Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines/Archive 1

Archive 1

B4

I'm gonna remove B4:

• B4: No paid registration may be required to read the hook's citation.

As was agreed on in a lengthy discussion, inaccessible links (be it off-line sources, sources in foreign languages, or sources that are only available to those with special access, like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) can be accepted on good faith, where a special icon has now been introduced. Lampman (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

D6?

I don't understand the last sentence of D6. Even if the edit history is moved into mainspace, the move log should make clear what has happened. Does it mean, if a pre-existing short article is turned into a long article from userspace, and the edit history is then merged into the article? The deletion and move logs would still make clear that a history merge has taken place. Obviously it would be possible to fake it by editing a long article down to a stub, merging in a userspace version, and then claiming that the previous long edits were actually in userspace, but only an admin could do this and surely no admin would be so sleazy (let's hope). Or have I misunderstood? Chick Bowen 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that issue too well either, but I do remember it coming up, probably because no one was there who understood the move logs as well as you do. First it was rejected because it wasn't a new article, then the author protested he had just moved it from user space, then we couldn't verify that because no move was showing in the article's edit history. Art LaPella (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The logs can certainly be confusing in those kinds of cases. Well, it does make sense to warn people to leave a clear trail of an article's history; I was just puzzled (as someone who sometimes writes articles in userspace, though not recently). Chick Bowen 05:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No Redirect Links Rule?

Heya! I'm not sure whether this rule or not, but if it's not, I think it ought to be:

"A hook should include no links that have to redirect to get to their desired pages." Example: [[Minneapolis, MN]] redirects to Minneapolis, Minnesota. If an author were to use [[Minneapolis, MN]], they should do so in the form of [[Minneapolis, Minnesota|Minneapolis, MN]].

If you think it ought to be, then please change WP:R2D and/or Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Link here, which explicitly demand the opposite. We should have consistent rules. Art LaPella (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...compelling arguement against it, but I still think it ought to apply to DYK because other Main Page sections (ITN, most often) strive to get the links without redirects. I don't know. I suppose it applies for them more because their hooks involve bolded text that's nothing like the article's name. (Like, "fighting in Switzerland" links to "2010 Swiss Cheese Riots" or whatever.) BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This argument has an amazing capacity to go on and on. Note that I don't have a strong opinion on the issue itself; I just want everybody to come to one big consensus everywhere, not one rule for the rule page and other rules for people who don't feel bound by it. If your objection is that the rule shouldn't apply to the Main Page, that's exactly why I made Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Link here. Please review the talk section that precedes that link, and then offer any thoughts you may have there, where those who wrote WP:R2D can have their say directly. Art LaPella (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can and will do; thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Just curious, but should notability be taken into account when submitting/removing hooks to/from DYK? I am just wondering since I don't see it in any of the rules, and a hook that I've submitted is removed because of such a reason. -- クラウド６６８ 22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As Unwritten Rule D9 explains, I haven't tried to reduce Did You Know to a mechanical process, only to list the relatively predictable parts. I can't remember an article being rejected for lack of notability unless it was un-notable enough for Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. However, we often hear that we need more subjective evaluations rather than just mechanical rules, and the usual response is that subjective evaluations take too much time, not that any subjective evaluation is automatically unfair. So I don't think you want to claim that notability doesn't count just because we can't find it in a rule. A better recourse would be to protest at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, unless the hook is still at Template talk:Did you know (that is, if you meant rather than physical removal); in that case your protest belongs under your hook. Art LaPella (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

C2

Given that I've managed to get ads on DYK several times already (noitulovE, Evolution (Dove), Gorilla (Cadbury), Pretty (Nike), etc), maybe a reword of rule C2 is in order? :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hooks are regularly criticized as ads (recent examples Ninjas vs. Zombies and Who's Nailin' Paylin?), and I don't recall the consensus ever agreeing that ads are really OK after all. I'm trying to document the consensus, not to give orders, so I don't know what reword would be appropriate. Perhaps "No ads, unless nobody notices"? Art LaPella (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hook content

I feel that perhaps there need to be additional items in the unwritten rules regarding the hook content and the way hooks are referenced in the article. E.g. something to the effect that it is preferable that the entire hook be supported by either a single sentence in the article or by several sentences occurring in close proximity to each other in the article; but that in any event every factual statement made in the hook needs to be supported by an inline citation somewhere in the article's text. I would also be inclined to add that hooks that mention too many different factual statements are best avoided. Nsk92 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Looking at the recent DYKs, they are very hard to verify. It would require reading the whole article and piecing bits together, which I am unwilling to do. I feel the quality of DYKs has diminished. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This mostly duplicates Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria number 3. Cited hook. Do you think an F11 in User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules#Written but often overlooked would help? And is there really a consensus for the items you want to add to what it says at "Cited hook", or is what's already there the main issue? Art LaPella (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Um...

