#H4 according to the consensus here. Yazan (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Did you know nominations/Women's sport in New South Wales

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Are we really going to put such an awful article as Template:Did you know nominations/Women's sport in New South Wales on the front page? Has anyone read the "history" section and thought, yes, that's a comprehensive overview of the history of women's sport in New South Wales, instead of a bizarre collection of unrelated faits-divers? Has anyone bothered to read the University section, for that matter? How is this in any way coherent and logical? It doesn't even get the basic chronology right, jumping from one tidbit to another without any link between them. There is hardly a sentence in there without minor or major errors. And of course it is entirely focused on one of the ten universities of New South Wales only. Fram (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is certainly in no shape to appear on the main page. I think an admin needs to remove it from the queue pending further discussion. Yazan (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: an admin needs to act in the next six hours or the hook will automatically move to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Too late. That's the last time I ask for input (thanks to those who gave it), next time I(ll just act on my opinion first and come for discussion afterwards. How many more of these problematic or piss-poor articles will we allow to be highlighted on our main page, to be seen by thousands of people, as if we are proud of them and want to showcase them? I could understand it a little bit better if it was done to encourage a new editor, but even that excuse isn't applicable here. I haev just edited the article and hook nominated in Template:Did you know nominations/Samantha Norwood: the original hook was sourced to a student run college newspaper, not a reliable source. The alt hook was sourced to three sources, so I put it on instead. However, looking further, one of the three sources didn't contain the statement, and the other two were identical, a press release from the team repeated by a sports website. I'll let it stand for now, but consisering that press releases don't even count towards notability, I don't see why they should be acceptable as sources for DYK hooks. Fram (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that notability vs. reliable sourcing are two completely different issues. If the person is considered notable, then an article is appropriate. Where the hook fact comes from needs to be a reliable source, even if it isn't one that helps establish that notability. Someone's birth date may figure into a hook, but not come from a secondary source establishing notability; I don't see why that would be problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Because such sources are self-serving, not independent ones, which is needed for true reliability. Fram (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Translated articles

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

This is a general question, triggered by a specific situation: Template:Did you know nominations/Christoph Nichelmann is basically a translated article, from de:Christoph Nichelmann. This is indicated in the article history, no problem there (although some more attribution was welcome, but that's not relevant to this discussion). Does this count as a new article? The DYK reviewing guide states "If a new article incorporates text copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a pre-existing article." Does this apply here or not? Fram (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's one of the perennial questions, but I don't know exactly where it was handled last. Please look at the archives, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I thought it was a wider discussion about this recently, but I only found this discussion in the archive. Consensus is that if translated articles are to be considered as new articles, but they have to be well-written and have in-line citations to be accepted at DYK. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I see a lot of discussions, many people seem to have a problem with this (and many others don't). I fail to see how translating an existing article can be equated with creating one from scratch. Take e.g. the article we have here, Christoph Nichelmann; even the sources are identical (except for one, operone.de), the whole structure of the article is identical: there has been no truly creative effort, no searching for sources, no actual writing, only a (good) cleanup of an apparently machine translated article (based on the first version of the page[4]). Why would such an article be considered to be comparable to truly "new" ones? Fram (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't translate articles for Wikipedia, but I have a long experience in translation work. I do think that a well-translated and sourced article should count as a new one. It is, after all, a net addition to the coverage of the English Wikipedia and certainly provides new content in that context. Yazan (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I often import articles from public domain sources (in English). They are also a "net addition" and "new content", but I doubt they would be accepted. Fram (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I probably would have accepted them, try it next time ;) - one discussion found, August, I remember a longer one but it may have been longer ago than I thought, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Copying and pasting PD content is not analogous to "translating" an article. A better analogy would probably be "machine translation" of an article. There is indeed a substantial effort that goes into a proper translation (often requiring going back to the sources to capture the context). Yazan (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The translation itself may be the easiest step. Foreign-language articles often have little or no sourcing. The translation gives a starting point, but then there is the job of finding sources, ensuring that the article accurately reflects them and cutting out stuff that cannot be verified. Sometimes it would have been easier to start from scratch. But is DYK a reward system for editors, where they have to work hard to qualify? I see it more as a random selection of acceptable quality new articles for readers. Some may have been thrown off quickly and others took a lot more effort. I don't think that is relevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria Rule 1f: "f) Articles that are translations from other wikis count as new articles." Harrias talk 17:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Stupid rule, but so be it, there are other problems with DYK that are a lot more alarming than this one. Fram (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a stupid rule, as it gives an incentive to translate articles. Machine translations can be very misleading. Moonraker (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly. As explained above, doing a proper translation takes a similar amount of time as writing from scratch. Verification, wording... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's agree to disagree. You don't have to do the research anymore, only the verification. This can be a lot of work, but in general less so than writing from scratch. In the article here, even the sources were already given, you only had to match the source to the fact. I have done both, translated articles and new articles, and the latter are a lot more work in my experience. Fram (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Nominate two hooks from the same article within 5 days?

