Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 94

Archive 90

←

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

→

Archive 100

Robert Alexander Early

Tagged with "[original research]"... This shouldn't be in the queue yet until that is fixed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hook swapped and nomination for the Early article has been returned to Template talk:Did you know. --Allen3 ^talk 14:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Romulus (donkey)

This article was created 23 May, listed under 5 Jun, and nom'd 14 Jun, by a user who's only edited this article. Totally newbie. I feel sorry for the guy (look at the format of the nom), and submit to the community how to handle this one. I love the donkey photo.PumpkinSky talk 00:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It was moved from Articles for Creation on 8 June, so it qualifies. Got it to 1600 characters (padded the bonkers out of it though). Creator/nominator may have a COI. Leave it up to DYK if it will be run (cute donkey :). Froggerlaura ^ribbit 02:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

And... it was reverted back to the 900 character stub. Sheesh. Let it go. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 05:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

what is the reason for supplementary rule D1?

An article cannot appear as DYK twice. Why? I didn't read the supplementary rules, and fell into the trap at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Aleeta_curvicosta. I went for a 25x expansion (hard work) because I thought of a fun hook for an article I was improving. It last appeared almost four years ago. But now that I know about the rule, I am wondering what the purpose is:

• is it considered that this makes dyk gameable? how?
• are you worried that readers a will see the same thing twice and get bored? how long do you think they remember a dyk?
• are you worried that this would flood dyk with repeats?

--99of9 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The primary reason for D1 is to prevent gaming the system into having an article receive multiple appearances in a relatively short time (several weeks or months). One of the underlying principles of DYK is that submitted articles should be functional and relatively complete. Without the rule it would be possible for a person with a sizable amount of referenced material to essentially write three articles (one at just over 1500 characters, one and just over 7500, and then the relatively complete article with over 37,500 characters) and submit each instance for a separate DYK.

There have been a small number of articles that have appeared more than once, but in every instance I can (partially) remember the instances have occurred years apart and involved different authors. IMHO, the recent 5x expansion and ~4 year time period since the article first appeared suggest an IAR exception may be appropriate. The one thing that holds me back is that one of the authors involved with the expansion was the person who submitted the initial DYK. --Allen3 ^talk 23:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to User:Casliber, it was me driving the dyk, he is going for GA. See User_talk:Casliber#Floury_Baker_request. I guess he had read the rules! --99of9 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• • This is certainly a nice expansion (and a very good image), but I wanted to make sure that this article's former appearance on DYK was discussed as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I too would be prepared to make an exception under IAR. It was run four years ago, there is no gaming of the system, and the article has been substantially improved, which is the objective of the 5x expansion rule. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • This seems to be a suitable application of IAR.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment- I honestly don't think the reason for limiting articles to 1 DYK appearance is about "game-ability" but rather fairness and giving new articles a chance to make it to the main page. There is a very finite amount of real estate in DYK and we are never at a shortage of hooks vying for that limited space. How fair is it to other editors and other articles to "re-use" old DYKs? If we were running short on hooks I could see an IAR argument but we have 169 potential articles that have never been on DYK before waiting to be featured. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd have to agree. I would be willing to consider letting articles have more than 1 appearance on a case-by-case basis - the case above seems like a compelling one - but I don't think it's something that we should do as a matter of course. Prioryman (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ignore all rules? No thanks, not at DYK, where stretching the rules is a routine hobby for some editors. I say this should not be re-run, and that supplementary rule D1 should be reframed for tightly worded exceptions if that is seen to be necessary. Tony (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Right Tony, not shouting you a coffee next time we hang out I'm not fussed. I am happy to leave it if the consensus is to not use it. Been busy and not been on my radar....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Coffee? Cas, no, I want beer. Tony (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a great article and worth taking up to GA but like I said in my comment above, I don't think it is fair to other editors and other articles to invoke IAR in order to re-use an old DYK. Main Page is very scarce real estate and I would rather invoke an IAR to give a new article a chance to be on the main page for the first time. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Per Agne. a 5yr old DYK appearance is enough to invoke IAR here and showcase a vastly improved article. PumpkinSky talk 13:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Yemen

Was sadly pulled from hook. I see no problems with the wording. No COI, neutral enough. Can I have a second set of eyes please? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

From the article: "Law enforcement in the country is said to be lousy, and both the police and the government in Yemen are deemed to be unworthy of trust.[1] Very often do law enforcers in the country abuse their authority to allow others to evade tax or get away with minor or major offences, provided some paper certificates are exchanged for the favour.[9][10] Corruption in the country burns a big hole in the government's pocket.[9]" This does not strike me as neutral or encyclopedic text. This article has no place on the main page in its current form, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Queues empty, preps full, again

Pls....PumpkinSky talk 11:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Allen3 moved 4. Thanks!PumpkinSky talk 13:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Crime in <country> articles

A spate of these articles have recently been created by a particular user, I am seeing multiple problems in most of them including poor organization, inappropriate prose and threadbare content. Articles of this type need sensitive treatment and a reasonable degree of comprehensiveness which they currently lack. I suggest therefore that none of these articles be promoted until the issues are resolved. In the meantime I would encourage some of our more skilled and experienced DYKers to put some work into these articles to help bring them up to an appropriate standard. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I note that some seem to be taken, in whole or part, from related articles. Case in point: Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• As an example (and as noted above), Crime in Yemen has recently been pulled from a queue (nomination here) and contains the following:

Law enforcement in the country is said to be lousy, and both the police and the government in Yemen are deemed to be unworthy of trust.[1] Very often do law enforcers in the country abuse their authority to allow others to evade tax or get away with minor or major offences, provided some paper certificates are exchanged for the favour.[9][10] Corruption in the country burns a big hole in the government's pocket.[9]

This text is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. It speaks in broad generalities (police and government unworthy of trust, abuse of authority occurring very often) which is not fair to honest members of Yemen's law enforcement community, nor is it balanced text as required by NPOV. Colloquial language (corruption burns a big hole in the government's pocket) is also inappropriate. The article is illustrated with the seal of the U.S. State Department. (!) Basically, this article has no place on the main page in its current form, in my opinion. Yet, the submitter sees no problem, it was passed for a main page appearance, and it was promoted to a queue. To me, this case suggests problems beyond merely a series of articles not ready for a DYK tick. EdChem (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Looking more carefully, these "Crime in XXX" articles have been reviewed and / or promoted by several editors, yet none have noted that rule D7 states that "There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress" and that "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected." These articles address crimes against foreigners, prostitution, and corruption (briefly), but no other topics. What about something on the criminal justice system and typical sentences, crimes against citizens, rates of violent / property / drug-related / other crimes, and the crime / terrorism links (if any)? Is there information on the "typical" criminals? Are alcohol use, homosexual activity, and public displays of affection criminalised? Is the criminal law based in secular or religious principles? These are just a few issues that occur to me as relevant to a "Crime in XXX" article, and whilst DYKs are new articles and not GAs, taking on a topic as broad as crime in a whole country still requires an article that appears complete and deals adequately with the topic. I am concerned that several reviewers have not recognised / noted both the NPOV and comprehensiveness issues in these articles - not to mention the copyright and length issues raised by Crisco 1492. I agree with Gatoclass that this series of articles be held from approval pending comprehensive improvements. EdChem (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with these comments. I also noticed at least one hook which bothered me to say the least: "... that Sri Lanka (police cars pictured) is cited as "one of the most corrupt nations in the world"?" Even if the factoid were accurate, which I haven't reviewed, the statement is callous. I stumbled upon the article shortly after it was created and added a bit to it myself, but as it stands, the article needs work and the nom needs an ALT. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are very much in line with my own views on these articles Ed, and yes, I agree that they need more comprehensive treatment and better organization before they should be accepted for main page exposure. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I will notify User:Bonkers The Clown so that he has an opportunity to review these comments. He has become a prolific editor and I want him to understand that his work is valued... just needs a bit more attention. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Noted in WP:ERRORS

This listing where it was stated that North Koreans "got too hungry" made it all the way to the main page. Is this really the kind of hook we agree to and publish on our main page with reference to starving people? Thankfully it was fixed soon after the issue was raised at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Was it me who suggested that hook? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

TRM is correct, a hook that describes the North Korean famine in which at least 250 000 (and maybe more than 3 000 000) people starvged to death as North Koreans getting "too hungry" should never have been given a tick, let alone been promoted to a queue. Simply put, this hook is offensive. Surely we need to look at reviewing standards when mistakes like this happen and it is not just a single inexperienced editor making errors. EdChem (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

please restore link

It seems that the link for 'big rubber duck' was inadvertently removed before the blurbs were moved from the prep area (currently in queue 1). Unless there's some good reason why it should not be linked, could someone restore it please before it goes live? Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Y Done. Harrias ^talk 07:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Need to Edit a DYK? Hook

Hello,

I have just noticed that the hook for Leni Yahil here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue/3 -- needs to have a space between the words "advocated" and "a". Can someone please fix this as soon as possible? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Y Done. Harrias ^talk 07:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I really and sincerely appreciate it. Futurist110 (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar-stuff on the home page

Why is it that Gibraltar is still being promoted by Wikipedia? Koehler Depressing Carriage on the home page. It's all about Gibraltar. Could we please implement a moratorium on Gibraltar? No Gibraltar content on the home page until we are sure that the corruption has had time to pass. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is the start of another workweek so it must be time for opponents of the "G-word" to once again pummel equine corpses. Attempts to place either draconian restrictions or an outright ban on anything even remotely related to Gibraltar have been repeatedly made (you last asked for additional restrictions on May 12, 2013). Despite the repeated attempts there has never been consensus to impose restrictions more stringent than those already in place. Instead of tenaciously repeating the same set of proposals, have you considered the benifits of dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass? --Allen3 ^talk 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this on the main page. But there's a cite error on the article, and I would fix it, but I don't understand the sourcing method on that one. Maybe someone else here can do a quick fix.— Maile (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem was recognized at the end of 2012, and restrictions were put in place. Since then it's been "business as usual" with frequent Gibraltar advertising on the home page. I'll keep mentioning this until the problem is solved. Gibraltar is a tiny country of relative insignificance. Why is Wikipedia continuing to allow itself to be manipulated by clever marketers associated with Gibraltar tourism promotion? It's become a test of wills where the corrupted editors insist they have done nothing wrong, and to prove their WP:POINT, they keep festooning our home page with Gibraltar-stuff. Enough already. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is a place to feature Wikipedia's newest quality content. Who cares if Gibraltar or Podunk, New York are featured regularly if there are editors interested in creating and improving related articles. Grsz 11 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I asked this on Jimbo's talk page as well, but as you seem intent on shopping it in multiple places... How many Gibraltar-related DYKs have there been this year? How does that compare to some other topics? Baseball players? Actors? Military personnel? Resolute 18:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, when I read Jehochman's comments I was strongly reminded of the immortal words of Buzz Lightyear, Space Ranger. Let's recap. The article hook doesn't even mention Gibraltar. That's because the article is about an item of military technology, not Gibraltar. You wouldn't even know it related to Gibraltar unless you clicked through to it. (Is Jehochman now clicking through every DYK to make sure it's not Gibraltar-related? Because that really would be sad, strange behaviour.) The article is completely uncontentious. It's gone through the usual two reviews as required by the current restrictions and there's no conceivable NPOV, COI or promotional issue with it. Nor is there any issue with excessive frequencies of Gibraltar-related DYKs – we have had just six in the last three months. Jehochman has just come away from an epic beating at RFAR (see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#July 13) and appears to have learned absolutely nothing from it. It's long past time he recognised that community consensus is very strongly against him and to stop the chronic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour on this topic which, quite honestly, is very unfitting for an admin. Prioryman (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Jehochman, since you're obviously intending to not only continue beating the dead horse but to continue until it's a bloody paste on the floor (and walls and ceiling, no doubt), let's get this out of the way: Fortifications of Gibraltar (a GA candidate, by the way) and Lines of Contravallation of Gibraltar are due to run in the near future, and I would expect there to be a couple more nominations before the end of the month. If you're going to complain, please do it now so that we can get it out of the way and get back to doing more useful things than reading your dead-ender rants. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. I just can't escape this nagging thought that in the hot gambling spots of the world, bookmakers are giving odds on how many times in one week somebody can complain about any subject matter getting too much DYK mention. Gibraltar would be top odds on that one, but there are others. The odds are just too good for somebody not running bets on this. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't comment about that, but it would be crazy to suggest that Gibraltar's getting too much attention. There were only five DYKs on the subject between March and May this year, out of about 2,000 DYKs. Jehochman only thinks there's too many because he thinks the appropriate number would be zero, which virtually nobody else thinks is reasonable or necessary. Prioryman (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been three Gibraltar hooks this month already. Three more Gibraltar articles are waiting in the wings, to appear over the coming days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Gibraltar-related_articles Andreas JN466 19:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the appropriate response is so what? It's basically just you two dead-enders who are objecting. Give it up and go and do something more useful. Prioryman (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar is a spot measuring 6.8 sq km, with a population of less than 30,000. It's simply overexposed on the main page, mate. (A main page which gets roughly ten million views a day.) We're basically getting back to the levels we had last year, when the Gibraltarpedia competition was in full swing. And that "restriction" of one a day was a complete joke, given that Gibraltar never had one DYK a day to begin with. Why don't you do something more useful, like writing about something else than Gibraltar? Andreas JN466 00:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is not closed. Can anybody tell me why this tiny spot of relative insignificance should appear on the home page of Wikipedia with much, much, much more frequency than other topics of similar obscurity? Why Gibraltar? Could it be that their tourism board has PAID for this exposure? To me it looks like corruption, and I will keep raising this concern until it has been addressed. The small group of editors who hang around DYK are not necessarily representative of the wider Wikipedia community. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:TFAR, bottom section. The "wider" community. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Evidently, Jehochman, neither are you. Resolute 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I unclosed the discussion. This was a not a good close, at all, and the editor who closed the discussion should calm down. Discussions are usually closed when they are resolved. I don't see that here. The editors close reason was also not good:

"Closing to end the drama on what will inevitably end in WP:SNOW territory. Two vocal individuals have not, do not, and will not make a consensus, so let's drop the stick, back slowly away from the horse carcass, and try again in six months if you still perceive a problem.

Some problems with this are:

• Characterizing the discussion as "drama". This is not helpful or kind. There is such a thing as drama, but it is involves personal attacks and so forth. Discussion among editors about reasonable points of disagreement is not drama. It is how we get things done around here. References to dead horses and so forth are insulting and not helpful. The editor should not say things like that if it is possible to avoid doing so.
• Citing WP:SNOW is usually called for only in un-contentious situations, where it's simply easier to bypass normal process to save time, since there isn't and clearly won't be any opposition to moving forward. If a SNOW is contested by any reasonable person, that is almost proof that it was a bad SNOW. WP:SNOW is not equivalent to WP:SHUT UP. If the editor wished to close the discussion simply because he finds it personally tiresome (which would not be a good reason for a close), he should say so.
• The editor is free to ignore and discontinue participating in the discussion if he so wishes. The editor is not empowered to force all other editors to ignore and discontinue participating in the discussion if they don't so wish. Hopefully the editor, on reflection, will understand the difference and concede this point. Herostratus (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I could not disagree more with your reasoning. Closing unnecessary and unproductive discussions where the outcome is not in doubt is productive in and of itself. This is usually best done on ANI, but it can also be very helpful in limited circumstances on other pages ... like this one, where we have two admittedly vocal editors pushing for a resolution that is resoundingly opposed, both here and [://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=559463941#July_13 on TFAR], by the wider community. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I understand your point, but still. Being "admittedly vocal" is not necessarily a bad thing. It's clear (from comments in venues like Jimbo's talk page) that the matter is genuinely contentious, by more than a couple of malcontents. Consensus may change over time and that's what these guys are trying to do. I don't think it's effective and I wouldn't go on and on about it myself (although if it was up to me, I'd also cool it on featuring Gibraltar articles for a good while), and I understand it can be annoying, but it's the sort of thing that it's best to put up with (rolling your eyes privately to yourself is OK) rather than trying to shut down, especially untactfully. The simple fact is this: if the DYK folks are going to continue to feature Gibraltar articles, they're going to have people mad about that, and so they might as well get used to the flak. It'll be good desensitivation training for when and if shit gets real -- that is, for when the DYK's being pushed through are not for a relatively benign entity like the Territory of Gibraltar, but for Exxon-Mobile or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or whomever. Herostratus (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
      • While it's certainly true that consensus can change, it's been, what, maybe a month since the last discussion? Combine that with a related discussion getting shot down 29-3, and what we have is simple: two pointy posters attempting to disrupt a project. I'm no large fan of DYK; I think that subpar articles get promoted and boring hooks lacking in all context are put on our most visible page. However, it's not okay to pointedly disrupt it. As for Gibraltar vs. Exxon-Mobile, that's apples to oranges, and it's entirely ridiculous to allow this to continue just so DYK people can be desensitized to controversy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As to the merits of the case, a couple things seem clear to me, in my opinion:

1. We should probably not have more Gibraltar stuff on the main page for awhile.
2. We will.

We will because there's no mechanism for stopping it, absent consensus to do so, and consensus for anything is hard to achieve here. I don't know if, community-wide, there'd be a supermajority in favor of publishing more Gibraltar stuff (my guess would be not), but there certainly isn't a supermajority against it.

We shouldn't do it though because, any other expressed reasons (corruption, potential bad press, perversion of intent of DYK, corrosion of volunteer ethos here, and so on) aside, it is controversial to do it. It makes lots of editors unhappy, and those editors have expressed reasonable cause for being unhappy. It makes me unhappy. Absent some good reason, we should try to avoid doing that.

Because we certainly will continue to feature Gibraltar on the main page, Prioryman makes a fair point in saying "It's basically just you two dead-enders who are objecting. Give it up and go and do something more useful". Obviously it would better if Prioryman expressed himself in a less rude and hurtful way, but the basic point -- there's really no possibility of preventing more Gibraltar DYK's, so at some point it'd be wise to just let it go -- is reasonable.