I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but why on earth does this document exist? And why on earth are the "written rules" — as opposed to these "unwritten" ones which are of course just as written the as the "written" ones, since this page exists — in two different places even aside from this page? Just put all this nitpicky rulifying in one place! This stuff was already confusing three years ago when I got fed up with it and decided not to bother pursuing any more DYKs, but this is just getting out of hand. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This document exists because it's less confusing than last summer, when these rules were literally unwritten. People submitting Did You Know hooks re-debated the same issues over and over again, which regulars always decided in the same way. That was inefficient. It may be significant that we have a lot more Did You Know submissions now than we had when only Did You Know regulars knew what the effective rules were. There are two ways to make the rules less confusing: 1. integrate and explain them better, or 2. fewer rules with fewer exceptions. Just removing this page wouldn't accomplish either of those, because the rules existed long before I wrote them down.

Yes, the unwritten rules are just as written as the written rules. The name made sense last summer, and I hoped it would shame the others into clarifying their rules, but now it should be changed. We have been discussing an appropriate new name at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Moving the unwritten rules. It will also be moved from my user space to Wikipedia space.

Yes, all this nitpicky rulifying would be better in one place. At least the places link to each other, but a more integrated hierarchy would be better: for instance, 1500 characters [click here for details]. See Unwritten Rule G3 and the old discussion it links to. Olaf Davis occasionally volunteers for this integration but nobody has actually done it, and I don't know all the details well enough to do it unilaterally. Art LaPella (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

'Occasionally volunteers' is about right. Somehow it seems that every time I make a start on it, some big debate crops up on WT:DYK about whether the Unwritten Rules should exist / be in project space / whatever, and I'm reluctant to put together a specific integration proposal when there's no clear consensus to do anything with them. Art, why do you say you don't know all the details well enough? I'd have thought you were one of the people most closely acquainted with the ruleset. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this! For one thing, all I do is proofreading. I haven't approved hooks, moved them to next update, or prepared updates. When I feel closely acquainted with another part of the ruleset, I record a better explanation here, but not before. For another thing, I left some question marks where I don't know what the rule is. Art LaPella (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking to where each rule's consensus came from?

Would help if we could, over time, update each rule with links to the relevant discussion(s) that took place at WT:DYK or T:TDYK? (I recognize that finding relevant discussions on T:TDYK could be extremely difficult...if anyone remembers specific hooks that triggered discussions, you might be able to find that hook at WP:DYKA to see when the hook went to the main page, and from there search a few pages of T:TDYK history to find a version with the discussion in it.) That might make it clearer for people that these rules grew out of consensus and repeated discussion, rather than just getting made up out of nowhere...and it would make it easier for people to review where each specific rule came from. Since I'm a relative newcomer to DYK, I don't know how much use I would be in tracking down these discussions, since I wasn't around for the vast majority of them...but I'm just throwing this out there in case anyone thinks it would be worth pursuing.

The flip side, of course, is that there are probably rules where this would be impossible (rules where this has never been explicitly discussed in one centralized location), and that might lead people to believe (probably incorrectly) that those rules are less robust than ones that do have links.

Just a thought. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not terribly keen on the idea, it sounds to me like an invitation for people to start challenging the legitimacy of past consensus. IMO I think it's best to leave the rules as they are. We don't normally have links to consensus discussions on other rules or guideline pages. Gatoclass (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Plese rename or merge this

"Rules and additional rules" is the very definition of bureaucracy. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

These are details about specifics of the DYK process and details about consensus. They're kept in a separate page to avoid overwhelming new contributors with a gigantic rules page; the basic rules are kept at the main page, and the details that are less essential, but still important for regulars, are here. Getting rid of this page won't get rid of the numerous details that this page addresses; merging this page to the main rules page would just increase the bureaucracy. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As for renaming, there was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about what to call this, with little input. If you have a better idea for a name, you can suggest it there; I think we could use a better name, but I haven't been able to think of an acceptable alternative yet. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to get rid of the extra rules; I realize most are necessary. But the current presentation raises an eyebrow.