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Let's assume there's an article that's less than 5 days old. It appeared on the main page but was recently slightly expanded to include new, interesting information. Would it be possible to nominate it again, with a different hook, while it still meets the newness criterium? Surtsicna (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, articles can only appear on the main page once. Ryan Vesey 00:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that. I suppose it should be listed among the rules - at least I don't recall seeing it there. Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll correct my statement slightly. An article can be on the main page twice, it can be a DYK and then can appear as today's featured article. The DYK rules don't explicitly say an article can't be DYK twice; however, it does exclude articles that have been featured in ITN. Even if not explicitly stated, this sentiment must apply to DYK as well. Ryan Vesey 00:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It is stated explicitly in the supplementary guidelines: "D1: Items that have been on DYK before (pre-expansion, for example) are ineligible." Yazan (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, thank you. I knew it would be there somewhere. Ryan Vesey 01:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I too expected to find that rule somewhere and checked everything except the supplementary guidelines. Thank you both! Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How do I count the number of characters in an article?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I am trying to achieve the 5x status for Sky city, and I am not where where exactly do I stand on it. Is the article expanded enough, or how much more does it need to be expanded? Based on the byte count, it looks that its expanded 5x since September 29 2012. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You might find DYKcheck a useful tool going forward. It will calculate the expansion, and post a message at the top of the article saying whether or not it met the 5X. You can use it with or without loading it onto your left-hand Toolbox. If you have it in your Toolbox, all you have to do is pull up an article and go over to the Toolbox and click DYK check and let it do its magic.— Maile (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
On the 8th Dec it had 4900 characters and it now has 6,400 characters. So roughly you need about nine times more than you have added recently. This is a tricky task on an article that is already of some size. Victuallers (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there's been a histmerge and a userspace version of the article moved to overwrite the article on December 8, which confuses things, including (I believe) in DYKcheck; DYKcheck will give you the proper size, but it may not give you a valid 5x reading. Yazan measured the pre-merge existing article at 2263 prose characters on December 2 (based on the final edit on November 30), which is the one definitive number we have. Using that as a base, before the article/history merge on December 8, that means a total of 11315 prose characters minimum; I'm not experienced with history merges, and don't know what edits in the interval were on the new version of the article in user space and which were on the article space version. However, since the new text is added in article space, the clock is ticking: you need to nominate no later than December 13, and DYKcheck currently gives the number of prose characters as 8382, indicating approximately 3000 more to go, but that number may be higher if someone determines that there were extra additions to the main article between November 30 and December 5 (the December 7 edit was only to references, and thus won't add to the prose count). If you're still a little short, nominate anyway, and add the additional needed characters in the days immediately following. (Note: the expansion must happen in five days, so September 29 is completely irrelevant; it's what's happened since the expansion started on December 8 that counts.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, well, under less complicated circumstances, DYK Check is a time saver. But this case takes some doing.— Maile (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Out-of-order queue promotion and associated problems

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

It looks to me that User:Mifter promoted Prep 1 to Queue 6, even though Prep 4 was ahead of it in line. This is awkward because the Prep 4 will now run at a later time, and some of its hooks will run overnight for local readers; a similar problem occurs with Prep 1, which is now scheduled to run earlier. It's also problematic because Prep 1 is still in the queue.