As a counterpoint, there are times when its called for to keep pointing out a problem if one sees it. I personally find the Gibraltar DYK's annoying but not worth fruitlessly bitching about forever. For my part, I'm going to wait until we get a plethora of DYK's on, say, Exxon-Mobile's various programs and initiatives for environmental stewardship, clean alternative energy, third-world debt relief, global democracy, and so forth (I suppose we'll be seeing that sort of thing eventually), and I'll have more to say then on the general issue of promotional DYK's. Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that every argument that has been offered for a moratorium is utterly false. Nobody is paying for DYKs. Nobody is being paid for writing DYKs. Nobody writing any of them has any conflict of interest. The frequency of these DYKs is very low - 8 in the last 4 months, out of some 3,000 DYKs that have run in that period. None of the articles is promotional in any way. None of them are controversial. They are clearly attracting public interest (Neanderthals of Gibraltar - 24,383 page views; Koehler Depressing Carriage - 16,405). The topic is of significant historical interest. There is no need whatsoever for anyone to find these DYKs "annoying", and quite honestly it's clear that the community's patience has been exhausted with the people who keep complaining about this - the dead-enders that I mentioned. Whatever the original issues with Gibraltarpedia were, there's clearly no justification for continuing to harangue and attack editors. It's time this ended once and for all. Prioryman (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic skew needs to be controlled, urgently

It's not just that Gibraltar-related topics have a bad smell of COI, whether deserved on not; it's that the DYK insiders—and others we may or may not know who like to join the ride from time to time—indulge themselves with regular repeats of articles on similar topics. As a reult, DYK's extraordinarily privileged spot on the main page represents a weirdly skewed sample of human knowledge. How many Bach cantata articles should appear over any three-month period? Not more than one, I say; but it's been a torrent. Gibralter-related articles should be limited to one every three months, I believe. Tony (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I notice that today's featured article is a fungus - Fomitiporia ellipsoidea. We've had a fungal FA almost every month this year (Verpa bohemica, Amanita muscaria, Inocybe saliceticola, Phallus indusiatus). Stop the rot, eh? And the other FAs seem to be quite formulaic: 7 birds, 5 hurricanes, 5 pilots, 5 videogames, 4 warships, &c. But very little hard science, apart from all the species. It's natural for these processes to follow a path of least resistance but the result seems to be systemic bias. DYK has a healthy focus upon novel topics which provide unusual hooks. I'm doing my bit and I see that Surfers Paradise Meter Maids has just gone up... Warden (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • @Colonel Warden:, you're going completely off-topic complaining about TFA here rather than bringing your complaint to a TFA page, but fortunately this is on my watchlist. As TFA delegate, I can only schedule actual FAs that people write and that haven't yet appeared on the main page, not hypothetical FAs that have yet to be written. See the list at WP:FANMP for yourself: 65 hurricane articles, 73 video game articles, 67 warfare biographies, 89 warfare matériel articles (mostly warships), 38 fungi articles, 46 bird articles (not including extinct birds). And let's not start counting the TV episodes, the US roads or the contemporary music articles. How many "hard science" articles do you see there? Nothing left under chemistry and mineralogy; 1 engineer's biography that I'll run in a while, but can't run soon because we just had an engineer as TFA; nothing left under geology and geophysics; 2 health and medicine articles; nothing left under mathematics; nothing left under philosophy and psychology; 8 astronomy articles and Stephen Hawking (which wasn't up to standard, in the eyes of the community, when it was nominated at WP:TFAR earlier in the year, so it didn't run then). If you don't like the TFAs that are chosen, nominate some you do like at TFAR, or better still, write them! Bencherlite^Talk 11:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • And it would be great to give preference to FAs with a useable picture. I don't like TFAs that comprise just grey text. Colonel Warden, once a month is quite a bit less skewed that the waterfalls of articles on Gibraltar and other themes we've had at DYK. Tony (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)�
      • Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#New guideline: Home page diversity (a discussion just started by Jehochman) and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Request for comment - images in TFA blurbs (an RFC I started last month) may interest Tony/Warden, then. I suggest further discussion of TFAs takes place there. Bencherlite^Talk 11:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflicts) I have no complaints about Bencherlite who seems to do a good job with the material available. The issue of systemic bias seems common to both FA and DYK so it makes sense to compare and discuss them together. I noticed recently that there was some dispute about the list of vital articles. My impression is that that list is not well-integrated with the FA/DYK processes. How could we encourage editors to work on those instead of the current cookie-cutter topics? Warden (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Here's a picture that illustrates the Featured Article problem. Andreas JN466 13:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• I've worked on a hard science FA, Gamma ray burst and you should all feel my pain. It was a very long and difficult process. The solution may be to alert the community to specific areas that need more articles for TFA and see if we can recruit editors to work on them. If somebody started a drive on one of those articles, I could get motivated to help. If you have to run another mushroom, please make a specific note to the effect, Yes, this topic is being over-represented, but we don't have enough alternatives. Rather than complaining, please go work on X, Y or Z, and as soon as they are ready, we can run them immediately. Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • TFA is upstairs. Take the fire escape, go up three flights of stairs, and it's door marked "Roof". Now, as it happens, I have lots of scientist articles ready for FAC: mathematicians, chemists, engineers, physicists ... lots of physicists. And yes, vital articles too. So many, that they will be a constant presence at FAC for the next couple of years. If you don't feel like writing one yourself, you can help out by reviewing. There will be plenty to go around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Having a limit on how often a particular, relatively minor topic can appear on the main page in the space of three months, as outlined by Tony above, would prevent any recurrence of the type of scandal Wikipedia had with Gibraltarpedia. In addition, it would make sense to establish a rule excluding the following from eligibility for the DYK section of the main page:

• articles written for a paying client,
• articles written for sponsored contests.

Those should solve the problem. Andreas JN466 13:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two reasons why I find the Gibraltar emphasis less disturbing than the once-every-six-months Square Enix software articles.

• 1) A DYK is about 1/10 the space of a featured ad article, and appears for 1/4 the time. That means you'd have to run 40 Gibraltar DYKs in a six-month period to rival the advertising impact of Square Enix, and that's not even taking the above-the-fold factor into consideration!
• 2) Gibraltar is a part of a country. We recognize that some countries are covered more than others because we get more people from them who want to edit. We have better coverage of England than we do of Iran. It is biased, yes, but it is not necessarily a commercial I-get-paid-for-this bias. It is entirely possible that simply putting up a bunch of Wikipedia plaques makes people look at the articles more and edit more. By contrast, the work done by the "fans" of Square Enix from their own company-specific Wikiproject specifically enriches one particular company by featuring their current products.

Until such time as Wikipedia can get the video game ads under control, the worrying about Gibraltar will continue to seem like straining at gnats, swallowing camels. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that with Gibraltarpedia it was proven that someone was paid, and the (presently resuming) stream of Gibraltar DYKs demonstrably dates back to Gibraltarpedia. Prove that someone gets paid for putting Square Enix articles on the main page, and I guarantee you all hell will break loose. The problem is that it is difficult to prove. It is impossible in Wikipedia to tell a sports fan writing 100+ articles on their favourite team (I forget the name now ... perhaps someone can jog my memory), and getting all of them on the main page, from a PR pro working for that team who is doing the same. In any case though, the sensible thing would be to introduce restrictions that prevent any topic – whether it is a particular sports team, town or company – from getting undue exposure on the main page, especially if there is a conceivable commercial interest being served. On the other hand, this is Wikipedia, and the people most interested in this topic are those who want to see their DYKs on the main page, and collect baubles. So you're basically fucked. Andreas JN466 23:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To give another example, in the first 13 days of this month we have had 14 DYKs on Singapore (vs. 3 on Gibraltar). Now, Singapore is a hundred times bigger than Gibraltar in terms of area, with 150 times the population, but a rate of more than one a day is realistically too much. But no doubt the person(s) writing them will turn up here shortly and complain bitterly that restrictions would mean they are being "punished" for writing about Singapore. It's nuts: it's the tail of editors' bauble-collecting (if not PR) instinct wagging the WP main page dog. Andreas JN466 23:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Jayen, there are more ways to determine relative importance that modern day borders and population statistics. One means you appear to have missed is the historical record. Modern day Singapore was not founded less than 200 years ago and the earliest recorded mentions of a settlement located on Singapore island did not occur until the third century. Compare this to Gibraltar which has a recorded history going back roughly 3,000 years and archeological evidence of settlements going back tens of thousands of years. When you consider the long-term historical significance of your two examples, it is far from clear that Gibraltar is receiving too much attention while a strong argument can be made that it is receiving too little notice. --Allen3 ^talk 23:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm On what basis, please, other than your just saying so off the top of your head? The facts are, Gibraltar is literally 2.5 sq mi (about one 100,000th) of the Iberian peninsula. There was no place called "Gibraltar" for most of those 3,000 years you mention. According to our good article on Moorish Gibraltar, the first fortified settlement in Gibraltar was established in 1160 (almost a thousand years after the oldest records for the existence of a permanent city in Singapore). If you say that "modern Singapore" was only established less than 200 years ago (as though its history began with the arrival of the British), please note that "modern Gibraltar" dates back to 1713. Until then, it was just a little corner of Spain. If you want to compare Gibraltar and Singapore, let's insert some relevant metrics here: Amazon.com, as a bookseller specialising in English-language books, lists less than 2,500 books for Gibraltar vs. over 21,500 for Singapore. I truly hope you don't think Gibraltar is more important than Singapore, or indeed the other 99.999% of the Iberian peninsula (books on Spain and Portugal number in excess of 130,000 in Amazon, more than 50 times the total for Gibraltar). If we go purely by the number of book sources available, then the roughly 100 Gibraltar hooks we have had over the past year are equivalent to 15 DYKs a day for Spain and Portugal together, and 100 hooks a day on psychology or philosophy (including more than two a day on Plato). You can criticise the metric if you will, but at least it's a metric that has some relationship to what the world out there is actually, demonstrably, interested in. Andreas JN466 01:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

All of this is moot until the basic problem is fixed, which I don't see happening, and that is, that FA, DYK, etc is limited by what is available and what is available is generated by people who naturally write about what they know and are interested in. It's fine to say "write more hard science", but who's going to do that? Not the average wikipedian.PumpkinSky talk 02:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The editors who write and self-nom are a relatively small population. Most people who write new articles don't participate in DYK (many newbies don't know their articles qualify). If we want more diversity, get more people to nominate new articles written by others (e.g. from AfC). Andreas JN466 02:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, this thread demonstrates how completely obsessed you are with Gibraltar. It isn't healthy. Frankly it also demonstrates your historical ignorance. Many sources say quite explicitly how it has played an outsized role in world history. To quote from one I've used, Edward P.F. Rose, Environmental Legacy of Military Operations: "Because of its geographical situation, Gibraltar has assumed a position of importance in world history out of all proportion to its small size." An argument based on land area and population is pretty stupid when you think about it – the City of London is famously only one square mile and has a population of under 7,500 people, a quarter that of Gibraltar, so would you claim that it is even less significant than Gibraltar?

Ach, give me a break. Gibraltar has been around since Beelzebub started the Great Flood (or at least since Hercules/Melqart ended the Messinian salinity crisis) Well, perhaps the history is hard to riddle, on account of lies, exaggerations, and the occasional playful embellishment, but sailors have apparently been navigating it since the time of Atlantis. Wnt (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be pretty obvious I don't give a toss about Gibraltar per se, and that it's the history of paid product placement on the main page, as part of a tourism promotion project, that I find fascinating, along with Wikipedia's absolute inability to put a stop it. Sure, Gibraltar has more sources about it than most other cities in the Iberian peninsula with a population of less than 30,000. But comparing it to the City of London? There's an order of magnitude more sources about the City of London than there are about Gibraltar. Yet Wikipedia has an order of magnitude more DYKs about Gibraltar than it does about the City of London. I am far less obsessed with Gibraltar than you, Prioryman. But I am really interested in the governance issues. DYK used to be about encouraging editor contributions. But it has become something completely different: a guaranteed and foolproof path for any moderately resourceful and determined editor (including paid editors) to bring a topic of their (or their client's) choosing to the repeated attention of millions of internet users. That, and the project priorities it reveals, is really interesting. Andreas JN466 14:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, as for it being a problem, is it a problem? I don't see great swathes of readers complaining that they're getting a poor service. I don't think they are getting a poor service, in fact. I think everyone recognises that this is a volunteer project where people write about what they're interested in. We shouldn't mistake the complaints of a couple of long-standing Wikipedian critics of DYK for some kind of great groundswell of opinion. Could DYK/TFA be improved? Sure. But let's not pretend that this is about anything other than Jayen466's pet obsession, Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I do see a role for repeating FAs in TFA, but there would have to be strict rules about it, such as "not less than X years since the last appearance", and a requirement for "significant housecleaning/updating", and "no TFAs without a suitable image". It would be a good way of (1) giving the TFA delegate the scope s/he needs to minimise topic skew, and would be motivating factor for editors to keep our large stock of FAs up to the FA quality standards, which I suspect is not generally happening. And we have no automatic auditing procedure beyond the negatively framed FA review system.

  But the whole rationale DYK people have set up for themselves appears to go firmly against the notion of re-runs. And DYK people scream like crazy every time there's pressure to give over just a little bit of their patch to GAs. Hello??? Tony (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Did you mean to post this somewhere else, Tony? It doesn't seem to have much relevance to the discussion above; were we discussing re-runs? Prioryman (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• You could fix the problem of subject imbalance at DYK yourself right now, with out forcing others to stop improving Wikipedia. Just create and/or expand articles of underrepresented subjects and nominate them for DYK. If you work as hard as anyone else does at improving Wikipedia articles, you can make a significant impact on the main page balance without demanding that other people stop working on article subjects that interest them. Win win! --Jayron32 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• There are loads of stubs that have never been expanded in topics not often seen here. I recently expanded two NSW National Parks which had been stubs since 2002. I was wondering whether introducing a quota per hook set of one stub older than three years of age as a starter? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Why this whiny, wacky language about "forcing others to stop improving Wikipedia"? Come again? If we tell someone that their 112th article about their sports team will not run on the main page, because we have had enough of that team on the main page, thank you, does that in any way stop them from writing that 112th article and improving Wikipedia's coverage of that team? How does a refusal to run a DYK on the main page equate in your mind to "forcing others to stop improving Wikipedia"? Andreas JN466 14:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I remember, back in the day, some people used to complain that there was too much Norway-related stuff on the MP. Topics that are nominated vary from time to time, depending on the interests, time and energy of the volunteers. It's difficult, and probably counter-productive, to try to force the volunteers to work on specific topics, while discouraging other topics based on some unknown formula. Manxruler (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think a really important point that needs to be made here is that DYK is an inclusive process. Any article that meets the requirements will be run at the first possible opportunity. The number of articles submitted on a particular topic, or even the absolute number of articles run as a whole, aren't a consideration. There is no quota, as we can throttle the flow rate up or down as needed. Currently we're running three lots of 7 articles per day. If we had more or fewer articles we could increase or decrease those numbers as we see fit. No article is excluded because some other article has been run in its place. If someone runs an article about mushrooms, that doesn't have any bearing on whether an article about nuclear physics can run. There is no fixed number of "places" to be apportioned out. There is also no causal relationship between a higher representation of articles in one topic area and a lower number from another topic. If someone nominates a mushroom article, that doesn't prevent or discourage anyone nominating an article on a different topic. Nobody is being shut out.

Now, what Tony and Jayen466 seem to be advocating is turning DYK into an exclusive process, where some articles are explicitly being shut out on the basis of some arbitrary criteria about "overrepresentation" (defined how? by who?). It would impose an arbitrary quota with the clear intention of discouraging editors from submitting new articles about particular topics. That would be a fundamental change to DYK's ethos and frankly I think it would make it a much less welcoming place for editors, without delivering any benefit for end users. Prioryman (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I would advocate another thing: that any topic found to have made it to the Wikipedia main page as a result of a client paying a Wikipedian should be banned from the main page for a period of ten years, with an announcement identifying the client and contractor released to the press. It would be a really useful deterrent, and add some welcome transparency. Andreas JN466 14:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Many good points here, one I really like is...how to get the word to non DYK regulars that their new/expanded articles qualify? Learning the total maze of wiki rules, procedures, and guide pages is very daunting. 199.112.128.5 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

To which I would add that many people are contributing passable or good new articles without going within a million miles of the DYK process, either because they don't know about it, or because (like me) they think that the whole process is so deeply flawed that they have no desire to be embarrassed by any association with it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Lists of underrepresented stub cats to investigate?