Perhaps renaming the basic rules to "overview of rules/process" (or "summary of rules"), and calling the extra rules "detailed criteria/rules" would be more newbie friendly? Also, the basic set of rules could be trimmed for verbiage now that the formerly "unwritten" rules are just as official. By the way, merging the two documents won't increase the actual bureaucracy since you admitted that the extra rules are applied in practice anyway. But I agree that it would make the process seem less accessible to newcomers. Having a split between overview and details is reasonable as long as the overview is concise. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Right now I'm in the process of doing a bit of reorganizing anyway (because the "rules" given at Template talk:Did you know#DYK criteria are pretty much repeats of this and the official rules, so we're getting rid of those and working them into the other stuff), so this might be a good time to look into how to trim down the "main" rules to make them more welcoming to newbies without misleading anyone (having the main rules too visible, and the additional rules not visible enough, could lead to situations like what happened a few days ago, where one user became very concerned about rules "not being followed"—it turns out it was partially because the additional rules hadn't been prominent enough). There is some discussion of it here (after the unindent). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a concrete, although not-really-in-depth proposal regarding the structure of this stuff: here. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

D1

"D1: No items that have been rejected for In The News (?) ...". Is that right? Wouldn't "D1: No items that have been featured on 'In The News'..." be a better criterion? And what is the "(?)" in aid of? Long Shrift (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been argued that "Did You Know is not a consolation prize" for items that didn't make it into "In The News"; I leave it to others to decide what a good or better rule would be, or whether that notion has a consensus. The question mark is the last remnant of a time when I used question marks when I wasn't sure what the consensus was. Art LaPella (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Source for hook citation

Does the source used for a hook citation need to be a reliable third-party published source? To me it seemed obvious -- so obvious that until it came up today I didn't even look for it, but now that I'm looking, I can't find it stated as a requirement. WP:RS only says that "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily" (not necessarily exclusively) "on reliable, third-party, published sources." cmadler (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't either, neither here nor at WP:Did you know/Citation. My experience with citations is mostly confined to Wikipedia, so we could use some more rules to settle some of the repetitive discussions about citations. Art LaPella (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation from other language Wikipedia?

If an article is a translation of an article on a different language Wikipedia, is it considered a new article, or should it be expanded 5x per A5? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the precedent is to consider it a new article, although WT:DYK would be a better place to ask that question. Art LaPella (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, asked there also. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A2

A2 says that, among other things, "headers" aren't counted. Is this referring to section headings (which seem to be counted by both prosesize.js and DYKcheck) or to something else? cmadler (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, section headings. I just tried DYKcheck on Big bang and the section headings, such as Big bang#History, were not colored yellow. Or on this page, prosesizebytes doesn't color the "A2" heading above, yellow.

That's strange, for me both tools do color the section headings yellow. That's why I was wondering about it. cmadler (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any extra lines or things in your Special:MyPage/monobook.js? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is it in its entirity:

importScript('User:Lupin/popups.js'); // User:Lupin/popups.js

importScript('User:Dr pda/prosesize.js'); //User:Dr pda/prosesize.js

importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool

cmadler (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Section headers shouldn't be yellow and shouldn't be counted. To explain your situation, you could ask User:Shubinator who wrote DYKcheck, and/or User:Dr pda who wrote prosesize and prosesizebytes. Art LaPella (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Which browser are you using? I'm curious if it's just the color or it's changing the prose number as well. Do you get 5146 characters on this page with prosesize and 5145 with DYKcheck? (for those wondering, the 1 character difference on that page is because of the superscript ? in the first line) Shubinator (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you are using Internet Explorer. As I mention in the "Prose size" section on User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js

Note that Internet Explorer highlights the section headings, but does not count them as prose. (This is because there is an 'invisible' <p></p> before them containing a link so that you jump to the right place when you click the appropriate section in the table of contents.)