Can an admin make it so that the contents of Queue 6 are placed in Queue 1, and Prep 4 properly promoted to Queue 6 where it belongs? That would be best.

I also noticed that Mifter was the person who put together Prep 1 in the first place, and so promoted a self-assembled set. Shouldn't we be making sure that different people do the set building and the set promoting of an individual set, just as we make sure that the person who approves a hook isn't the same one who inserts that hook into a prep set? Our checks and balances break down if the same person does the two major promotions. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Prep 4 has been promoted to Queue 6. I have left Prep 1 unpromoted at this time. Looking through Mifter's edit history, there are a number of details I do not fully understand, so it is probably best to allow DYK regulars some additional time to look over the set before promoting it to the Queues. --Allen3 talk 00:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone, my apologies for promoting the Prep 1 out of order (I've been away from DYK for quite a while and things have been changed up quite a bit (for the better I might add :)). Including having the Preps in an order of promotion similarly to the queues). Also, the idea of having a different person arrange the hooks in a prep and then promote them to a queue is a great idea but also one that has changed from when I was last here (when there was a bit of a shortage of DYK volunteers) so again my apologies for my mistake. I think I've managed to figure out the rest of the changes with the hook evaluation system (whoever came up with the idea of separate pages for noms instead of just lumping them on T:TDYK did a great job with its implementation), but if there are any other changes to the unwritten rules of DYK I've missed, I'd be happy to hear them :). Allen, if you have any questions about why or how I did something, feel free to ask here or my talk page and I'll be happy to explain. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Great to have you back, Mifter. I did notice one unnecessary thing you were doing along the way, which was deleting each promoted template from the T:TDYK page. You don't need to do this: once the template is promoted (or rejected), it automatically stops being shown on the page ... and automatically reappears if for any reason that hook needs to be unpromoted due to subsequently discovered problems. We delete an entire day and its templates from the page only when they have all been promoted and/or rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome and update :). Best, Mifter (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

IADYKR: Ignore All DYK Rules

Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

I think we should allow articles that were transmogrified from dung to pearls. Case in point, St Marys Church, Clophill. It was a piece of crap, and after cleanup and intervention, and some hip expansion and sourcing by Uncle G, it is now a pretty groovy piece of work. Note that except for a few sentences here and there everything has been rewritten, with bad old links thrown out and new sources added. TY, Drmies (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  •   Like There are times where there are great improvements to articles that will never meet the DYK criteria. While DYK showcases new content, there are some situations where the improvement is so great we shouldn't care. Ryan Vesey 00:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to ask whether we can also apply the IAR concept to Notre Dame Cathedral (Phnom Penh). It was an incoherent translation off the French version (678 characters) and now everything has been revamped with reliable sources and not a single bit kept from the old version. However, it's now 3,079 characters long (less than 10% short of the 3,390 needed). I've searched through all the sources on Google Books and News archives and I couldn't find anything else to add. Could we please make an exception here? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pandora's box... Yazan (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
After thinking this further; it's become quite clear why we have A4.
  • A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it was up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article. Twofold expansion for newly sourced BLPs similarly means from the version prior to the expansion and addition of sources.
I've (regretfully) had to rejected the nomination, and I've explained my rationale there. If another DYK editor decides to IAR, I won't have any objections though. It is indeed a quality article, and it would make a great main page material; I simply think the adverse effect on DYK's process would be far greater than the good. Yazan (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I respect your judgment; to each their own. I do have to point out that both articles are under similar circumstances—completely revamped, new reliable sources added and no old text from the previous version. The only difference is the scope of the expansion—St Marys Church, Clophill was expanded 1.42×, while the article I cleaned-up was expanded 4.54×. I find it strange that we accept the 1.54× article and not the 4.54× one. In my opinion, there are three paths from here. We should either accept both articles, neither or the article with the larger expansion. Choosing to accept the smaller expansion article and rejecting the larger expansion would set a really bad precedent demonstrating wrong approach. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Bloom6132, you seem to have misunderstood my reply as specifically to you (perhaps because of the indent). My reply was to the discussion in general, and my comments were actually posted at the nomination page for St Marys Church, Clophill where I rejected the article for those reasons. Yazan (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
D'Oh! Sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for clearing things up for me. It hadn't crossed my mind to check the nomination page of the other article. Don't worry, I didn't take your comments personally; I assumed it was for anyone reading this discussion thread who would be supporting/opposing the article. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, Bloom's cathedral now has enough material to be eligible. Sky City is obviously a different case: one can truly speak of expansion there, since the old text is retained. In our case, St Marys Church is rewritten from scratch, hence the appeal to forgo A4. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