Ummm.....Category:Cheese stubs? for starters (entrees....chuckle) ....or Category:Food stubs.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe revive Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs - run a bot and see what comes up as some interesting DYK possibilities? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Duh!! Factor"

PumpkinSky above has hit the nail on the head. Wikipedia articles are written by unpaid volunteers. Even if taking into account that there is some acknowledged paid editing in Wikipedia, and some suspected paid writing nobody can prove, most editors at Wikipedia are unpaid. Now...who in their right mind is going to spend a lot of time and effort to put together a passable quality article about something they don't give a flying flip about? If nobody is paying you to do it, why would you put out the effort for something you don't know about and don't care about? You can recruit until the end of time, but what is the incentive? Bottom line...nobody at DYK is paid by DYK, and nobody at DYK is the boss of anybody else at DYK. You can't crack a whip and force people to write articles that will please some complainer with a hair up their nose about the process. Most of the articles that repeat given subject matter are of good quality, often professional level. There are some gifted writers contributing their talent on a repeat basis. And there's some learning the ropes. It's a flippin' volunteer group here, not a forced labor gulag where somebody can make everybody else do what they want. Those who think otherwise have issues that will not be resolved here.— Maile (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well said, well said indeed. Manxruler (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. Hence why we don't have 90 million articles on Indonesian footballers or businesses. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

More DYK issues: Homer Lafian

How in the world was this approved without any discussion of the article's content? Just take one look at the talk page comments. It is currently in the most-visible spot in DYK, yet the hook fact is only in the lead (not the article itself), the whole article has problems with encyclopedicness, and it's being described at a "mess" on the talk page. I'm not saying that DYK should involved quasi-GAN reviews, but I question whether the reviewer, who is a very experienced editor and writer (and would be expected to pick up on these problems), even read the article before approving this hook. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy-pinging User:PumpkinSky, the reviewer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A yet stronger case is building that DYK has neither the resources nor the willingness to properly run this number of hooks on the main page every day. Why on earth aren't we talking about letting GA have a few hooks each day? Tony (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Rather than insinuating, how about making a formal proposal? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I believe Gilderien is planning to do just that in due course. In the meantime, Tony, we know you don't like DYK; there's no need to keep banging on about it day after day. It's deeply irritating. When it comes to influencing people and making friends, I've rarely seen anyone being quite as bad at it as you. How about just holding fire until there is an actual proposal to discuss? Prioryman (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well hold on here, I'm the one who brought this one one up, and it is certainly an article that should not have been passed... have you read the talk page? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• (e.c.) Prioryman, I'm not trying to make friends: I'm trying to get unprofessional stuff off the main page. I'm sorry if it irritates you; but are you sure you're not joining in the group bullying of anyone who criticises DYK? Oh, and since you've pigeonholed me as a DYK-hater, I need to say: I quite like the concept of DYK; but the hooks do need to be appropriate, and are so often not; the articles need to adhere to our guidelines and policies and to uphold higher standards of article writing, even if they're short and recent; QPQ and ×5 are hopeless parts of this process that invite gaming of the system and totally inadequate reviewing; there are too many hooks flowing through for quality standards to be upheld; there is insufficient control of topic-skew; and a better watch needs to be kept for paid-editing easy-street (even though I don't think paid editing can effectively be banned, given the practicalities). Tony (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, I'm not denying there's an issue here. I'm just objecting to Tony exploiting it in the course of his anti-DYK campaign and to the disproportionate attention being paid to it. Personally I'm relatively sanguine about it. We're running around 650 DYK a week. It's inevitable that some duds will get through, but look at it in proportion – this is one article out of 650, representing 0.15% of the total. Aiming for 100% success is good and laudable but the reality of human error means that we have to accept that mistakes will be made occasionally. That shouldn't be a cause for recriminations. Prioryman (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, had you perhaps missed the fact that we are all amateurs around here? (If we were editing this professionally that would imply we were being paid, which you don't like, right?) I absolutely agree that we should be aiming high but you must recognise the fact that our contributors have varying levels of ability. I can guarantee that the articles that I write will be well-written, well-referenced and have interesting hooks, since I know what I'm doing, but I recognise that not everyone has that level of ability – and even those who do will occasionally make mistakes (God knows, I do). That's not a reason for condemnation. We should be looking to help people to improve and coming up with more interesting hooks where necessary, which is something I've done on quite a few occasions. Solving this has nothing to do with the volume of DYKs – that's a red herring, as the same issues would apply if we had half the number of DYKs as at present. Your pet scheme to supplant DYKs with GAs would be completely irrelevant to the issue at hand; it has much more to do with your long-standing desire to get rid of DYK altogether. I also don't think we have any particular problem with paid editing here. Offhand I can only think of one self-admitted example of a promotional article (Daphne Oseña-Paez, two years ago, though there were apparently others by the same editor that haven't been named yet). I don't think the evidence is there to suggest that there is a problem on any significant scale. I'm open to persuasion but not on the basis of one article two years ago. Prioryman (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Poor quality GA nominations and reviews are also unfortunately a fact of life, and so howlers would also occasionally appear on the main page through this route if it replaced/joined the DYK process. In my experience DYK works pretty well, though I have had to step in with my Special Admin Powers to correct a few hooks which were appearing on the main page over recent months. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these war stories require more confirmation. It was common practise to require confirmation of exploits before awarding medals or kills as it is obviously easy to make grandiose claims of what occurred during the chaos of battle and fog of war. But this should not be used as a stick to beat DYK. For example, the current FA, Lynn Hill, seems to base much of its content upon her autobiography. The general problem here is the use of autobiography and interview as the sole source for a fact. Often this will be reasonable but we must be wary of self-serving claims. It's like my namesake is supposed to have said, "history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." He didn't actually quite say this but that's another story... Warden (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I see from Prioryman that by implication DYK wants to foster amateurism; please explain. Nick-D, unfortunately howlers appear too often, and there's a generally low standard (punctuated by excellent, appropriate hooks and articles). Tony (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I said that we are all amateurs here and that our contributors have varying levels of ability. Those are undisputable facts - at least, I certainly don't see you disputing them. That by itself means that there will occasionally be dud DYKs. It's just a fact of life. Prioryman (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• As issues with this article are ongoing, I suggest that someone well-versed in European military matters (Nick-D or The ed17?) take a look at Vazgen Sargsyan, currently lede hook in Prep 3, by the same editor. If there are issues let's not have a repeat of this mess. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The hook is cited to primary sources (initial reports on the results of opinion polls), and his lead in most of those polls isn't large (and there's no clear single national hero). While the statement seems credible, a strong secondary source is needed to support such a claim (in particular, do these particular surveys accurately reflect the overall body of opinion?). I'd suggest pulling this hook pending a stronger reference, or a new hook. I don't know much about Armenian military history, but the article seems much better developed and the content on his military service didn't raise any red flags for me. The online references are in Armenian so I couldn't check them. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Alright, I'll pull it for now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Just realised it's a different editor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hall of Lame updates

It keeps coming thick and fast. Today's winner is in queue 4, which offers some really good and really bad hooks, mangled together:

• "Did you know that Transdev Melbourne will take over operation of 30% of Melbourne, Australia's bus network in August 2013?"

  Gee whizz, no I didn't know that. I'm excited. You can't just bang out a hook expecting that visitors to the main page will "get" it. What exactly is the surprise, or even the slight interest, here? The 30% bit pushes this down even further, by the way.

  Technical niggles too: "Melbourne comma Australia" stuck in the middle is so clunky, and "Melbourne" appears twice in half a second. Who thought this one up? (I suppose a minor improvement would be "of much of the city's public bus network" ... but we're still left decidely underwhelmed.)

  A justification here for worthiness of main-page exposure would be welcome.

The runner up is in the same queue:

• "Did you know that Singaporean entertainer and singer Anna Belle Francis produced Dick Lee's Euranasia?"

  What the hell? Who, and who, are these people? Readers should not have to click on these secondary links to make some kind of sense of why it's a hook (for those who don't know, a hook is supposed to "hook" you into the DYK article).

• "that Eva Perón established the Salon Rosado in the Palace of the Buenos Aires City Legislature (pictured) as an exclusive space for women politicians, where they could discuss issues without men being present?" is 209 characters (has the limit been increased???). After the comma simply repeats the obvious. I see this rule: "The hook itself should be concise: fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces. While 200 is an outside limit, hooks slightly under 200 characters may still be rejected at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators." The picture is ridiculously small ... actually, it's an insult to readers of the main page who lack a magnifying glass.

Tony (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Finally my article has entered the Hall of Lame. It is really an honour, Tony. :) Rest assured, I will be producing more of such quality articles! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Transdev Melbourne hook will certainly be of interest to Melburnians, and to those who take an interest in public transport, so I don't see much wrong with the hook, given that it's probably the most interesting fact about this company. I agree though, that "Melbourne, Australia's" is clunky phraseology that could have used some copyediting.

You are correct that the Salon Rosado hook is too long and could have used a trim. I don't see much wrong with the Anna Belle Francis hook given that the subject is described in the hook, however I agree that many hooks have insufficient information about the subject - but then, it's not always easy to get the balance right between brevity and obscurity. Gatoclass (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Truth be told, I see a lot of Wikipedia:Systemic bias in Tony's "lameness" criticisms. While other points, such a brevity and awkward wording, are certainly valid, I think it is unwise to apply an anglo-centric worldview towards judging what is going to be interesting vs lame for our readers. While, yes, this is the English Wikipedia, our Main Page audience is global and there will be people with an interest in Melbourne transit, Singaporean entertainers or Argentine politics and women's issues. What is one man's "Hall of Lame" is another person's reason to click on a link they would have otherwise skipped. We should always be cautious about using our own biases and worldviews as gauges on "interesting-ness". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no! You don't get it. We can't have hooks interesting to Melburnians or other limited groups. They must be interesting to Tony, or he's going to whine and bitch about it on this talk page. Resolute 18:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, for years you've essentially done nothing but complain about the work of others. STOP IT. Since you're so unhappy with them, stop looking at the work of others and go RIGHT your own stuff so you'll be reading something you like. After such a long time, I can only think you're not happy unless you're bitching about the others' work (that was on purpose too). PumpkinSky talk 13:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

These are attitudes we've all become used to from DYK regulars, who scream at anyone who looks like questioning their easy serotonin hit from main-page exposure with not much effort. I'm sorry, you're not going to push out the door others who want professional standards. A more functional reaction would be to take it on board and improve the process, which sucks at the moment. Tony (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You want professionals? Go hire some and pay them. I don't volunteer my time to put up with pompous asses like you. PumpkinSky talk 15:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Kindly cool it, PumpkinSky. Tony has a right to express his views here like any other Wikipedian, providing of course that he doesn't do so ad nauseum. Gatoclass (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So do I. And his ad nauseum has been going on for years. Time to stop. And thanks for admitting I'm in a lower wiki class than Tony.PumpkinSky talk 15:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, wait, I said you are "in a lower wiki class than Tony"? How did I do that, exactly? Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess I read it wrong, but the way I wrote that sounded like "Tony can say his views but PSKY can't". Granted I was snarky, but Tony started a Hall of Lame thread directed at multiple editors wasn't exactly unsnarky. That being said, I think enough has been said on this topic today so let's all sleep on it and come back with a fresh and brighter look later. PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I was going to delete that last, most uncivil, post by Pumpkin, but Gato beat me with a reply. I can see that the criticism hurts. It's close to the bone, but there really is no need to be nasty. PS doesn't seem to take kindly to the criticism of the process from Tony, and has responded with a WP:SOFIXIT-type retort. I hope that he realises that Tony is one such professional who dedicates many hours a week to the project. The WP world is vast, and there's not many Tonies around. Are you suggesting that you, or the project, should start paying him? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As the reviewer who approved the "209-character" hook above, I would just like to say that I approved it because it is actually 198 characters long, and thus within the limits, and it was up to whoever promoted it to decide whether to add (pictured) and make it the lead hook.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been my experience that (pictured) isn't counted by most of us. So that part of this thread is making a mountain out of a mole hill.PumpkinSky talk 15:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I pointed out above how that hook could have been shorter and punchier (by removing everything after the comma). Tony (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the hook was within the rules for length, Tony is correct that removing everything after the comma would have made for a better hook. I have proposed alternative hooks several times when reviewing, and I think it should be part of every review to consider not only whether the hook is supported but also whether it could be made punchier. Tony is also correct that the reviewing standards are uneven and the DYK project needs to try to improve them. EdChem (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Gilderien: just because a hook is under 200 characters doesn't mean it can't be trimmed. 200 character has always been just an upper limit (with some exceptions), not an entitlement. If a hook can be improved by trimming, it should be trimmed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• EdChem said "I have proposed alternative hooks several times when reviewing, and I think it should be part of every review to consider not only whether the hook is supported but also whether it could be made punchier."—You know, so have I. The issue is, somehow the community up and decided that proposing a new hook renders one unable to complete a review (and thus unable to claim QPQ), so a lot of people aren't doing it... even for simple grammar fixes. That one isn't in DYKSG yet, but I've seen it enforced on some noms. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, I admit that I have not done a QPQ review since January, but in my last two reviews (for my double article hook), I got QPQ credit despite proposing ALTs that were used in each case. I think refusing to give QPQ credit in either of my cases would have been ridiculous, and I would have requested further input here at WT:DYK had that happened. EdChem (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

None of that means it's ok for Tony to come here and other places attacking whole groups of editors--and certainly not with an insulting thread title. Yes, DYK is uneven, but so is everyhing on wiki. PumpkinSky talk 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, I will not spend as much as one nanosecond defending Tony's titling of this thread, it was obviously both deliberatively provocative and unfair. However, I am choosing to ignore the provocation because he has some valid points which will be lost in a fight over matters that cannot lead to improvements in DYK. I know that you took offense and responded and I think the block you received for it was over the top and unreasonable in both a practical and policy sense, and I am glad it has been undone - I would have supported the unblock at WP:AN had I noticed the thread in time. I believe in the DYK project and am aware of your contributions and leadership over many years and am glad you are still contributing. However, I also believe that improvements can be made to DYK and I would like to see that happen. If that means my taking in reasonable points while ignoring provocation from Tony and others, I am willing to make the effort, and I hope that the project can be improved. I understand that (like may editors), you have been on the receiving end of much unfair treatment and so I also believe that understanding and accommodating everyone's sensitivities is desirable for a collaborative activity, and I invite Tony to retitle this thread and to adopt a more collaborative and less confrontational approach. EdChem (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

EdChem, Here "obviously both deliberatively provocative and unfair. However, I am choosing to ignore the provocation because he has some valid points which will be lost in a fight over matters that cannot lead to improvements in DYK." you're essentially saying that Joe and Jane Editor can be a complete jerk, even "deliberately provocative" as you put it, as long as they make valid points. That, sir, I cannot condone. There are far better ways to make one's points and the community condoning such behavior just makes the community worse. Thank you for realizing the "much unfair treatment" thing. PumpkinSky talk 02:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't find the title irritating enough to act over by taking it up with him. I am not saying that I would ignore all provocation, there certainly are comments I would take action about. Unfortunately, Tony's comments reflect a view held by a section of the community and I don't see screaming about them as productive - though I understand others will disagree. Some DYK critics reduce the persuasiveness of their critiques by couching them in provocative terms, and Tony is not alone in this regard. Sometimes a parent responds to a child's tantrum by ignoring it, sometimes by recognising the underlying issue, and sometimes with a reprimand. Tony's tantrum is unedifying but is motivated by real issues, so I am choosing approach 2 - you are, of course, free to adopt approach 3 but I hope you will also engage with the issues over reviewing, for example. I do not condone Tony's provocation, I just am choosing to ignore it, but I am disappointed that an editor of his abilities has chosen a provocative approach which is beneath him. EdChem (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that simply screaming is not productive. Of course, all Tony ever does is scream. He loves to snipe at things he doesn't like, but when was the last time he actually reviewed a DYK nom? Trashing the efforts of other volunteers takes very little effort compared to stepping in and reviewing noms and suggesting alternate hooks himself. Resolute 17:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Improper move of user's own hook into lead position

In this edit to Prep 1, a user moves their own hook from the number five position into the lead spot. Their edit summary, "Vazgen Sargsyan's picture was initially up there, why take it down?" is misleading, as that image was never in the Prep; I guess they're just referring to the fact that the image was "up there" on its nomination page. Anyways, normally I would just revert this myself, but the other hook involved is one that I nominated. The original lead hook image is of an abstract painting, something which very rarely appears on DYK (just three four in the last three four years). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I undid. Moving one's own hook around should not be a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later situation.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I left a note on the user's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Vazgen was the lead hook in a different prep at on 17 June 2013, but was pulled (temporarily, apparently) for further discussion (see the "More DYK issues: Homer Lafian" discussion above). Still improper to move one's own hook, though. Manxruler (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that wasn't made clear in the edit summary. I noticed that Gilderien pointed out, on the user's talk page, the proper way to request such a change. Think of the chaos if everyone whose image wasn't selected decided to just swap it in themselves. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. That would've been a mess. Manxruler (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What is enough for QPQ?

I have been commenting on reviewing so I thought I should do some. I have commented at Template:Did you know nominations/Spectral line shape and wonder if my suggestions are followed whether it would count for QPQ? Or, if I made the changes would it count for DYKmake credit? I think we could do with a page that better outlines what is sufficient for QPQ credit or additions to share make credit. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• If you were to help rewrite the more technical aspects for the lay reader (or at least help with a lay summary) that may be worth a DYKmake credit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hall of Lame updates

It keeps coming thick and fast. Today's winner is in queue 4, which offers some really good and really bad hooks, mangled together:

• "Did you know that Transdev Melbourne will take over operation of 30% of Melbourne, Australia's bus network in August 2013?"

  Gee whizz, no I didn't know that. I'm excited. You can't just bang out a hook expecting that visitors to the main page will "get" it. What exactly is the surprise, or even the slight interest, here? The 30% bit pushes this down even further, by the way.

  Technical niggles too: "Melbourne comma Australia" stuck in the middle is so clunky, and "Melbourne" appears twice in half a second. Who thought this one up? (I suppose a minor improvement would be "of much of the city's public bus network" ... but we're still left decidely underwhelmed.)

  A justification here for worthiness of main-page exposure would be welcome.

The runner up is in the same queue:

• "Did you know that Singaporean entertainer and singer Anna Belle Francis produced Dick Lee's Euranasia?"

  What the hell? Who, and who, are these people? Readers should not have to click on these secondary links to make some kind of sense of why it's a hook (for those who don't know, a hook is supposed to "hook" you into the DYK article).

• "that Eva Perón established the Salon Rosado in the Palace of the Buenos Aires City Legislature (pictured) as an exclusive space for women politicians, where they could discuss issues without men being present?" is 209 characters (has the limit been increased???). After the comma simply repeats the obvious. I see this rule: "The hook itself should be concise: fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces. While 200 is an outside limit, hooks slightly under 200 characters may still be rejected at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators." The picture is ridiculously small ... actually, it's an insult to readers of the main page who lack a magnifying glass.

Tony (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Finally my article has entered the Hall of Lame. It is really an honour, Tony. :) Rest assured, I will be producing more of such quality articles! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Transdev Melbourne hook will certainly be of interest to Melburnians, and to those who take an interest in public transport, so I don't see much wrong with the hook, given that it's probably the most interesting fact about this company. I agree though, that "Melbourne, Australia's" is clunky phraseology that could have used some copyediting.