Dr pda (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Headers are fine (aren't highlighted yellow) in IE for me (version 8.0.6001.18813). Shubinator (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But there could be problems in IE7 or IE6. (IE 8? I didn't even realize that existed yet! IE6 is the stone age, but outside of the US much of the world still uses it.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My character counts on the page Shubinator gave above match (5146 and 5145). I do use stone age IE6 at work (where I noticed this problem), so that explains it. Thanks for the explanations! cmadler (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mix of reliable and unreliable sources in article

If the hook is cited with a reliable source, but the rest of the article has unreliable sources, should the DYK be accepted? Jappalang (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's a matter of degrees. Notability demands sources, so if there are insufficient reliable sources to write the article, it may be a non-notable topic and eligible for deletion. It might be that a (hopefully new) user has given inferior sources, but they can be replaced with better sources. If unreliable sources are being used to support extraordinary claims, consider removing those claims. Also, reliability can be a matter of degrees, so you'd want to consider just how unreliable the sources are. Do you want a second opinion? What article is it? cmadler (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I say that notable or not, the rule is we use sources that are "reliable" (WP:SOURCES). In any case, for examples, see:

• La Peregrina pearl: majority of references are to InternetStones.com, which refers to other websites of unknown quality and to Wikipedia itself; there is also karipearls.com, mantained by Kari Anderson, a person of unknown expertise and reliability on the matters of jewelry (pearls).
• Tiger penis: uses NewsMedical.com, which claims that its article is based on http://www.unsw.edu.au/ but the source reveals nothing of the sort; you would have to search to find that the actual paper is at http://www2.psy.unsw.edu.au/Users/BHippel/Articles/von%20Hipp%5B3%5D.pdf, which reveals at the end that the sponsor of the research is Pfizer (manufacturer of Viagra). Thus the claims of preference of Viagra over other "methods" are put into doubt (vested interests). I am also not certain if this source satisfies WP:MEDRS.

There are quite a few others, and I have commented on Victor Adamson about its reliance on www.b-westerns.com. Jappalang (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Is nominating two new articles for one same hook possible?

Practical question: we had two new people elected to the Swiss Federal Council today, and while each has now own new article, I'd typically see them appearing under one single DYK hook. Has doing something like that ever been discussed and is it possible / desirable at all? MLauba ^(Talk) 16:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is. See WP:DYK/HoF for the extreme. Ucucha 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A4 question

Before I try to nominate Hoollongapar Gibbon Sanctuary, I need clarification on additional rule A4. Prior to my re-write, the article was in bad shape. The material was tagged for its lack of notability since March 2010, but no action was taken. The bulk of the material included long lists that were likely lifted from the improperly cited source. I have since significantly expanded the article and tracked down a contact for the source for the now deleted lists. (I'm awaiting a reply and hopefully a copy of the source.) Later today, I will probably lift the now deleted content from its grave and put it into a separate list article with a proper citation. (The list contains 219 bird species and dozens of vertebrates.) Alternatively, I could add a large table/list to the existing article... either way the material won't count towards the content because it's a list. Should I still nominate the article for DYK? The actual non-list content has clearly been expanded 5x or more. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I support this... DYKcheck won't count it as expanded since the previous list text was just a big paragraph of "prose" rather than a properly-formatted list, but if you note this fact in the nomination comments there shouldn't be a problem. (If there are objections, ping my talk page and I will respond at the nomination.) 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll post it shortly. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 28bytes on this. In addition to the incorrectly formatted list, which shouldn't count toward "readable prose" size, there's the added issue of likely copyvio, which gives it an exception to A4. cmadler (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, also. The article has been nominated. If I encounter any resistance, I will let you know. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I just got my hands on the cited source and it was a copyright violation. The article was also renamed because the source confirmed that the sanctuary was officially renamed in 2004. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad you re-wrote it, then! I've noticed that huge, unwikified chunks of text are often a copyvio of something. 28bytes (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

!vote

Are you allowed to place the green tick icon on your own nomination yourself? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No. That's Additional Rule H2. Art LaPella (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics and unsourced questions