Does Sky City - current version here: User:TheOriginalSoni/Sky city also fall under similar circumstances? The article looks well written as of now, only it does not meet the 5x criteria. A review by editors shall make it a perfect DYK hook. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
To requested a history merge, go to WP:REPAIR. --George Ho (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The old article has roughly 2300 characters, the new one roughly 5100. Moreover, the older version is decently written and well-verified, and for the most part (if not practically completely) retained in the new version. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone say if the article looks good and long enough to try to be put up for DYK nomination, with the size as an exception considering the 'hookiness' of the hook? Or is there some speicific portion of the article that needs to be worked upon? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The article as you've revised it simply isn't long enough, by a wide margin, to count as a 5x expansion, which is required here. "Hookiness" is not a valid exception. What is required is a large amount of additional prose. Sometimes an article starts out with too much material to make it feasible to expand it for DYK; this seems to be one of those cases. As noted by Drmies, the article as it stands now is adequately written and well-verified: yours is a definite improvement, but not a sufficient expansion. There are so many articles that fall short on their expansion that have not been approved for DYK that I don't see why an exception should be made in this case. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
BlouMoonset, have a look at St Marys Church. It's at 12,500 characters now. I can't accept that "starting from scratch" is taken to be the same as "expanded"; it clearly is not. A blind man can see that the first version isn't an encyclopedic article; it's a piece of shit that two idiots were edit-warring over to try and insert or remove some nonsense about ghostes. The article right now wouldn't fare badly as a GAN, esp. since Ning-ning and Martinevans123 have made significant contributions, and those are editors we should be glad to have as contributors to one of your articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hook needs tweaking

Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

"...... that Anantashayana Vishnu (pictured) is the largest such exposed rock cut structure in the horizontal position measuring 15.4 metres (51 ft) in length, in the whole of India?" (currently in Prep 2) needs tweaking. What is the "such" doing there? Isn't something like "[...]is the largest horizontal exposed rock cut structure, measuring[...]" better? Or is it only the largest such image of the Hindu god Vishnu? If so, then that information needs to be added to the hook. As it stands, it doesn't really make sense. Any suggestion and improvements welcome!