You are correct that the Salon Rosado hook is too long and could have used a trim. I don't see much wrong with the Anna Belle Francis hook given that the subject is described in the hook, however I agree that many hooks have insufficient information about the subject - but then, it's not always easy to get the balance right between brevity and obscurity. Gatoclass (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Truth be told, I see a lot of Wikipedia:Systemic bias in Tony's "lameness" criticisms. While other points, such a brevity and awkward wording, are certainly valid, I think it is unwise to apply an anglo-centric worldview towards judging what is going to be interesting vs lame for our readers. While, yes, this is the English Wikipedia, our Main Page audience is global and there will be people with an interest in Melbourne transit, Singaporean entertainers or Argentine politics and women's issues. What is one man's "Hall of Lame" is another person's reason to click on a link they would have otherwise skipped. We should always be cautious about using our own biases and worldviews as gauges on "interesting-ness". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no! You don't get it. We can't have hooks interesting to Melburnians or other limited groups. They must be interesting to Tony, or he's going to whine and bitch about it on this talk page. Resolute 18:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, for years you've essentially done nothing but complain about the work of others. STOP IT. Since you're so unhappy with them, stop looking at the work of others and go RIGHT your own stuff so you'll be reading something you like. After such a long time, I can only think you're not happy unless you're bitching about the others' work (that was on purpose too). PumpkinSky talk 13:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

These are attitudes we've all become used to from DYK regulars, who scream at anyone who looks like questioning their easy serotonin hit from main-page exposure with not much effort. I'm sorry, you're not going to push out the door others who want professional standards. A more functional reaction would be to take it on board and improve the process, which sucks at the moment. Tony (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You want professionals? Go hire some and pay them. I don't volunteer my time to put up with pompous asses like you. PumpkinSky talk 15:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Kindly cool it, PumpkinSky. Tony has a right to express his views here like any other Wikipedian, providing of course that he doesn't do so ad nauseum. Gatoclass (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So do I. And his ad nauseum has been going on for years. Time to stop. And thanks for admitting I'm in a lower wiki class than Tony.PumpkinSky talk 15:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, wait, I said you are "in a lower wiki class than Tony"? How did I do that, exactly? Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess I read it wrong, but the way I wrote that sounded like "Tony can say his views but PSKY can't". Granted I was snarky, but Tony started a Hall of Lame thread directed at multiple editors wasn't exactly unsnarky. That being said, I think enough has been said on this topic today so let's all sleep on it and come back with a fresh and brighter look later. PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I was going to delete that last, most uncivil, post by Pumpkin, but Gato beat me with a reply. I can see that the criticism hurts. It's close to the bone, but there really is no need to be nasty. PS doesn't seem to take kindly to the criticism of the process from Tony, and has responded with a WP:SOFIXIT-type retort. I hope that he realises that Tony is one such professional who dedicates many hours a week to the project. The WP world is vast, and there's not many Tonies around. Are you suggesting that you, or the project, should start paying him? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As the reviewer who approved the "209-character" hook above, I would just like to say that I approved it because it is actually 198 characters long, and thus within the limits, and it was up to whoever promoted it to decide whether to add (pictured) and make it the lead hook.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been my experience that (pictured) isn't counted by most of us. So that part of this thread is making a mountain out of a mole hill.PumpkinSky talk 15:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I pointed out above how that hook could have been shorter and punchier (by removing everything after the comma). Tony (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the hook was within the rules for length, Tony is correct that removing everything after the comma would have made for a better hook. I have proposed alternative hooks several times when reviewing, and I think it should be part of every review to consider not only whether the hook is supported but also whether it could be made punchier. Tony is also correct that the reviewing standards are uneven and the DYK project needs to try to improve them. EdChem (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Gilderien: just because a hook is under 200 characters doesn't mean it can't be trimmed. 200 character has always been just an upper limit (with some exceptions), not an entitlement. If a hook can be improved by trimming, it should be trimmed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• EdChem said "I have proposed alternative hooks several times when reviewing, and I think it should be part of every review to consider not only whether the hook is supported but also whether it could be made punchier."—You know, so have I. The issue is, somehow the community up and decided that proposing a new hook renders one unable to complete a review (and thus unable to claim QPQ), so a lot of people aren't doing it... even for simple grammar fixes. That one isn't in DYKSG yet, but I've seen it enforced on some noms. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, I admit that I have not done a QPQ review since January, but in my last two reviews (for my double article hook), I got QPQ credit despite proposing ALTs that were used in each case. I think refusing to give QPQ credit in either of my cases would have been ridiculous, and I would have requested further input here at WT:DYK had that happened. EdChem (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

None of that means it's ok for Tony to come here and other places attacking whole groups of editors--and certainly not with an insulting thread title. Yes, DYK is uneven, but so is everyhing on wiki. PumpkinSky talk 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, I will not spend as much as one nanosecond defending Tony's titling of this thread, it was obviously both deliberatively provocative and unfair. However, I am choosing to ignore the provocation because he has some valid points which will be lost in a fight over matters that cannot lead to improvements in DYK. I know that you took offense and responded and I think the block you received for it was over the top and unreasonable in both a practical and policy sense, and I am glad it has been undone - I would have supported the unblock at WP:AN had I noticed the thread in time. I believe in the DYK project and am aware of your contributions and leadership over many years and am glad you are still contributing. However, I also believe that improvements can be made to DYK and I would like to see that happen. If that means my taking in reasonable points while ignoring provocation from Tony and others, I am willing to make the effort, and I hope that the project can be improved. I understand that (like may editors), you have been on the receiving end of much unfair treatment and so I also believe that understanding and accommodating everyone's sensitivities is desirable for a collaborative activity, and I invite Tony to retitle this thread and to adopt a more collaborative and less confrontational approach. EdChem (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

EdChem, Here "obviously both deliberatively provocative and unfair. However, I am choosing to ignore the provocation because he has some valid points which will be lost in a fight over matters that cannot lead to improvements in DYK." you're essentially saying that Joe and Jane Editor can be a complete jerk, even "deliberately provocative" as you put it, as long as they make valid points. That, sir, I cannot condone. There are far better ways to make one's points and the community condoning such behavior just makes the community worse. Thank you for realizing the "much unfair treatment" thing. PumpkinSky talk 02:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't find the title irritating enough to act over by taking it up with him. I am not saying that I would ignore all provocation, there certainly are comments I would take action about. Unfortunately, Tony's comments reflect a view held by a section of the community and I don't see screaming about them as productive - though I understand others will disagree. Some DYK critics reduce the persuasiveness of their critiques by couching them in provocative terms, and Tony is not alone in this regard. Sometimes a parent responds to a child's tantrum by ignoring it, sometimes by recognising the underlying issue, and sometimes with a reprimand. Tony's tantrum is unedifying but is motivated by real issues, so I am choosing approach 2 - you are, of course, free to adopt approach 3 but I hope you will also engage with the issues over reviewing, for example. I do not condone Tony's provocation, I just am choosing to ignore it, but I am disappointed that an editor of his abilities has chosen a provocative approach which is beneath him. EdChem (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that simply screaming is not productive. Of course, all Tony ever does is scream. He loves to snipe at things he doesn't like, but when was the last time he actually reviewed a DYK nom? Trashing the efforts of other volunteers takes very little effort compared to stepping in and reviewing noms and suggesting alternate hooks himself. Resolute 17:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

More bad hooks

I don't want to be bullied again for pointing out more hooks that fall totally flat. I'm not targeting anyone in particular—it's a group responsibility, yes? Main page now:

• Did you know that Oxyrrhis marina is a model organism in the study of protist biology?

  Could someone explain to me what the point of that hook is? This excuse notion that DYK hooks on the main page can be aimed at specialists with deep, narrow expertise in a topic, whether scientific or military or whatever, breaches the supplementary rules about hooks, and goes against common sense.

• Did you know that British Air Chief Marshall Hugh Dowding initially instructed his Spitfire and Hurricane groups to use a gun harmonisation scheme that aimed eight guns at a 12-foot-wide (3.7 m) rectangle?

  What is the interesting theme here? What is the point? Why is Dowding included at all (takes almost a whole line), at the expense of wording that might open up the interest/surprise for common readers like me. So I'm fumbling for the point: is this it?

  "Did you know that some British pilots started World War II using a gun harmonisation scheme by aiming eight guns at a relatively large rectangle 12-feet (3.7 m) wide?"

The North Sea fishing hook looks like it's a pretty obvious fact. Why wouldn't the the Danes get most of their fish from the North Sea?

A hyphen is missing from the last hook ("best-selling style of wines"). Who's checking? Tony (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• If we were to post "Did you know that some British pilots started World War II using a gun harmonisation scheme by aiming eight guns at a relatively large rectangle 12-feet (3.7 m) wide?" the WT:MP would rightly explode in rage. Try parsing: "Did you know that some British pilots started (caused) World War II using a gun harmonisation scheme by aiming eight guns at a relatively large rectangle 12-feet (3.7 m) wide?" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• In case it gets lost, the hyphen issue was dealt with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the first hook mentioned above - just because you personally may never have heard of model organisms or protists (assuming this is the reason you object to it), doesn't mean that only a "specialists with deep, narrow expertise" can possibly understand the hook. And the two terms are linked anyway, so it's easy enough with a couple of clicks for anyone to understand.

  As for the second, I agree with you - the hook is overly long and difficult to parse, plus it sounds like a hook about Hugh Dowding, or perhaps his groups' activities during WWII. The gun harmonisation link seems almost incidental.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oh dear, here we go again. Tony, just because a hook isn't of interest to you doesn't mean that it's not of significant interest to others. I think it's a good idea for DYK to feature hooks that aren't just about pop culture or videogames; if it highlights topics that most people wouldn't normally be exposed to, so much the better. We're supposed to be about expanding knowledge, after all. I get the feeling that these particular objections are rooted more in personal ignorance than anything else.

  Regarding the second hook, I'm very amused that you've suggested an alternative hook far worse than the one you're complaining about, as Crisco rightly points out. If someone else had posted that hook I'm sure you'd be first to complain about it (and you'd be right in that instance). But contra Amakuru, there's a legitimate reason to mention Dowding in the hook, as the gun harmonisation pattern it mentions was actually called the "Dowding pattern", as the article states. The hook could probably have been made a bit snappier but there's nothing wrong with the facts it mentions. Prioryman (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, I appreciate the more balanced tone. I agree with you on the second hook, I know a bit about Dowding but I think the mention here is unnecessary and the hook does not communicate effectively. For me, something like "... that the machine guns in early World War II British fighters did not fire straight forward, but instead were set to converge within a rectangle 12-feet (3.7 m) wide 750-feet in front of the aircraft?" I haven't on number of characters or polished it, but I would have found such a hook interesting, whereas I find the original confusing. EdChem (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• That would be much better, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I must say I couldn't disagree with Tony more about the Oxyrrhis marina hook. That hook introduces two concepts in biology - model organism and protist - that will be unfamiliar to most readers. In fact I'd say that is close to my idea of an ideal hook - a hook which exposes readers to new concepts, thus serving an educational value. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Which is, likewise, a good argument against only having one link per hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman, I knew you'd react positively to my casting around for an acceptable hook. It's not really my job to invent hooks; but I'll certainly come here and tell you which ones fall flat. We still don't agree on the first hook: why is "protist" understandable by most visitors to the main page? No Crisco, this is not an argument for the link-spattering that's been going on. It's an argument for crafting hooks in such a ways that their meaning (and their interest) is obvious without clicking all over the place. Tony (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So I suppose you think that the current hook in DYK at the moment about soldiers drinking Gunfire is misleading? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So DYK is solely about the number of hits the hook article gets, and there's no value in readers learning something new, by, say, clicking the protist link? Good to know. To avoid "link-spattering", a better hook would perhaps have been "Did you know that Oxyrrhis marina is a model organism in the study of protist biology?", then? Or maybe the hook should have been dropped as not appropriate, seeing as no-one could possibly have any interest in biology? Manxruler (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, if you really want to make an impact here why don't you try to write a DYK article and nominate it, following DYK and DYKSG. You obviously think our work is subpar, but you don't quite seem to know what it entails. I don't think I've seen a single DYK by you in two years. Please, craft the hook exactly as you would have us craft ours. Or are you too good for writing articles? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding links: so you don't want readers to learn new things? If you are only after page views, you may have a DYK philosophy incompatible with most project members. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I also really like that "model organism" hook. It made me click on the target article. On the other hand, there's little chance I would ever read a hook about the psychology of music reading. Different users have different interests, and DYK should provide a sample of content that appeals to a diverse range of users. --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• The gun harmonisation hook worked for me - I clicked on it. That's some interesting stuff right there! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• And, once again, it's clearly illustrated: different strokes for different folks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The biology hook is fine, IMO, but the gun harmonisation hook was bad because it was unclear. It should have been challenged, Tony is correct about that, again IMO. EdChem (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone has disputed that what was posted was poorly written (and should have been replaced with something similar to your suggestion above), but lacking in interest? That's another story. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I concur, but I found the original so unclear as to be uninteresting, and I am interested in WW2 history. I have long admired the achievements of the RAF in defending Britain and know who Dowding was, so I consider myself more informed on the topic than the average reader yet I didn't know what the hook meant until I read the gun harmonisation article, which I would not have done had Tony not raised the issue. I certainly have at least a situational interest in the topic bu the hook failed to trigger it, so it can be argued that the hook as written (as opposed to the topic) was uninteresting. EdChem (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Agree with your closing sentence. However, as I and Prioryman have pointed out (him somewhat more explicitly) we have to be careful when offering changes as we may garble the meaning. I think, for the future, if Tony is aware of a hook which he considers subpar that is in the queues (WP:DYKQ) he should feel free to either a) clarify the hook or b) post here and have someone else take a look at it, rather than post well-meaning but often heavy-handed comments about hook quality after the fact.
        • Criticising, IMO, is somewhat more easy than doing. I don't think I've criticized the "FA crowd" since writing my first couple FAs, but instead applied what I learned in that process to all of my later articles (even stubs like Friedrich Carl Albert Schreuel). I'd like to see if Tony's approach changes after actually writing some DYKs and nominating them under the current system. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "there's no value in readers learning something new, by, say, clicking the protist link?"—Exactly. You want them to learn that‚ and if necessary to click on the link to "protist" from the DYK article, not from the hook. You'll never get them back and then to the DYK if you encourage them to divert somewhere else just to learn what TF a word means. WP is not a dictionary, the pillar says. Tony (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "You want them to learn that‚ and if necessary to click on the link to "protist" from the DYK article, not from the hook."
• People do know how to use right click -> open page in new tab, Tony. I agree about posting links to Singapore and Earth, but something like Suharto or Count Chocula should be linked per WP:WIKILINK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, I open several links in a hook all the time. I don't see why looking at protist might prevent me or anyone else from checking out Oxyrrhis marina also. TF? Huh? Manxruler (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Likely "the fuck" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Right. With capital letters. That's nice. Manxruler (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tony uses acronyms on occasion; I'm certain he didn't mean it as shouting. As for the issue here, come at it from a different direction. If the object of a DYK hook is to get a reader to click on the bolded article, other links won't help that click rate. While some -- perhaps many or most -- readers can right click -> new tab, not all will, and presumably Tony sees that as a missed opportunity. Again, that's assuming that the main object here is to get a reader to read the newly created/expanded and presumably fully referenced article. Reading what I just wrote, it may come off sarcastic -- it isn't. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Manxruler, most acronyms are written with capital letters. I agree with Ed, Tony almost certainly wasn't intending to shout. Ed, the whole premise of "the object of a DYK hook is to get a reader to click on the bolded article" is one which may or may not have community support. It's certainly not at the top of my mind when I write a hook: my most recent, "... that Tio Ie Soei's novel Sie Po Giok has been called the only work of Chinese Malay literature fit for children to read?", was intended to draw readers to Tio's article as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Okay. When I write hooks, I of course try to make them as exciting as possible, with the greatest possible "pull" factor. However, I do not see hits on other linked articles as "lost". Far from it. And I've yet to see any evidence that many people who click other articles in a hook, then "fail" to click the main article. Crisco 1492's hook above would be much weaker, in my view, without the Tio Ie Soei link. As an example, my probably most successful hook was the 15 November 2012 hook "... that the Norwegian-British crew of MTB 345 were tortured and executed as a result of Adolf Hitler's Commando Order?", which got 15,744 hit. Now, the Hitler article had absolutely no noticeable jump in the number of views that day, while Commando Order got more than 8,000 more hits than ordinary in that period. Were those 8,000 hits lost from the MTB 345 article? I doubt it. I think the Commando Order link served to increase interest in the hook. Manxruler (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• +1 Precisely, and it almost certainly taught them something new. When Gagak Item hit the main page in March, 8k people clicked on Roekiah's article... a huge number of people learning something new they wouldn't have otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Were you shouting when you wrote "DYK"? Tony (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope, he wasn't shouting, but he wasn't swearing either. Manxruler (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Improper move of user's own hook into lead position

In this edit to Prep 1, a user moves their own hook from the number five position into the lead spot. Their edit summary, "Vazgen Sargsyan's picture was initially up there, why take it down?" is misleading, as that image was never in the Prep; I guess they're just referring to the fact that the image was "up there" on its nomination page. Anyways, normally I would just revert this myself, but the other hook involved is one that I nominated. The original lead hook image is of an abstract painting, something which very rarely appears on DYK (just three four in the last three four years). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I undid. Moving one's own hook around should not be a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later situation.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I left a note on the user's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Vazgen was the lead hook in a different prep at on 17 June 2013, but was pulled (temporarily, apparently) for further discussion (see the "More DYK issues: Homer Lafian" discussion above). Still improper to move one's own hook, though. Manxruler (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that wasn't made clear in the edit summary. I noticed that Gilderien pointed out, on the user's talk page, the proper way to request such a change. Think of the chaos if everyone whose image wasn't selected decided to just swap it in themselves. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. That would've been a mess. Manxruler (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What is enough for QPQ?

I have been commenting on reviewing so I thought I should do some. I have commented at Template:Did you know nominations/Spectral line shape and wonder if my suggestions are followed whether it would count for QPQ? Or, if I made the changes would it count for DYKmake credit? I think we could do with a page that better outlines what is sufficient for QPQ credit or additions to share make credit. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• If you were to help rewrite the more technical aspects for the lay reader (or at least help with a lay summary) that may be worth a DYKmake credit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hook-fact in multi-hooks

Hi all, during a review of Template:Did you know nominations/Tjerita Si Tjonat, F.D.J. Pangemanann a question arose regarding the hook fact in multi-nominations: should the hook fact be in both articles, or at least one? I've always been under the impression that the latter was correct, while Dharmadhyaksha seems certain the former is correct. WP:DYK and DYKSG do not shed any light. If a consensus exists either way, could this be made explicit? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that it only has to be in one of the articles. Otherwise, Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Tunbridge Wells would never have got through. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I should think not! Beautiful hook though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've always been under this impression as well; indeed that's the basis I worked on when I approved the Tunbridge Wells multi-hook mentioned above. As long as each element of the hook is independently verifiable, a "list" hook of this sort is fine. (Actually, just thinking about it, I've submitted a couple of my own like that!) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I"ve also always thought that the hook fact only needs to appear in one of the articles (although it's better if at least part of the factual basis for the hook can be found in every article). --Orlady (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

There are 27 of 183 nominations approved, not quite four prep sets worth. There are always plenty of older hooks that need attention, as witness those listed below. Thank you for your continuing assistance.

• April 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Spectral line shape
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Texas gubernatorial election, 1998
• May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Kissing the shuttle
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Das neugeborne Kindelein, BWV 122
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Zostera noltii, Plasmodiophora bicaudata (two articles)
• May 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Bruno Möhring
• May 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Biochemical Predestination
• June 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Corn production in the United States
• June 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Mussafah
• June 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Arkansas Post (Revolutionary War)
• June 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Nimbuzz
• June 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Age Against the Machine
• June 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Birthday of the Monkey God
• June 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Moskovski Korrespondent
• June 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Laßt uns sorgen, laßt uns wachen, BWV 213
• June 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Petroleum Warfare Department
• June 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities
• June 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Satish Dhawan Space Centre Third Launch Pad
• June 9: Template:Did you know nominations/RWBY
• June 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi Memorial Lecture
• June 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Melanie Domaschenz (two articles)
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/EA Sports UFC
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/World of Tanks Xbox 360 Edition
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Ignite (game engine)
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Project Spark
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Below (video game)
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Just Dance 2014
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/London in the 1960s
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Belén López (actress), Belén López (flamenco dancer) (two articles)
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Wennergren
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Pargev Martirosyan
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/The Only Promise That Remains
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Arjun — Kalimpong E Sitaharan
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Fredrik Semb Berge

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Extraneous (pictured)

The (pictured) needs to be removed from the second hook in Queue 1. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Queue 1 has two hooks about guys named White from Virginia, and they're cousins (two hours left to fix this!)

Can an admin please swap out one of the White cousins from late 18th century Virginia, perhaps moving it from Queue 1 to Queue 2, the latter of which has not a single bio? If so, be sure to swap it with one of the U.S. hooks, since we don't want more than four that are there currently.

I'd like to suggest Francis White be swapped to Q2, since Q2 already has an explicitly Revolutionary War hook, and two with the phrase "Revolutionary War" (if Robert were moved instead) would be a bit much. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on QPQ--What counts as a DYK credit

I was under the impression that according to DYK rules that any editor with 5 or more DYK credits, regardless of how they got the credit, is required to complete a QPQ review. However the editor at Template:Did you know nominations/Khrushchev: The Man and His Era has disagreed with that interpretation and states that only their self-noms should count towards the quota. Now I asked the editor to kindly consider doing a QPQ anyways, in light of our current backlog of unreviewed noms, and to make the review go more smoothly but they have apparently declined so I am putting the nomination on hold until we can more clarification on the QPQ criteria. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why it should be restricted to self-nominations. If you nominate your own work, and 5 of your articles have already been featured, you complete a QPQ review. Simple as that.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The rule does not clarify this. I feel we should clarify the rule to explicitly state self-noms and noms for others both count towards the "5 required" rule. PumpkinSky talk 13:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean noms by others? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No, good point, I mean if you nom an article FOR someone else you should review one if you are over 5. I feel if you wrote it but didn't nom it, that should not count toward the 5. PumpkinSky talk 13:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(e.c. x 2) I thought the idea of the 5 article grace period without QPQs was for learning the ropes. If editor X nominates articles written by editor Y, then X has a QPQ requirement. But, if X has nominated 5 or more articles by Y, then when Y makes a first self-nom s/he has to review as well (under this interpretation). Effectively, X has used up Y's grace period. Nominating for others (as X is doing) is intended (in part) to help bring new editors (like Y) to DYK, in which case insisting on a QPQ from Y's first QPQ seems harsh to me. Just my 2c. EdChem (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If I understand Ed correctly, we're saying the same thing. PumpkinSky talk 13:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, we edit conflicted but I didn't note what had been said. EdChem (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

When I suggested that nominators should provide a QPQ here, it was opposed and it is clear this is not already done.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Either way, it should be straightened out. Start a poll.PumpkinSky talk 14:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that we need some clarification. I appreciate Agne27's time and effort in reviewing the article and look forward to collaborating with her in the future. I certainly don't fault her for interpreting the guidelines differently. At this point, I have personally nominated four articles. I created and nominated Douglas W. Owsley (#1). Significantly contributed to Sarah Stierch (#2). Created and nominated Jack Geraghty, while James M. Geraghty was added by the reviewer as a double hook (just the same, we'll call that #3 and #4). The areas that may need clarification include the following (there may be some I've missed):
  • Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations

"QPQ – nominators who have five or more DYK credits and are nominating their own articles must review another article."

• Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide#Finishing the review

Editors "who are nominating an article created or expanded by someone else, or who have made fewer than five DYK nominations, are not required to do another review."

• Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria

"New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits) are exempt from this review requirement, as is the nomination of another editor's article, although they are strongly encouraged to do so. For help in learning the reviewing process, see the reviewers' guide." (i.e., editors "who are nominating an article created or expanded by someone else, or who have made fewer than five DYK nominations, are not required to do another review.") Hope this helps. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 16:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Archive of 2012 discussions on QPQ — Maile (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any clarification on the topic from that link to the 2012 discussion regarding the core issue of this thread -- whether DYK credits count only for self-noms or do they include DYKs for articles written/involved with that were nominated by others. Unfortunately it looks like this conversation has died down as other topics have popped up on this page. I see one suggestion to do a poll so I guess I need to create a new topic/poll. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK observations by a newcomer

I'm a new editor to Wikipedia and I just recently made my second DYK nomination here (of both nominations I'm not claiming that they were perfect). But ofcourse I frequently look at the DYK hooks on the Main Page. I really like the DYK idea of having new content in the spotlight. And I noticed a couple of things. Please note that these observations are not based on detailed research. I hope they can serve as a start of discussion. My observations are based on two themes: quantity and quality, these themes are linked.

Quantity:

• There seems to be an overflow of DYK nominations (currently 187, with only 26 approved).
• With this overflow a backlog is created. The oldest current nomination is from 30 May, which is 1,5 months ago. This seems to go against the idea of DYK content needing to be new. Only 2 of the approved nominations are 'old'.
• I'm having the impression that all material that is nominated for DYK is supposed to reach the Main page. That seems like a bad starting point. If a nomination is rejected that should not be a problem. No hard feelings.

Quality: DYK articles don't need to be of FA or GA standard, but they should be of decent quality.

• As can be seen from the discussion on this talk page, there certainly are problems with the quality of DYK hooks and articles being promoted to the front page. Examples: overlinking, Robert Alexander Early, Hall of Lame updates, Crime in Country articles, Homer Lafian, Vazgen Sargsyan, etcetera. These are issues from the last couple of days. And these examples are just the ones which were mentioned on this talk page. There surely is more material which is fixed after nomination. But there are also surely instances in which 'bad' content reaches the main page and goes not fixed for too long or not at all. I myself fixed some of the issues on these two pages just before they were going to be put on Main Page, they still had severe issues: Banana production in Ecuador and 2013 dengue outbreak in Singapore. They Ecuadorian article still seems to have contradictary statements about the EU being the largest trading partner of Ecuador.
• Reviewing an article should equally about the hook and article.
• Not sufficient attention is always paid to the sources, neutrality and the possiblity of copyvio.

Suggestions: These are just my personal thoughts, please discuss them. My idea would be to first focus on the quantity by weeding out some of the nominations, so that as a consequence more attention can be paid to quality in the remaining nominations.

• Try to reduce the number of DYK nominations by being firmer with the rules. Examples: if articles are nominated 10 days after creation or expansion with the current backlog, then it's too bad, but the nomination should be rejected (D9) I've also seen enough examples in which nominations were posted after 6 days, I would make a possible rejection based on the quality of the content then. If the article is in bad shape, just reject it based on the number of days of nomination rule and move on. Another example: if the article still is a work in progress it should be rejected (D7). Etc.
• Some of the older nominations have not had new replies in weeks. If they need another review (as can be asserted from a red arrow symbol) that is ok. But if there are outstanding issues with the article which have not been fixed by anyone (be it the author, nominator or someone else) then it is probably time to move on.
• Reviewing an article is very important. In my experience, it is not a task which you can complete in 5 minutes or so. Nominators are supposed to review another nomination because of principle of QPQ. However, because the majority of the DYK nominators are basically trying to get their own article promoted, some(!) reviewers seem to pay less attention to the quality of the QPQ agreement. This leads to one sentence reviews just so they can check off the QPQ agreement from their own nomination. But that one sentence review may lead to a rubbish article reaching Main Page.

My suggestion would be to introduce a standard table for a reviewer to fill in. In that table the reviewer would have to check off all the requirements for a DYK. That table should be visible on the Nomination page so that other people can see if the reviewer did a good job. Another possibility is to add the requirement of a second review to ALL nominations. Because there are enough excellent reviewers out there as well, who could compensate for the others. Yes, I understand, that would produce lots of extra work. But it would be worth it, so that quality content reaches the main page. Every time a bad article reaches DYK on the Main Page it discredits the DYK section. And that is unfortunate. Because DYK is a nice platform.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 1:38 18 June 2013

Please, leave the 'Gibraltar/DYK's about one topic discussion' out of this, for once. It is a smaller topic withing the WHOLE DYK process, which I'm trying to address here.

Sorry for the essay. I hope it is useful. Crispulop (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but DYK has been around a long time now, and believe me, you are not making any observations or proposals that have not been made plenty of times before. With regard to the reviewing table, for example, we did actually try that a couple of years ago and it wasn't successful (I personally felt the experiment wasn't run nearly long enough, but I was in the minority). We don't have the resources for two reviewers, though many articles do in fact get looked at by more than one reviewer. As for "weeding out" the weaker noms, there has never been much support for such a process. Gatoclass (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Good essay, Crispulop, Fwiw, I totally agree, as a newish editor, I don't know how things used to work here pre-QPQ, but I have been told by more experienced editors, that they won't submit new articles anymore since the system seems broke. I'm beginning to see their point, and despite working on a heap of new articles recently, I'm not sure I'll be nominating them for DYK.

Admittedly at first, getting your work on the main page feels good, but that soon fades! The review process does need to be improved IMO, it is all too easy to skim through the article and only check the hook information. I certainly enjoy reading the new submissions and meeting new editors through DYK, but I think we are all agreed here that changes are necessary. Perhaps we can find the common ground between the regulars here, and work some more on altering the process.

p.s Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency with the Ecuadorian Banana article (which I reviewed), I've now fixed that part. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say this, but one thing that bugs me about critics of DYK is that they all want higher standards but very few are actually willing to roll up their sleeves and offer a helping hand. There is really only one problem at DYK and that is shortage of manpower, we need more reviewers and more people willing to help fix articles and identify problems, if one tenth of DYK's critics were willing to put up their hands and get involved, 90% of DYK's problems would disappear overnight. If you want to see better standards and better quality control, start helping out. Gatoclass (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would be lovely if it happened. I agree that things could be improved with more reviews (I've reviewed far more than nominated), but you are expecting a lot of volunteers with no absolutely obligation to do so. Kevin McE was doing a lot of work weeding out problems a little while ago, but where did he go? If things were be sorted out by extra participation, I would be delighted, but I think some changes to the DYK rules would go a long way towards improving the whole process. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to suggest improvements to the rules, but getting support for them is another matter. Gatoclass (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "My suggestion would be to introduce a standard table for a reviewer to fill in"—yes, I tried that in 2011. Just a simple template that required reviewers to sign off that they'd checked for compliance with WP's policies, the basic DYK rules, and to ensure that prose and formatting were not embarrassingly poor. What happened? There was screeching. There was screaming. There was shrieking. I received utterly no cooperation from the DYK owners, and within a week the system had bee forcibly terminated. That is consistent with the culture here. Tony (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't mind reinstating such a table. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds okay to me. I've ran out of ways to express the same information in my reviews! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There was screaming. There was shrieking.

Actually that is only a small part of the story Tony. What happened is that you tried to impose a clumsy table on DYK reviews without consensus and there was "shrieking and screaming" about that. But afterwards, Rjanag and I worked extremely hard to develop a more concise format for such a table using code - Rjanag wrote the code and I helped with the design. But after only a short trial, Rjanag decided to terminate the experiment and there wasn't much support for continuing it (though I myself was very disappointed with the decision). Now, I would have to go back and read the discussion on the termination of the trial to reacquaint myself on the details, but that is basically what happened. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• The final result, however, was quite manageable except for multiple noms (kudos to you on that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• All of the templated review tables took up a lot of space on the screen, making it difficult to skim the noms page -- or even see both top and bottom of a particular uncomplicated nomination when working on a review. Also, reviewers tended to populate them with symbols instead of documenting what they did in the article review. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Does this not go to the heart of the problem? The quick-moving waterfall gushes continuously and there's not enough time, not enough space (as you wrote), and not enough reviewers, to properly assess noms. Space I couldn't care less about: the review sections are far too short and the noms usually inadequately reviewed for basic quality and policy compliance. It takes a bit of space and time and effort. If there aren't enough DYK noms coming through that maintain suitable standards for main-page exposure, let some GAs into the mix. It would do them good too to be on a DYK queue and subject to a final check. Tony (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Screeching and screaming? No cooperation from DYK? I guess I just imagined all the time I spent bending over backwards trying to make that checklist for you. (Gatoclass, other relevant links about Tony's version of the template are here, here.) The reason the checklist never got adopted was because everyone here was too busy having fights about everything else to bother giving substantive feedback about this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dia dos Namorados

I need a third party to be objective at Dia dos Namorados. An IP keeps adding {{mergeto}} to the top of the page, but does not want to post any discussion explaining his rationale and doesn't want to add {{mergefrom}} to the corresponding page. What should I do?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Substandard reviews - proposal

There seems to be a spate of substandard reviews being done lately. Substandard reviews are a concern because they allow poor articles and/or hooks to potentially make it to the main page, not to mention the additional work needed to fix the problems. In the past I have suggested that reviewers who approve non-compliant hooks or articles should have a DYK of their own cancelled as a consequence, a proposal that got little support at the time. However, I still think some sort of action is necessary to discourage "rubber stamp" reviews. I would therefore like to suggest that QPQ reviewers who approve an article that is later unapproved, should be required to do another review. This should act as an effective method of discouraging rubber stamp reviews without unfairly inconveniencing good faith reviewers who simply make a mistake. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The QPQ system itself seems to be the problem in my eyes. I don't believe forcing a reviewer (who has already performed below standard) to do another will work. I would rather see a group of very experienced reviewers (not necessarily admin, but good writers and gnomic-types) assess all submissions, weeding out the poor ones. Still, when hooks get moved forward by admin to prep areas, aren't they meant to be checked over anyway? Perhaps the trouble is that possessing the mop is no guarantee of reviewing ability? How did the process work before QPQ, and why was it changed? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Before QPQ, the system was very ad hoc with people just reviewing if they felt like it, a system that caused backlogs aplenty (much more than what we get now). I wasn't involved in the change discussion but I do think that the reason for the change was to cut down on those. The problem with having a group of specialists just doing reviews seems to put a bit of expectation on members of that group to do a lot more than reviewers do at the moment and that group would be in the firing line if a backlog developed. I don't think it's right that that level of expectation should be put on volunteers. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

True. Gosh, it really seems a tricky one. Tightening up the criteria for nomination and quickly rejecting those that don't qualify, might help. I don't have any desire for the mop, but I've got a thick skin, and would be willing to help with extra reviews of those in the prep area and some of the other tasks. (Until my net-connection gets pulled next month, that is.) -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's say 18 hooks in a 24-hour period X 30 days = 540 hooks to be reviewed. That's probably why there's no core group doing most of the work. I've noticed that a lot of repeat editors on this talk page (like me), or ones doing reviews, don't even submit hooks that often. I haven' submitted one since last year sometime. I just like helping out. One of the problems with an all-volunteer force is that it's impossible to really know how much effort any reviewer is really putting in. There's no way to monitor anything, no way to know if somebody really reads something, really checks everything, or if they're just signing off on something. — Maile (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Before QPQ, we had backlogs that were at times massive. Drives were carried out quite frequently to push back the backlog, but it never lasted long, as far I can recall. Standards were laxer back then, too. I don't think the solution is to do away with QPQ. Might it be a good idea to stress that for a nominator to get a QPQ credit, reviews have to be of a certain standard? As in not accepting substandard reviews, as having actually fulfilled the QPQ requirement? I have on several occasions asked nominators to do more of a review than just adding something like "All okay!" to a nomination. Manxruler (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Manxruler's suggestion appears to have some merit. Also, when I had more time with DYK I would ? tag reviews which were subpar, but I haven't had enough time to do that recently. Perhaps someone could do that? The really substandard reviews wouldn't be all that difficult to pick up ("All okay!", for instance) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I should think that both reviewers, and those who move accepted nominations to the preps, and then to the queues, have a role to play in this regard. Manxruler (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is only one reviewer for the vast majority of articles (Gibraltar-related stuff excepted). The promoters do have a role, as you've said. However, it doesn't hurt to have someone go through T:TDYK and tag reviews which only read "All good to go!" as needing a better review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, of course there's only one reviewer for non-Gib nominations. I meant "both", as in "both the reviewer, the promoter to the prep and the promoter to the queue". Yes, having someone dedicated like that would be nice. All we need is some volunteers. Manxruler (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• K, got confused as you used "both" with reviewers, then another two different roles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I see that now. Sorry about that. Manxruler (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Max's suggestions. While the editors who load up the queues need to generally take the reviews in good faith (especially as the current system generally works well) or otherwise they'd be doubling up on the reviewers job, they should also be keeping an eye out for dodgy-looking hooks or reviews. As a general comment though, part of the problem is that it's much easier to review good nominations than bad ones - good noms tend to be easy to check and confirm and there's no extra work for the reviewer, while bad nominations take more time to review and normally involve some too-and-fro with the nominator which requires a commitment of time over a few days. As such, busy editors have an incentive to not review bad nominations, and I know that I'm guilty of doing this at times. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• This has gone on for long enough. Without making radical changes to the reviewing process itself, I'd propose that to have a DYK on the front page should henceforth cease to be a 'right'. Those articles that have not completed the review process within a period of say one to two weeks for whatever reason will be archived as "failed nominations". If you are the nominator, it will then be in your interests to make your article as strongly compliant and as easy as possible for any would-be reviewer to review. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• That would kill off a number of heavily discussed noms, that are not necessarily bad articles or hooks, just noms where people disagree about issues (noms that are certainly not dealt with quick and dirty). As well as controversial noms, and some that are for some reason simply overlooked by reviewers. Looking at the very top of the nominations page, science, tourism, musicians, wine and art would lose out. Would that be a good thing? Manxruler (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, some will be killed off, and it probably isn't a bad thing that people know MP appearance is not an entitlement. For a culture that appears to be broken and with mini-scandals raising their ugly heads periodically, it may be time to stare some of those holy cows in the face to see if their deification ought not to be re-appraised. But to clarify, I was referring to noms that had not satisfied the DYK criteria. Your concern seems to be for articles that have satisfied the basic criteria but where there may be other issues, like making the article or blurb even better.