Looking further, the article needs some improvements as well. Source 4 doesn't seem to include the information it is supposed to reference, this comes instead from source 1 (source 4 is a touristic website, not a very reliable source anyway). The thickness of the sculpture is given there as 0.2 metres, not 0.7 metres though. But the hook is the thing that needs action first. Fram (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if it needs removing back to the suggestions stage while the hook is rewritten. Assuming the article lead is correct, the hook certainly needs to contain the word 'Vishnu'. I'd do it myself but I can't find the page it's come from; I don't know if it's my lack of understanding of the new system but it doesn't seem to be listed under the approved hooks category? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the Template: Anantashayana Vishnu. The hook source is Ref 1, the PDF source. At the bottom of Page 1 on that source, under "Note:", it says, "It is the largest image of its kind in reclining posture in the entire length and breadth of the country..." The source spells Vishnu without the "h", as Visnu. The hook is in the lead of the article, but not in the body text itself.— Maile (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you agree that the hook needs tweaking, and do you have any suggestions as to what would be a better formulation for the hook? Fram (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe in a different way than you do, if I understand what you were saying at the beginning. To my way of thinking, "largest such exposed rock cut sculpture" and "largest image of its kind" are somewhat interchangeable. The source does not say it's the largest such image of Vishnu. Ref 3 mentions two other smaller "such images", one standing and one sleeping. But, again, the source text that is visible does not say it's the largest image of Vishnu. If it's the largest image of Vishnu, then the author needs to make the sourcing online for that. I think the tweaking could be in removing the measurements from the hook. Seems unnecessary and maybe clunky. — Maile (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the hook to the suggestions phase so the wording can be discussed without time limitations. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Maile, what I mean is that the hook references a "such" (copied from the lead of the article) without any referent in the hook. Fram (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, yeah, I understand now. And it needs to be reworded. — Maile (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, dear. Maybe somebody could double check me on the template. I think it's not eligible (yet) on the expansion size. This was a 2010 article that was 811 characters before expansion. It currently has 2,755 characters. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You're right. It needs 4,055 prose characters, or 1,300 more, to qualify as a 5x expansion. This is not a BLP, so it clearly doesn't qualify under the 2x exception. Looks like Dr. Blofeld didn't do a good job checking, and I didn't do a good job double-checking when I promoted it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Not specifically referencing this article, but there seem to have been many hooks making it to queues/prep areas with grammatical errors, typos, over 200 characters, or where there are clear problems with the article, or other things that should be checked by the person who promotes the hook. Particularly when the quid pro quo system is so open to abuse or inadequate drive-by or hurried reviews, the person who promotes hooks needs to be hyper-careful to give everything a sanity check. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Could it be time for us to rethink of redesigning the system itself? I am very much in favour of increasing the standards for hooks and articles slightly more by diluting a bit on the 5x rule [Maybe a nx rule, where n depends on current no of characters?] Would this lead to better DYK hooks or not?TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's anything to do with the n-fold expansion rule. I'm sure when I was reviewing DYK regularly (many years back now), although the system was far more informal and things did slip through the cracks, we used to be more rigorous about quality of hook and (usually) quality of article. I suspect far more items overall got rejected. If there aren't enough quality items to fill at the current frequency, we can always drop back a bit. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair point. Rigorousness in our reviews can also achieve the same goals. Then QPQ needs to go perhaps? Only voluntary reviews can be made, with maybe tighter nomination regulations?
Does anybody else share my concern that the DYK hooks, to a reader, have become plain boring? Interesting ones are way too likely to be noticed by a potential editor TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I admit I was flabbergasted on coming back to DYK after a long wikibreak when I gathered what QPQ actually meant. I haven't found the discussion that led to its introduction (and perhaps the problems that it was meant to deal with were serious), but it seems to me fraught with potential problems. Also, there seems to be a culture of Write New 1500 Character StubArticle/Expand Stub Four and a BitFive-fold == Get DYK Credit, with no regard for the quality or general interest of the article, or the interest of the hook. Which is not to say there hasn't always been such a culture, but there were generally robust DYK-experienced reviewers to push back. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I can take a fair guess as to why QPQ was introduced - Imagine there being barely enough hooks to be published, while nearly 100 are waiting for reviews and there are just not enough reviewers (Being a reviewer is more boring than nominator). And every day 10+ entries get added by enthusiastic nominators. I imagine it must be quite obvious to introduce QPQ rather than have DYK collapse completely. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Provinces of Laos

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Provinces of Laos. We have a 17 article feature which will take me past 1000 DYKs. However only 8 or so articles are showing, can somebody amend it and the template to allow up to 20 articles maybe?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I have amended Template:DYK nompage links to support 20. If this breaks anything or slows down the Wiki too much feel free to revert. There will be 1000s of transclusions for it to sort out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_88&oldid=1148048711"