  When the appearance of a nominated article on the MP is on the line, I think a nominator would understand that it would be in their interests to expedite a review by asking around more actively, rather than sit by and wait for it to happen. If a blurb isn't judged sufficiently "interesting" by potential reviewers, it's less likely to be reviewed. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• QPQ encourages poor reviewing. It is a disaster that should be terminated forthwith. We need to slow down the number of shifts per day so that the system can ensure main-page quality for these short, new articles, and appropriate hooks. It's not easy, and the current procedures are premised on quick and dirty push-it-through. More nominations need to be rejected outright.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 1:15 18 June 2013
  • I disagree with the view that the current system is, "premised on quick and dirty push-it-through". On what basis should articles be rejected outright, Tony? And what's an "appropriate" hook? That's a term you've used repeatedly. What does "appropriate" mean, really? Manxruler (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Based on his "Hall of Lame" comments, including some archived ones, "appropriate" is whatever Tony finds interesting. (this is particularly enlightening, as numerous editors pointed out that 45 years is a long time for an aircraft type to in use; in fact, nobody agreed with him that it was "Lame") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
      • 45 years might well be extraordinary, but normal visitors to the main page (like me) will miss the point. Therefore that hook failed a central part of its raison d'etre. A short tutorial on how to identify hook material in a DYK nom (if there is in fact hook material in the article), and how to turn a lame hook that lacks the necessary context into an admissible hook—this might help to lift standards. I reiterate that visitors shouldn't have to back-and-forth among the primary and secondary links and think too hard to "get" the suprise/interest in a hook. And in any case, secondary links are very undesirable for a forum that wants to maximise clicks to the DYK article itself. Tony (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly a hook should be accessible to as many readers as possible, but sometimes that just isn't practical, firstly because the article itself may only be of interest to a limited audience, and secondly because adding reams of explanatory material weakens a hook. Gatoclass (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, this was my nomination. It attracted a bit over 2000 page views for the 'hook' article and 6000 for the article on the plane type also mentioned, which isn't too shabby really. Crisco and I had an exchange on an option for a more interesting hook in the nomination, but I couldn't massage the only other entertaining fact about this dull, but worthy, military unit into a pithy sentence. While I rate this hook a success, the lesson for me was to focus on the plane and include some mystery, which lead to my recent nomination of No. 41 Squadron RNZAF getting just under 6000 page views. Bear in mind that an actually unsuccessful hook attracts a pathetic number of page views (case in point, my Department of Post-War Reconstruction (Australia) hook attracted only 360 views, which was rather embarrassing!). Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Secondary links" is another interesting point. I completely disagree with the notion that a few editors have, the DYk article should be the only link in the hook. It's pretty much the worst DYK idea I've ever heard. I'd dare say that most hooks wouldn't work at all without more than one link in the hook. The other links provide a context, that would otherwise be missing. Manxruler (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is still a very strong culture amongst editors to create multiple secondary links that I believe ought to be reined in. That culture seems to regard it as a "skill" to create three links where one will do – and that, I believe, dilutes the focus and purpose of the DYK. As in ITN, we routinely see blurbs where there are four, five, six links, accounting for more than half of the word count. I don't necessarily see as a bad thing to have secondary links: I created a DYK recently and the one secondary link actually pulled in more hits than the principle subject of the blurb. It was deliberate, to make the DYK more interesting to the reader, and so that's fine by me. I think we ought to stipulate that blurbs should usually contain no more than three links. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That a very broad generalisation. Looking swiftly through the current nominations, the number of links clearly varies, from around two to four in most cases. Most of those links look necessary to me. Sure, there are a few links I would lose, if I was writing the hooks, but a "strong culture" that "ought to be reined in"? Really? Manxruler (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• What you say isn't true would have been true had someone not been going through the current blurbs and repositioning/pruning links ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• All hooks in all shifts should be good, I believe. Tony (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In an ideal world, sure. But not every hook can be of Ripley's Believe It Or Not quality (indeed, even they had some clunkers). Most topics simply don't have a really fascinating fact to highlight, nor do they need one, since we are fundamentally about knowledge not entertainment. Try to keep in mind that DYK is as much about highlighting the scope of topics being added on a daily basis as it is about anything else, and in that department, I think we do a pretty good job. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• +1, Gato. I, for one, would be bored with catering to "normal (average) visitors of the main page": Working-class, White, English-speaking persons aged 15–45, almost certainly from the US, UK, or AUS. Catering only to them would cause even more of an Anglospheric bias, one which I have fought since I started editing heavily in April 2011. I doubt many of our readers could find Indonesia on a map in under five seconds, let alone tell me who its president is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Totally agree with this. We also operate with the constraint I've mention above that our contributors are of differing levels of ability. That affects the quality of both articles and hooks. We can probably do something to improve that (for instance, Tony could try suggesting alternative hooks for pending nominations instead of constantly complaining) but unless you want to sacrifice the principle that editing is open to everyone regardless of ability, we have to accept that a small number of DYKs won't be optimal. Prioryman (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think we have a serious problem with reviewing, and have been wondering about the following idea (I realise it has problems, but I'm throwing it out to see if the problems are resovlable). Let's assume that the article X nomination includes article Z as its QPQ. When Z is promoted the queue, the editor is responsible for checking on the quality of Z. If it's ok, then Z is promoted AND X is marked as promotable - in other words, you don't get QPQ credit until the reviewed article is judged acceptable and moved to a queue. If it is not, comments are added and the original reviewer needs to get them sorted if s/he wants to claim the QPQ credit - if it is left for too long and someone else handles the fixes / re-review then the QPQ is lost and another review will be needed for X to be promotable. If Z is promoted and subsequently found to be a problem, the editor who promoted it may be brought to WT:DYK and may be restricted from promoting to the queues. It seems to me that an approach like this should prompt better reviews and better checks when promoting to queues. Now, I know that editorpower is a problem here, but aside from that, is this practical? Thoughts / Comments / Suggestions? EdChem (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Editorpower on its own is enough to make that a seriously unattractive proposal. Aside from that, how would you claim QPQ on an article that didn't pass? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If you failed it then when it was closed as unsuccessful, you'd get credit... if you passed it but it failed because of problems identified by others, credit would not flow. EdChem (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Sounds very complicated, and I suspect that it would cause a lot of delays/confusion. Manxruler (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Agree with you on that, particularly as a very common outcome does not seem to be considered in the original post: "you don't get QPQ credit until the reviewed article is judged acceptable and moved to a queue" implies that all reviews which find unsatisfactory articles are not considered worthy for QPQ. Hence why I asked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I think that one problem with QPQ has been that some users already have the misconception that QPQ credit requires that they either approve the hook or conclusively reject it. That misconception may inspire some reviewers to approve noms that aren't ready, and I believe it causes some reviewers to cherry-pick their reviews -- picking the easy-to-approve nominations and skipping over the ones that look problematic. It also can cause needless delays while other reviewers wait for a nomination's first reviewer (who might be away on holiday) to come back to review changes made in response to their initial review. It would be a seriously bad idea to add a suggestion that QPQ requires reaching the "correct" outcome or carrying the nomination review through to its conclusion. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
            • • That's true. For example, Template:Did you know nominations/NI21 has seemingly been abandoned by the original reviewer despite replies to concerns in the nom page and talk page. I did recommend once that the oldest noms should be obliged to be reviewed first before any others but that idea fizzled out quickly. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the feedback. I agree that my idea has problems, but I still think that we need to allow for consequences for poor reviews and promotions. I also don't see how to improve reviewing standards without some check on reviews happening. Change is difficult, but without it the existing problem will continue to fester. We need to improve standards somehow. EdChem (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, Wikipedia:Competence is required is a fairly popular essay, as Wikipedia essays go, but no one has developed a method for enforcing a requirement for competence, and the behavioral guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith trumps that essay. Wikipedia:Assume good faith says that Wikipedia contributors are supposed to try to assume in good faith that other contributors are trying to do their best. Calling people out for errors in their DYK reviews -- or telling people they can't contribute to DYK unless they can do perfect reviews -- would not be consistent with that principle. We have to make allowances -- e.g., for learners, for people for whom English is not a first language, and for the fact that every one of us makes really stupid mistakes from time to time. --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• QPQ isn't the root cause of these problems and shouldn't be blamed for them. During the first discussion of QPQ, my thinking was strongly affected by my experiences with one particular contributor, who was a prolific producer of DYKs and had never lifted a finger to help with a nom review or any other aspect of administering the process. His DYK nominations were often problematic (issues included boring hooks, boring articles, and copyvios in his articles). Having spent a lot of time dealing with his nominations (because they were so numerous), I hoped that a QPQ requirement would cause him to shoulder at least part of his fair share of the DYK-administration workload and that the experience might help make him a better DYK contributor. As things worked out, he did contribute QPQ reviews, but his reviews weren't much good (I particularly remember one review that consisted of criticizing a nom of mine because the biographical article I nominated didn't include the living subject's birthdate), his own work didn't improve, and he ended up being blocked for various problems with his work. So things didn't work out as I hoped they might, but I don't blame QPQ for the problems with that user -- he would have been (or was) a problem with or without QPQ. I do think that there have been positive results with other users -- both in getting them to pick up some of the workload and in making them more clueful contributors. I think it's been a net positive. Yes, there are problems with poor reviews, but most of the poor reviewers also produce poor DYK nominations, and we'd be fretting about problems with their work even if we'd never thought of QPQ. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Kai Holst in queue 1

The Kai Holst article currently in Queue 1 was promoted too soon. The article has issues that are still being worked through. It should be ready in a few days, but certainly not yet. Manxruler (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• This one looks borderline (there's nothing against having in line tags like that), but considering the sheer number of them I've pulled the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Good. Better safe than sorry (and being given the run-around about DYK being "broken" and all), I say. Manxruler (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Better now. Manxruler (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Du Bin

Doesn't the WP:BIRTHDATE need to be cited? The source (Amnesty International) does not give his brith date nor his age, so the "1972" birthdate is left uncited... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 00:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed - assuming that Worldcat is a reliable enough source. Haminoon (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this interesting or only normal like I think it is?

I don't see how the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Tuya Soy is interesting. Many songs do not chart in Billboard magazine. I don't get how the song playing on many radio stations means that it is interesting that it never charted. SL93 (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

POLL: Do DYK credits (for QPQ) count only self-noms or include articles nominated by others?

This topic requesting clarification about what counts as a DYK credit for QPQ has gotten lost in the spur of new recent topics but still needs to be dealt with. Long story short, I have an editor with 9 DYK credits according to the QPQ check but only 4 of which are for articles that she has self-nominated with the others nominated by others. While the requirement for QPQ in the main rules page states that those with more than 5 credits need to do a QPQ, the editor has noted that the rules don't specify what exactly a credit is and has noted both in the thread linked above and at the nomination review that there is conflicting statements in the DYK rules and guideline. An editor in that older discussion suggested a poll so we can (hopefully) get this settled. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK credits should be for self-noms only

Oppose

1. Oppose Limiting it this way unfairly puts the bulk of the reviews on the the broader pool of long-term reviewers who might become discouraged that only a select group have to do QPQ.. — Maile (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Too easy to game.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose We have always spread credit for DYKs widely, to writers and nominators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK credits should include articles written even if nominated by others

Support

1. Support An editor can nominate unlimited articles, thereby increasing the review load, but not actually have contributed substantially to any single article that comes up for nomination. — Maile (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   I'm not sure you get entirely what this poll is asking. This isn't about editors nominating other people's articles per se. Rather the question is, does having someone else nominate your articles count as a DYK credit for you in regards to needing to do a QPQ review? In the example I posted above, I have a user who has self-nominated 4 of her articles and has had 5 articles she wrote/was somewhat involved in be nominated by someone else. Now according to the QPQ check she has 9 DYK credits to her name which would (presumably) require her to complete a QPQ review before her current nomination goes through. However the editor believes that only her 4 self-noms should count as DYK "credits" in regards to QPQ. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, I got it the first time around. But the way you've written these two proposals, under the first one, nobody has to do a QPQ unless they have self-nominated 5 successful DYKs beforehand. So, a clever editor just gets someone else to nominate their DYKs, and they can have 100 articles at DYK over time, and never, ever have to do a QPQ. Isn't this second one the way it works now? Or, at least, how it's making the issue murky? Conversely, under that first one, if somebody nominates 100 articles and has no DYK credits, then when they finally do a self-nom, they're off the hook on reviewing as a QPQ. Doesn't seem quite fair. The only thing that first one does is let a lot of people off the hook if they don;t feel like reviewing. For me personally, I don't pay attention to my DYK credits unless I wrote the article. But that's not the way toolserver has it. And if that changes, somebody has to get the toolserver changed,.— Maile (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   This poll is not really a proposal as much as it is asking for clarification for what the community views constitute a DYK "credit"--are they only for articles you self-nominated or do you get DYK credit for articles that your wrote/substantially edit that was nominated by someone else? If it is the former than an editor with 4 self noms "credits" and 5 "credits" for articles nominated by someone else shouldn't be required to do a QPQ per the rules. If it is the later then we have cases where an editor who has only ever had someone else nominate their work could be required to do a QPQ require for their very first self nom if they have had more than 5 articles of theirs nominated by someone else since they will already have more than 5 DYK "credits" to their name, etc. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   That is indeed the current situation, and people are doing just that - having someone else nominate their articles just to avoid QPQ. And the 100 DYKs without a QPQ has actually been done. The QPQ requirement should be on nominations, like the editor says. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

2. Support Makes sense.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose For the purpose of QPQ only, DYK credits should be on nominations, whether self-noms or not. This will be much harder to game than the proposal, or the current system. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose—just get rid of QPQ. It ruins any notion of professionalism in the reviewing process, and as pro-bono workers, much of our reward is to achieve professional standards while not being paid. Tony (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I didn't originally add the "Support/Oppose" headers (they were added by another editor) since this poll wasn't about a proposal but rather requesting clarification for what the community views as constituting a DYK "credit" in regards to the QPQ requirement of all editors with over 5 DYK credits needing to do a QPQ. I can see already that this poll is drifting off course since we have cases where editors are "opposing" both possible definitions of what constitute a DYK "credit" A.) Your DYK credits include only your self noms or B.) Your DYK credits include your self-noms as well as articles that you wrote/substantially edit that were nominated by someone else. I would suggest removing the confusing "Support/Oppose" headers since there really is nothing to support/oppose. Rather the aim is to have a discussion on the issue of what constitute a DYK credit so we can get community consensus. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest changing the review requirement (Rule 5) this way:

1. Review requirement – DYK uses the concept of quid pro quo (QPQ). Reviewing another editor's nomination is part of the nomination process for self-nominations. This makes it more likely that all nominations are reviewed in a timely manner. You may add your nomination before you undertake a review, but before it is approved, please review another editor's nomination and indicate at your nomination which you have reviewed, and provide a link to the reviewed nomination. New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits nominations) are exempt from this review requirement, as is the nomination of another editor's article, although they are strongly encouraged to do so." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to see a redefinition of "DYK credits", as this would have a wider impact. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that making QPQ a blanket requirement for all noms (self-nominated or not) would make this discussion moot though that proposal has failed to get consensus before. Now if someone wants to open up that proposal for another go-around then they are more than welcome to but that someone is not me. The whole point of this discussion was a request for clarification of what current community consensus views as the definition of a DYK credit. This discussion is not an attempt to "re-define" DYK credit, only an attempt to figure out what the current community definition actually is. I feel that this is an important distinction to nail down because if a future proposal to make QPQ a blanket requirement for all noms fails to get consensus once again we will still have to deal with the ambiguity of cases like CindyMuse with the question of whether an editor with 4 DYK self-nom "credits" and 5 "credits" from having other editors nominator her work counts as 9 DYK "credits" which would mean she has to do a QPQ review for her current nomination. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is quite clear from WP:DYK that the review requirement has to do with self-nominations only. The status quo, therefore, is that once someone has five of these, all future self-nominations have to be accompanied by a QPQ. DYK credits come in two flavors: articles created and articles nominated. There are separate "medals" for these, starting at 25 of each and at higher multiples. Since the requirement here refers to "new nominators", it's the self-nominations that are on the line; otherwise, someone who has had six of their articles nominated by others could be required to do a QPQ on their very first nomination, despite being the newest of nominators, which would make this clause self-contradictory. I've always equated "DYK credits" in this section with self-nominations only. In the example given, therefore—nine DYKs, only four of which are self-nominations—a QPQ is not required, though it would be nice for the person to do a review. As for voting or proposals like Hawkeye7's above, I'm not sure why we're revisiting this aspect of the matter less than three weeks after the last discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately BlueMoonset, while the requirement to do a QPQ for self nom for people with more than 5 DYK credits is "quite clear", what constitute a DYK credit is "not quite clear"--as evident by your paragraph long explanation and other editors differing view. It would be in DYK's best interest to make that "quite clear" with a line or two in the rules explaining just what you did above. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we tweak Rule 5 to match what people think it means:

Review requirement – DYK uses the concept of quid pro quo (QPQ). Reviewing another editor's nomination is part of the nomination process for self-nominations. This makes it more likely that all nominations are reviewed in a timely manner. You may add your nomination before you undertake a review, but before it is approved, please review another editor's nomination and indicate at your nomination which you have reviewed, and provide a link to the reviewed nomination. New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits self nominations) are exempt from this review requirement, as is the nomination of another editor's article, although they are strongly encouraged to do so."

Hawkeye7 Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Link carpeting

I see that BlueMoonset wants "Australia" linked in the current prep area 1. Why? To divert people away from the DYK in that hook? To make it an ugly blue mess? en.WP does not link the names of commonly known geographical entities/countries. One of the hooks in that area has seven links. Two hooks have four links. This is very bad practice.

Can I ask whether this huge number of articles that are already linked at the DYK article have themselves been audited for main-page exposure? Where is the evidence of that auditing? Why is there an insistence on scattergun carpet-linking when the whole purpose of DYK's very privileged real-estate on the main page is to link to the DYK articles that have gone through the forum.

Tony (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the "whole purpose of DYK ... is to link to the articles that have gone through the forum". DYK has a number of purposes, but like the other mainpage sections, its primary purpose is to engage the readership. From that POV, it matters not a jot whether a reader finds a secondary link more important than the bolded link - if he clicks on a link, it's a win for the project. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you that ashamed of the work put into DYKs by nominators, reviewers, and admins, that you don't care "a jot" that secondary links divert traffic away from the DYK? Tony (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL, nice attempt at deflection, but no, it doesn't bother me at all if readers find a secondary link more interesting, and unlike you I don't think it appropriate to force readers to click on links they have no interest in to get to the link they want. Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, does a day go by when you don't find fault with the sun for shining, or with lambs for gambolling in the field or with fluffy clouds for passing in the vasty sky? Ericoides (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are no lambs for several thousand miles, but I'd like to take the opportunity to complain about the kids being off school due to the copious rain we are receiving here today... ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Um....picture of corpse in DYK nom about being tortured to death

It is a completely non-neutral hook. I know that pictures of corpses are allowed if they are of historical value, but I don't see how this picture can be uploaded and put in multiple articles. The nomination page is Template:Did you know nominations/Matar Matar. SL93 (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• That hook is definitely a no-go. Remember, do not unduly focus on negative aspects in a hook about a BLP (DYKSG). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • And about the picture? I don't mean for within the hook since it cannot be promoted, but just the fact that it was uploaded in general. SL93 (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That would depend on the article. In an article on the subject, definitely worth having (as long as it's truly free). In most other articles, not good and not needed. But that's not DYK-related. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The person was non-notable. I do know that Wikimedia is not censored, but this is wrong. I don't see pictures of dead bodies on the articles of notable people who died. I may have to bring this up somewhere, the idea of this being alright due to Wikimedia projects not being censored is wrong. SL93 (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
        • If one dies from being tortured, and one's torture and death is the reason one is notable, then a picture of one's corpse will likely have a role to play in the article. Such a condition (thankfully) is not true for 99% of article subjects, so most articles don't need or support pictures of a dead body. Leonard Siffleet certainly benefits from having a picture of his execution, and if the victim in Eddie Adams Vietnam war picture had an article it would certainly benefit from the image. Compare images of the lynching of Jesse Washington, which are far more explicit but undoubtedly central to the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
          • The guy in the picture was an average non-notable person that has no article. I wonder what would happen if a famous celebrity or someone else notable happened to be murdered any time soon. Would a picture of their dead body be appropriate for all of the people that come to the article because of the death? SL93 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I misread it. I am still against it, but discussing rarely changes these issues. SL93 (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Reply to the stricken comment: The way I see it you have two questions: 1) Should this image be used in an article?, which I've given my two cents about above; in an article on the subject, sure, but in an article on someone or something else, doubtful. I further limited my support for the use of such images to cases where "one dies from being tortured, and one's torture and death is the reason one is notable", which eliminates celebrities.
            • 2) Should this image be hosted on Commons? That is a question for Commons to decide (it's up for deletion right now, Russavia got on that quite quickly), although I wouldn't oppose to the hosting of such images assuming they are free. Aside from the not censored censored, there are implicit double standards. Why do images depicting historical atrocities get hosted with little comment but those depicting modern-day atrocities get protested extensively? Have all atrocities worth teaching in history class disappeared from the world? No.
            • Discussion regarding the worthiness of graphic images depicting modern-day atrocities, as a rule, would have to be in the proper forum. DYK is not it, and I think most DYK writers agree that posting the image on the MP would be a bit much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to forget about this issue which should not have been brought up here. I would bring this up somewhere else, but I never participated in such big issues because no matter how I act, I am apparently some type of troll. Well, I never participated in those since I was new, but I don't want to risk it. This section can be removed if deemed inappropriate. SL93 (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Eva Brunne - first Lesbian bishop?

The hook for the Eva Brunne article (currently first in queue) says she is the first Lesbian bishop in the world. Isn't it normal in such cases to qualify with "first openly Lesbian"? I know of one female bishop appointed before Brunne where there are speculations about her being Lesbian. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I checked the source and it does indeed refer to her as the first openly lesbian bishop, so I have amended the hook accordingly. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Magnus Manske

I was wondering if anyone would mind looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Magnus Manske. I mentioned issues, but his later edits to the article that shows his work with MediaWiki as well as being a scholar may make him notable. I admit that I am inexperienced with the notability of scholars. SL93 (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing all wikilinks except to the nominated articles?

Tony1 removed all of the non-bold wikilinks from Prep 1, something I've never seen done before, with the rationale that "all links removed that are in the DYK article already". I've never seen that justification before, and I don't believe it holds water. A reader should not be forced to search the article for the term when a link is there in the hook for the curious.

I don't think hooks should have a great many links, but unfamiliar terms certainly should be, such as "Bad Lads' Army". I can see removing the "Australia" wikilink, and will probably eliminate that a couple more shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the links to WWII and Australia, as 99.99999% of our readers are at least passingly familiar with the terms. I also disagree with removing all links. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Why are "destroyer", "Adriatic Sea" (just after the island within it), and "Royal Navy" linked, then? There were seven links; now there are five. That's four links that are already in the DYK article (most of them prominent, all of them if you bother to read the article and see the links in context).

    There's every appearance that DYK is conceived not as a serious part of the main page, but as a shopping-mall blue-carpet-to-anywhere kind of "experience". No thanks. People presumably work hard to produce and review these DYK articles; why are they diluted with the window-shopping attitude to linking, in ways that defy both MOSLINK and the particular role of a main-page forum? Tony (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

    • Well, "destroyer", "Adriatic Sea", and "Royal Navy" are not known by 99.99999% of our readers. Over 70%, maybe, but not as prominent as Australia or WWII. Would every American know that the Royal Navy is Britain's navy? Or would Australians assume that the Royal Navy is the Royal Australian Navy? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing back some link-sanity. FYI, I have further amended the blurb, and focussed the RN link so it now reads:

    ... that HMS Aldenham (pictured), which struck a mine near the island of Pag, was the final destroyer lost by the Royal Navy in World War II?

    -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

    • Better, OC. I don't mind if "Adriatic Sea" is mentioned in the hook, but not linked as well as the more focused one to the island. At least now the appropriate history section of the article on the Royal Navy is the target. I wonder why, if DYK people are so mindset on spraying links everywhere, they don't actually link according to our guidelines—and with a little care. Tony (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
      • As a rule of thumb, I don't link (well-known) countries and I don't link the World Wars. The whole-scale removal of all links other than the DYK one (as I've seen Tony do on other occasions too), I view as counter-productive. No thanks. Manxruler (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Why are we having the same discussion over and over again, in the space of a day or so, each time ignoring the previous rounds? Manxruler (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't know, particularly as there is no policy or MOS guideline for removing all links except to the DYK items. Countries seem to fall under "what not to link" at WP:OVERLINKING. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
          • This is a campaign of Tony's, though, that's been going on on and off for years. With the often wholesale removal of completely valid links, without any discussion at all, and with tons of bad faith towards the hook writers (the most recent being us wishing to "divert people away from the DYK" or make a hook "an ugly blue mess"). Manxruler (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Manxruler, I've been conducting a "campaign" to professionalise the English Wikipedia since 2005. For my work, I've been battered, bludgeoned, spat at, and otherwise insulted—even at forums such as FAC, where we managed to turn around a pretty tawdry process into what we have today; people just hate their favourite home forum being criticised. But nothing compares with the bullying I routinely experience on this page, except the laughable Wikinews main-page people; but DYK is better than that, surely? The bullying won't stop me from working to reform DYK, and trying to whip up support against my entreaties by claiming that I have "tons of bad faith towards the hook writers" is a prescription for rebutting any criticism. I don't personalise my criticism: I just point out things that appear regrettable to me, and occasionally suggest improvements.

  On the ridiculous overlinking that is going on: I see that Crisco says above: "Which is, likewise, a good argument against only having one link per hook". That's good progress—at least one regular here sees the light; but Manxruler is still back in 2006 arguing about "valid", and presumably invalid, links (what are they?). Links serve a purpose according to the context in which they're used. And this is a very particular context. At DYK, I'm finding the wikilinking system is being used like a toy without thought or care. You say, "Tony, I open several links in a hook all the time. I don't see why looking at protist might prevent me or anyone else from checking out Oxyrrhis marina also." Why do you assume that outside visitors to the main page would do as you do, as a DYK insider (who should be checking those unaudited pages, anyway, if they have to be linked)? Tony (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • While I can understand your concern, especially on noms like Template:Did you know nominations/World of Tanks Xbox 360 Edition that overlinking is a problem. Sometimes links are needed as for example Joe Murray (soldier) on the main page at the moment needs Bad Lads' Army to be linked otherwise people outside the UK might not know what it meant. I do think that people are more likely to listen to you if you stop criticizing DYK as a whole and focus on the issues that need changing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • GSTQ, is there a slight disconnect here between people in threads above who have argued that not items in a hook don't need to be clear to "normal" visitors to the main page (a concern for me when the point of the hook is lost), and your concern that "Bad Lads' Army" should be linked because it won't be apparent to normal people (true, I didn't have a clue what it was). Do you really want to lose people by forcing them to click on a diversionary link here just to find out why the hook was surprising or interesting? Especially when that link is glaringly obvious at the top of Joe Murray (soldier, the DYK article? Why divert them? Why not sherpherd them to the DYK article and allow them to see the link to Lads Army five seconds later? This is what I can't fathom about the link-lots-of-words practice in hooks. There are no guidelines here for smart linking.

      For example, it's well-known that when the DYK link is buried towards the end of a hook, and readers encounter multiple secondary links beforehand, it suppresses visits to the DYK article. Let's take the one I took issue with upstairs:

    • ... that Upper Paleolithic wall paintings in the Lascaux Cave in France are now threatened by Ochroconis anomala, a new species of fungus recently discovered in black stains on the wall inside the cave?

      So the DYK article, linked third of three, got 888 views on the day, not great compared with solely linked DYKs. Unfortunately it was beaten by "Lascaux Cave" (914, daily average over three months of 15.8 excluding the spike) on the day, and almost beaten by "Upper Paleolithic" (810, up from a daily average of 505, admittedly less of a spike). "Lascauz Cave" is linked on the second line of the DYK article, and "Upper Paleolithic" prominently in the opening sentence of the first section. In context.

      By the way, "Ochroconis anomala" was a good hook and very good DYK article. No one's been back to expand the article, and the 11 mostly academic refs suggest that one day it will be expanded; but perhaps we can turn a blind eye to one of the key stated purposes of DYK when the quality of the post-stub is exemplary. Small can be excellent, and that is DYK at its best.

      So why isn't there advice somewhere that it's preferable to make the DYK link the first one, even if this isn't always possible? Tony (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

      • Tony, I for one have offered that piece of advice before, and I am confident that others have as well. I do think that formalising this advice on putting the target article early in the hook is a very good idea. EdChem (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example. Last year I had a dyk hook (triple hook) that performed lousy based on number of views of the "featured" articles, but well over the average if we count all views. For instance, the article "1910 in some country" with 160 clicks might compete for the all-time low record, while total number of clicks, including the mountain and the picture, was slightly above 10,000. The hook goes like this:

... that Stetind (pictured) was first ascended in 1910 by Bryn, Rubenson and Schjelderup?

I regarded the overall interest in the hook as satisfactory. Since Stetind was only a stub at the time, I also expanded that article a bit (to start class), by updating its climbing history. The bolded articles would probably not have attracted more readers without the extra bluelink. Oceanh (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, first: Care to explain the Crisco having seen the light comment? I did not understand that one. Your view that having more than one link in a hook removes hits from the DYK article is based on what exactly? And I rather like the ITN section of the main page, I click articles there all the time. Manxruler (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that we add the following (or something similar) within the Format section at Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook:

• The target article(s) in a hook tend to receive more views when the bolded link(s) appear early in the hook and before other links; it is recommended that hooks are composed with this observation in mind.
• Links in hooks can direct readers away from the target article and so should be used sparingly; in many cases, a hook having only a link to the target article(s) may be appropriate.

Thoughts / Comments? EdChem (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment (1st rule): "Recommended" leaves the door wide open to further complaints

Oppose second "rule", as it's generally not appropriate for the vast majority of articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose second point per Crisco. Generally agree that putting the DYK link early on in the hook gives more hits for the article, but sees no need to add yet another "rule". Manxruler (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - No evidence has been presented to demonstrate early links get more hits, but if they did I don't think it matters per my comment to Tony in the following section. And I think updates would start to look pretty silly if all the bolded links came at the start of every hook. It's more important IMO to have well written and concise hooks. As for the "sparing" use of links suggestion, at best I think we would only need to remind users of WP:OVERLINK, but even that might arguably be an example of instruction creep. Gatoclass (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Support both. Crisco, why is it "generally not appropriate for the vast majority of articles"? Do you mean the vast majority of hooks? If so, who would lose by encouraging single-link hooks unless there's a good reason not to? Are you assuming that a sea of links in a hook doesn't damage the viewing rate on the DYK target? Same question to Manxruler (and that's a very weak anti-rule-per-se argument you've put). Tony (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Once again, Tony, you and I have very different views on the subject of DYK and its goals: we are not just promoting the new article, but providing context for individuals to understand the hooks. Would you know The Rose of Cikembang off hand (if you do, kudos as the English translation is quite recent), or The Story of Tjonat? I've mentioned above, follow through for related articles is terrible once they are off the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, I've never supported "a sea" of links. As I've said previously, I don't link the world wars or (most) countries. Nor would I link everyday words, in a hook or otherwise. But no, I don't think it "damages" the viewing rate of the DYK articles, what do you base that on anyway? And it doesn't make me sad to see a "secondary" link get hits, at all. As Crisco says, context is important, and links help provide context. Manxruler (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Provisionally Support second point because I think that Tony did make a good point in response to an earlier comment of mine that it is unnecessary if it is in the article already so if people want to find out then they could go into the bolded article and find out what it is thus drawing in more views. But if it's not explicitly in the article, I think it should be linked. I'm not in favour of the first point as some hooks need to be structured in a certain way, some with the hook at the end, because of the information available in the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

CofE: sure, but he's proposed that it be "recommended" ... and "this observation in mind". It's establishing a desirable formula for hook structures, but rightly leaving it open. Of course you're right that it can't always be done. Tony (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. The mission of DYK is to spotlight new content. For most of the articles which appear on DYK, their short time on the Main Page is the one and only chance they'll ever get for such wide exposure. Why dilute that potential by linking to old, established articles, practically begging people to click on something other than the article which we're trying to highlight? Writing does not come easily to me; I work very hard when I write an article, and I want as many people as possible to see it.

Some people don't seem to understand the nature of a "hook". It really is supposed to hook people's interest and get them to click through to the new article. A hook is not a mini-article; it doesn't have to, and absolutely should not, explain everything. If there's an unfamiliar term in the hook, there's no need to link to it; let people click on the bold link, hopefully read the article, and then they can click on the link, in the article, for that unfamiliar term to learn more about it.

I recently nominated someone else's article about a painting, and the hook mentioned the Nazi Degenerate Art exhibit, which I specifically did not link to. I was afraid someone along the way would add a link, but fortunately nobody did. The article got 5300 hits, and even without a link in the hook, Degenerate Art still got a boost of about 650–700 from its usual views, presumably via clicks coming from a link in the article. That's exactly how it's supposed to happen.

In contrast, a few years ago I had nominated one of my articles which also mentioned the Degenerate Art exhibit. I purposely did not link to Degenerate Art in the hook, but somebody else did add a link; as a result, the new article which I worked so hard to write got 2300 hits while that old, established one got 3300. I'm certain that much more dramatic examples could easily be found. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Writing does not come easily to me; I work very hard when I write an article, and I want as many people as possible to see it." That's fine for you to feel that way and the beauty of it is that adding secondary links to hook is completely optional. If you don't want to add secondary links to your articles then don't. If another editor wants to risk diverting people's attention from their DYK articles with secondary links then okay! There is no reason to enact a carte blanche rule for something that is completely optional and individualize to each hook. I've never heard of a reviewer holding up a nom because there wasn't enough secondary articles linked when the nominator did not want any. Now, yes, sometimes there are "drive-by" good-faith edits that might try to "improve" a hook by adding a link but that is why we have watchlists to catch those edits which can easily be changed with a polite note left on the user's talk page explaining that you did not wish to have any secondary links added or what not. I see no reason why preventing good faith behavior needs to be regulated with a strict rule in place. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that the bolding should go. It's currently used as a palliative for the overlinking that is systematic in DYK. Words are often linked "for context" but in fact are used to gloss them; some are common garden terms that need little introduction. And when the blurbs are so thoroughly linked, the bolding becomes a necessity to make the weak stand out from all the chaff. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Since bolding is used in all sections on the main page to indicate the article being referred to (featured article, In the news, On this day, featured picture), to remove bolding from Did you know makes no sense in the context of the main page format. Because of this, the claim that it's being used as a palliative to overlinking strikes me as unlikely: overlinking is a separate issue unrelated to the required formatting for the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• While there is certainly validity to that comment in terms of creating consistence, it seems to be a rehash of that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument that we hear every time attention is drawn to overlinking in any section on the MP. But I hope that we can work harder overall, and to ensure that each blurb (not just for DYK) is linked more sensibly – that there are no more than three links in each. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Absolute oppose second rule The point of the links is to give more information to our readers, to give more context. There are plenty of DYK hooks where, in addition to clicking the subject article, I clicked one of the other linked words to see what it was. Now, i'm not saying people can't make hooks with no links, but you should not make it a rule that they should push for having less links. I certainly will not stand for explanatory links being removed from my nominations, even if this gets passed. Silverseren^C 11:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose both. As for the first rule, focus should be on making the most interesting hook possible, not on making the hook that gets the link as close to the front as possible. (Is there even empirical data on whether links earlier in the hook really get clicked more? If not, I could mine some--but we would have to control for other factors, at the very least 1) whether or not the hook had a picture, 2) where in the update the hook was [e.g. near the top or near the bottom], 3) whether or not there were other bold links in the hook; 4) how many other links there were; date and time the hook appeared. Plus it would probably be necessary to distinguish between depth of link measured in terms of how many words in the the link appears, versus percentage of words in the hook appears.)
  As for the second, I have stated my concerns in Agne's discussion below. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Vehemently Oppose second rule. Per WP:CONTEXT, relevant links "are needed to aid understanding." This should also apply for hooks. The main purpose of DYK should not be which article can get the most hits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Idea: Quality criteria for linked secondary articles

I'm with Gato and others in not being too worried about readers being distracted by secondary links. What would be a more pressing concern is when those secondary links are to very subpar articles that have maintenance tags or other glaring issues that really shouldn't be on the Main Page in the first place. We've improved the average quality of a DYK featured article by instituting some basic quality criteria--why not just extend some of that criteria to all linked articles in the hook? This would encourage all DYK nominators to be much more judicious in adding links to secondary articles since they would essentially be taking "responsibility" for quality of those articles. I don't think this would add too much of an extra burden to DYK contributors since the amount of extra effort is up to them. If a secondary article is in really bad shape and they don't want to spruce it up then simply don't add a link to it in the hook. But if you really, really want that secondary article link in your hook then put in the time to make that article suitable for the Main Page. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The primary burden would be on the DYK reviewers and promoters, who would then have to check every blue-linked article, not just the nominated article. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really because we wouldn't be extending the whole DYK criteria to each link. I think a rough base would be:

• No maintenance tags (with the tag issue being addressed instead of just removed)
• At least one ref per paragraph
• No stubs (articles don't have to be at least 1500 bytes like a DYK but it should be bigger than a stub class)

All three of these can easily be checked by a DYK reviewer for each link in a hook without adding too much of an extra burden on the reviewer. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever happened to the ethos of "stubs aren't bad"? Also, even TFA doesn't have this kind of stringent rule about secondary links. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is the lesser of two evils? Having continuous complaints about "link carpeting" DYK and endless discussions about rules limiting how many links should be in a hook/only the bold DYK article link alone, etc or adding a simple quality criteria requirement to secondary article links (which are completely optional for a nominator to add to hook)? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this idea seems plausable if a little more work which could confuse new users. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, re: TFA not having a quality criteria for secondary links, would it actually be a bad thing for DYK to be more proactive than TFA in promoting article improvement and increasing the overall quality of articles that are linked on the Main Page? With as much grief as DYK gets for not having every DYK featured article be of "FA quality", you would think that it would actually be refreshing for us to be bold and take the lead in not letting subpar articles sneak onto the Main Page as secondary links. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Crisco here, this seems like way too much for DYK. It's not just TFA that doesn't do this; to the best of my knowledge, no other mainpage or content review process holds nominators responsible for the content of articles that are not part of the nomination. I think this level of scrutiny is not within the spirit of DYK (or at least DYK as it was when I was active here; I admit I have been on hiatus for a while and things may have changed).

Furthermore, I doubt it is feasible. DYK is already unable to handle the amount of submissions it's getting in a timely manner (see the backlog), and on top of that it's unable to conduct thorough enough reviews to satisfy everyone (although, admittedly, there's not even agreement yet on whether reviews should be that thorough if it were possible). Adding another level to reviewing is just going to compound the problem. I think a much simpler solution is to just stress to reviewers the importance of checking hooks for overlinking. The content of hooks is something DYK is responsible for; the content of articles linked from those hooks (other than the bolded one) is not. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"...holds nominators responsible for the content of articles that are not part of the nomination." Ah...but if a nominator links the article in its hook, it is part of the nomination. All a nominator has to do to not be responsible for the link is to simply not link the article in their hook. Secondary links are optional. They're not required and, in many cases, not needed. It is entirely up to the nominator whether or not they're linked. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the part I don't agree with. When an article is at FAC, for example, no one argues that every article linked from that article is also part of the nomination.

I completely agree that the links are often not needed. That's why I was saying that the problem can be solved just by urging reviewers to pay attention to overlinking. In the cases where a link is desirable but the article being linked to has cleanup tags or insufficient sourcing or something, I think there is no reason not to link it. The main page doesn't come with any guarantee that every page you click through to is going to be perfect. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And I'm not suggesting at all a review of links in the article, merely links that are in the hook because THESE are being featured on the Main Page whether they are bolded are not. You say that "The main page doesn't come with any guarantee that every page you click through to is going to be perfect." yet nearly every single complaint about DYK that comes to this page is that it doesn't feature "near perfect" content. While it's fair to say that those criticisms miss the point of DYK, it is also fair for those critics ti point out that Main Page is valuable real estate and it is our face to the world and what we feature there shouldn't be an embarrassment to the project. Over the years, we've adapted and I think overall that both DYK and the Main Page have benefited by an improved emphasize on quality yet how much have we really improved if we still let very subpar "sneak onto" the Main Page via secondary links? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 12:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

While I think Agne's suggestions for "improvement" of secondary links would be too onerous, there is a case to be made I think for nominators and reviewers alike to be more mindful of the quality of secondary links in an article hook. Certainly we shouldn't be linking to articles which have major issues. Gatoclass (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

May I ask what is onerous about this idea? Again I point out the completely optional nature of secondary links. To use an example from one of today's DYK sets that is currently on the Main Page is in the Moskovsky Korrespondent hook. Here we are currently very publicly featuring a poorly referenced WP:BLP article on Alina Kabaeva that has been tagged as needing attention for over 5 years and yet here we are prominently featuring it for our 2 million+ Main Page visitor. And we are A-OKAY with this!?! This is a case where if the editor didn't want to add the refs to fix this BLP, a simple tweak of the hook to leave out the link and say "... to marry a gymnast?" would have solved everything--no extra burden on the nominator and certainly no poorly referenced BLP being prominently featured on the Main Page. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 12:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, that is basically my point. Reviewers are rarely going to have time to "improve" secondary links but a quick check of them could enable reviewers to either remove a link or request that the nominator make improvements. Gatoclass (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested improvements to current queue

Here are some suggested improvements to the items in the current queue:

• Queue 5, hook 2 is presently "... that George W. Bush became the first person elected to two consecutive four-year terms as Governor of Texas following the gubernatorial election in 1998?" Following Tony's comments, is a link to Governor of Texas needed - arguably only if "gubernatorial" is confusing? Also, if the target were moved to the front, the hook could be shortened. I propose:

"... that the 1998 Texas gubernatorial election made George W. Bush the first person to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms as Governor?"

• Queue 5, hook 7 reads "... that Howard Lindzon once passed on the opportunity to invest in Twitter but went on to found StockTwits?" Why is Twitter linked? Surely we can reasonably assume that anyone reading the English Wikipedia will have heard of Twitter?
• Queue 6, hook 2 reads "... that the Third Launch Pad at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre will be used to launch missions of the Indian human spaceflight programme?" The target article is Satish Dhawan Space Centre Third Launch Pad, so I don't understand why it has been separated into two links. Also, whilst the idea that an Indian human spaceflight programme is interesting, the phrase is self-explanatory and the link is not really necessary. I suggest:

"... that the Third Launch Pad at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre will be used to launch missions of the Indian human spaceflight programme?"

• Queue 6, hook 3 reads "... that the albums that shared the 1999 Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year were nominated against each other at the 41st Grammy Awards?" My initial thought was, so what? Two albums up for music award A were also both nominated for music award B - like saying actors X and Y shared a BAFTA award for Best Actor and were also both nominated for an Oscar, which would hardly be unusual. Now, looking at the Lo Nuestro link I find it is for only Latin American music, which makes the joint winners both being up for the same Grammy less commonplace, but I think the hook should be modified to clarify the significance of being nominated for both. Also, is a link the Grammy Awards necessary? Surely editors interested by a hook on music awards will know of the Grammys. Not proposing an alternative, hopefully someone can suggest something appropriate.
• Queue 6, hook 4 reads "... that Simon Achikgyozyan, a geologist for 30 years, is considered a hero for his activities in Karabakh?" Until I looked at the article, I didn't realise this meant for his actions in a war. I think a clearer hook would be:

"... that Simon Achikgyozyan, a geologist for 30 years, is considered a hero for his activities in the Nagorno-Karabakh War?"

• Queue 6, hook 6 reads "... that Archbishop Pargev has been the primate of the Diocese of Artsakh since 1989?" How is this an interesting hook? Archbishops sitting in a single Diocese for 20+ years doesn't seem unusual to me. Maybe do something with him being the only primate in the diocese, like:

• "... that Archbishop Pargev has been the only primate of the Diocese of Artsakh since its re-establishment following the Nagorno-Karabakh war?"

Also, on the variety topic, hooks 4 and 6 are both related to that same war.

I'll look through more queues a bit later, if this feedback / comment is helpful and useful. EdChem (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Q5,H2: That's a huge link, especially considering it's bolded. That's likely why it's not done like that. Agree about Q6H4, changed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The link I proposed is 3 characters longer than the one in the existing hook. It could be easily shorted from 1998 Texas gubernatorial election by moving words from the link, or changing it to something like "... that a 1998 election made George W. Bush the first person to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms as Governor of Texas?" which is also shorter. EdChem (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Now that's an ALT I can get behind. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • (e.c.) or even "... that in 1998, George W. Bush became the first person to be elected to consecutive four-year terms as Governor of Texas?" EdChem (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Q5, H7: For what it's worth, I've heard of Twitter, but have only a very basic idea of what it's all about. And we're writing for the world, aren't we? Not just the Western Hemisphere? Manxruler (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm only making suggestions and every view is welcome, but in this case the point of the hook is to look at the biogrpahy and anyone looking at it who doesn't know about Twitter will liklely follow a link from there. EdChem (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• EdChem, these are much, much better, and do justice to the work put in by nominators, reviewers, and admins. I'm happy for all of your suggestions to be put into effect.
  • Q5, H1: Much, much better. The longer link-text is still a character short of the article title, and saves the redundant repetition of "Governor of Text" (linked as well, sigh). If you really want the DYK link to be shorter, make it "that the 1998 Texas gubernatorial election, but I like the prominence of your suggested DYK link. But why is George W. Bush linked? It's linked at the top of the DYK article, and he's hardly unknown.
  • Q5, H7: Manxruler, if you've heard of Twitter, why do you want a diversionary link to the article instead of going to the DYK article? Next we'll be linking "computer" and "YouTube". Why aren't you linking "geologist", "Karabakh", "albums", "primate", and lots more, then? Why don't you type it into the search box if it's such a big deal for you, because 99.999% of readers would be happy clicking on such links within the DYK articles. And I guess the question is also why you'd risk diverting visitors from this new, barely seen article, to Twitter, which gets nearly 14,000 views a day (that's nearly five million views a year).
  • Q6, H6: Why oh why was this not pipped out at an early stage? Or at least the nominator encouraged to find a real hook? My first hunch is: "... that Pargev Martirosyan went on to become a Russian archbishop after having been drafted into the Soviet army?" ... or something like that.

Could the guidance give a few tips to nominators about going through their proposed article/topic at an early stage and identifying the interesting or surprising bits? It's not that hard. Tony (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I approved the hook for Pargev Martirosyan. I don't consider it a reviewer's job to find hooks that they don't find boring. What is interesting to some people are not interesting to others. I find that a lot of DYK hooks that are promoted may be a fact that I don't know, but is so boring to me that I wouldn't even care to know it. SL93 (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I don't view the Twitter link as diversionary, rather I think it draws the eye to Howard and even more to StockTwits. Most of the terms you've listed there are everyday words, so it would be clear-cut overlinking to link them. But you bet I would link Karabakh, absolutely. That's one of the lesser-known geographical entities which I would definitively link, to provide context. Manxruler (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

SL93 (talk · contribs), rule 3(a) in the eligibility criteria at WP:DYK states that "a) The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience" (emphases in original). It is your job as reviewer to consider whether the hook is compliant with DYK rules, including that it be interesting to a broad audience. You need not find an alternative hook, simply not approve the hook, put it on hold instead, and call for a more interesting hook. If the nominator challenges, start a discussion here. This need not preclude receiving QPQ credit, if that is your concern, and anyway the point of a review is to determine suitability of the nomination for a main page slot, not satisfying a requirement for one of your own nominations. I have no idea whether this is a concern for you, I make no accusation, I am simply making a general comment that I believe bears repeating. EdChem (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would argue that the large chunk of nominated articles are not interesting to a broad audience. I don't know about every topic and I can't predict what the majority of the audience will be interested in so that statement is not possible. If you're so worried about how something is, try to change it instead of preaching to me. If you really want to change it then maybe have only experts in the article's field review the nomination. That would cause a huge backlog and DYK to crumble. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

SL93, I am not preaching. You stated that a reviewer need not consider whether the hook is boring. I politely pointed you to the rule that you may have forgotten, that does make interest in the hook a relevant reviewer consideration. EdChem (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

General comment: I am disappointed that queue 6 has made it onto the main page with issues I mentioned not only unaddressed, but not even receiving any comment. I think Tony criticising hooks after they have been on the main page is much less helpful than raising them at the queue stage, but as a project we do ourselves no favours by not even commenting on suggestions made at the queue stage. I thank those who did comment / act on some of my suggestions and I don't mean that my views should carry the day in every case, but I do think that some response was a reasonable expectation on my part. Surely we want to encourage concerns being raised and opportunities being taken for quality improvements? EdChem (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, this is strong evidence that DYK is dysfunctional, and that it's time for major reform (like getting rid of it completely). It's a pity, because I'd hoped proposing obvious improvements in process would be a way to maintain something like the current system. When you get comments like, "I don't consider it a reviewer's job to find hooks that they don't find boring", you really wonder whether there are any standards at all. Why do you let them through if they're boring???? Why isn't there a mechanism for identifying whether there's a suitable hook early in the piece? You need to do more rejecting or it's not going to work.

  Further evidence from Gatoclass above: "I don't think it appropriate to force readers to click on links they have no interest in to get to the link they want." So why are you putting up hooks/articles that are likely to be uninteresting to most people? This is the main page, remember, not some socialist reward system for the uncompetitive. Why offer diversions to completely different articles, including "Twitter", which is almost universally known by net users and gets almost 5 million hits a year already? It completely undermines the goals of DYK. It's not whether Manxruler has expert knowledge of Twittter and wants to go window shopping from the main page and not the DYK article: it's about making the main page competitive on the internet. At the moment it's a crowded mess, typically with some 50 links to articles and other pages. How much dilution of the main-page forums do we want to pile in there? Tony (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Like I said earlier, "I don't know about every topic and I can't predict what the majority of the audience will be interested in so that statement is not possible." Just because I think that something is boring doesn't meant that it is. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Leave it to others to tell you whether what is boring and what is not, then, if you don't want to make that call: I suggest that anyone who can't sniff the boring stop doing DYK ... it's what every internet site does on its home page. This is yet more evidence of a disorganised mentality that puts editors, not readers, first. Tony (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
      • You are so full of nonsense. Do you think that your opinion about what is interesting is the voice of the majority? Do you think that improvements that you think are obvious are indeed obvious? If those improvements were so obvious, there wouldn't be much disagreement. The only way to know what the broad audience is interested in, instead of thinking that you know everything, is to have a survey on the main page to be available for a while for readers to answer questions in order to get statistics. That would include religion, race, culture, gender, country of residence, political standing, etc. There is no other way. SL93 (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • SL93, you can raise uninterestingness for discussion at the nomination or here and seek other views. The rules require interestingness be considered. EdChem (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Tony, I am trying to foster improvements and not to kill off DYK. I offered an example of useful critique at the queue stage, and am disappointed it did not result in improvements to more of the hooks I mentioned, but that is not a reason to burn down the whole project. EdChem (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes about what the rules say, but no one including even a small group of people can know what the broad audience for sure thinks is interesting. Like I said, the only way to know for sure is to have statistics about who normally reads DYK. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Ed, those suggestions of yours with which I agreed went up immediately. Otherwise... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "You are so full of nonsense"—I am very close to taking SL93 to ANI for a significant breach of WP:CIVIL. Tony (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Your comments are no better. SL93 (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I beg to differ: I don't personalise any comment: I criticise (and occasionally praise) the product, and I propose improvements in what I believe is a bad process. Some of my criticism is on the basis of the existing DYK rules, which are routinely ignored. You and your colleagues, on the other hand, have stooped to bullying and insulting me personally. Want a list? Here we go, fresh from the past week:
  • "I don't volunteer my time to put up with pompous asses like you."
• "a complete jerk" (by implication)
• "Tony's tantrum"
• "He loves to snipe at things he doesn't like, but when was the last time he actually reviewed a DYK nom?"
• "It's deeply irritating"
• "You are so full of nonsense."

The discourse has lurched from personalised outrage to occasional patches of reasoned debate to acknowledgments that things are wrong, to tribal, xenophobic reactions like: "one thing that bugs me about critics of DYK is that they all want higher standards but very few are actually willing to roll up their sleeves and offer a helping hand"; and "I don't think I've seen a single DYK by [Tony] in two years". The bad reactions and personal attacks are diffuse and ineffective, because the strategies of (1) insulting me so I'll go away, (2) claiming that only insiders are equipped to comment, (3) agreeing with my comments, and (4) creating a common enemy to marshal the troops in defence, are uncoordinated. I should reveal that I was bullied mercilessly as a child, and have a cast-iron shield against it. Tony (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, respectfully (and I mean that genuinely because as far as I can tell you have been a tireless contributor of high quality material to the article space which is after all the primary goal of Wikipedia), but I think your comments about the whole rottenness of DYK and some of the hooks are wide of the mark. That's not to say they're all good, but you don't seem to want to accept that your opinion isn't the only one out there, and that things you find boring may not be boring to readers. The Oxyrrhis marina hook was a case in point - you criticised it for being only suitable for domain experts; I am certainly no biology expert but I have an interest in it and I liked that hook. Food for thought anyway...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't think of them as my colleagues. I personally think that many of the DYK reviewers from past and present are awful at reviewing and I'm not talking about thing being boring or not. Articles with unreferenced content, unreliable sources, statements with references that don't even mention those statements, copyright violations, and bad writing have all been approved constantly. Maybe I was wrong to say that you're full of nonsense, but I have had so much distaste for so many people that have participated in DYK. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Page Size on DYK Check is gone

I don't have the option to check the page size anymore. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Works for me, so it must be something you are doing... What browser are you using? What skin is selected in your preferences here? Are you testing the Visual Editor? --Orlady (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The browser is Firefox, the skin is MonoBook, and I'm not using the Visual Editor. I'm not sure if installing the AfC review tool and the Teahouse tool did anything. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about from within the review template itself? Did it used to have DYK check among the tools in the template? I never used it that way, because I have it in my toolbox. From the toolbox, it runs OK on mine. But if it was in the review template, it's totally gone on my view. I also have Firefox, but with Modern skin. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I used it from my toolbox. SL93 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not just you. I switched over to MonoBook, and the skin does not have DYK check on my toolbox. So, I guess it's a skin issue, since I'm fine with Modern skin on this issue. — Maile (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have Firefox and Monobook. I should clarify what works for me. For the longest time now, I've not been able to access DYKcheck from the DYK nominations template, but it's still available in my toolbox when I look at the article. --Orlady (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Teahouse setting and it shows now. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, I also use Firefox/Monobook and DYKcheck works for me on the main nominations page. Go to Template:Did you know nominations#Desired section heading. You may enter a specific nomination's section heading, or a date/special occasion heading. The first time you click on DYK check, it will process the first nomination under that section, and each successive time you click on it, it will move down the list. (If you give the browser a full URL manually rather than entering it in the Wikisearch box or clicking in the table of contents, you have to encode it, for example, replacing "/" with ".2F" – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_June_18). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)