A couple of questions i'd like to ask, do lyrics in a subsection count towards the prose character count? (such as in Follow Follow) If yes I'll work on that one. Also I'm aware that this is not a BLP but if I were to source it and double the size, would it still become eligable to be on DYK that way or will I have to do the 5x expansion? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would not count the lyrics as part of "readable prose" in the same manner that we would not count any other lengthy quotation. In answer to your other question, 2x expansion applies only to unsourced BLPs. BLPs with sources, however bad, and any non-BLP articles, need a 5x expansion just like they always have. I hope that answers your questions; thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Good, thank you. Not counting the lyrics in there makes my job a lot easier for expansion of it. Then a question which arises becomes what constitutes a lengthy quotation? But I don't think I want to go into that at the moment. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk)

For general guidance in that regard, see MOS:QUOTE. cmadler (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

D9 and swahili meaning

Resolved

"Five days old" really means about eight days in Swahili :) . This is one example of that mistake.

This joke can sometimes confuse users to believe that there is possibility to extend five-day rule up to maximum eight days. In fact this rule allow possibility to extend it up to the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations if there is a large backlog of hooks. It is usually much more than eight days.

I propose to avoid further misleading of the readers. I think that it could be resolved by replacing the following text:

"Five days old" really means about eight days in Swahili :)

with:

"Five days old" is written in Swahili :)

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that rule years ago when "about eight days" was the de facto rule. I haven't been watching lately, so feel free to make that rule more current, if in fact "it is usually much more". I don't think "'Five days old' is written in Swahili :)" is clear without saying that it can be longer than five days. And I wouldn't have used a word as facetious as "Swahili" if I weren't drawing attention to the real problem: if five days isn't the de facto rule, then it shouldn't simply say five days in the first place. At that time, I had more control over the "additional rules" than the other rule page. Art LaPella (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it is better to avoid smiley and joke here and to clearly say:

• D9: "Five days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it was created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations.

Does anybody object?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is backwards. It should be "The 'five days old' limit should be strictly enforced only if there is no large backlog of hooks." Art LaPella (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Will you please explain adding the word "no"? I am sorry if I don't understand something what is obvious, but I really don't understand your logic with this backlog thing and adding the word "no":

1. If there is a large backlog of hooks, then it may be logical to enforce five days old rule in order to reduce the number of nominated hooks to only those articles which are written or expanded within past five days which should help dealing with large backlog of hooks because it would reduce the number of new nomination and approved hooks. If there is no large backlog of hooks, that means that articles which are written or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations could be welcome.
2. Additionally, if there is large backlog then the "oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations" will be automatically much older than 5 days. Otherwise, if there is no large backlog then the "oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations" would be more near to 5 days old and probably no enforcement would be needed.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I withdraw that objection. Your version just reflects the existing language, which has been in place since this relatively recent change. Art LaPella (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Rule H4

On 20 April 2012 user Schwede66 (talk · contribs) added "rule H4" to Supplementary guidelines with the edit summary: Add rule H4 as per discussion page. I did not find any discussion here about that. Please confirm that there was a consensus to add this sort of rule, otherwise it needs to be removed (or <!-- comented out --> for now), and the actual real discussion started. The rule added by Schwede66 unilateraly (?) reads:

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

Poeticbent talk 18:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Link to previous discussion, which itself links to previous discussions where there was no agreement on whether article-for-article or hook-for-hook is required. Bencherlite^Talk 18:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  Here's a copy of the archived proposal initiated by Schwede66 on 19 April 2012. Please note, the only comment left by Orlady at that time was rather critical.

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

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

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

• Hook-for-hook or article-for-article? I think this was the very first discussion.
• Hook-for-hook or article-for-article, continued
• Implementing quid pro quo a rather long discussion, with multi-hooks buried in amongst many other things
• Review requirement for multiple nominations
• Rule 5 Another suggestion to write down the rules
• Clarification on QPQ's for multiple noms

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

The trouble is that "what's fair" varies greatly with the articles involved. I've dealt with some multi-article hooks in which all of the articles were short and based on the same short list of sources, so it was no harder to review three articles than it was to review one. In other cases I've seen, a hook lists several long articles, each of which has its own separate sources, and a lot of reading and crosschecking is necessary to verify hook facts and check for things like absence of close paraphrasing. I suppose that self-nominators who are not honest in assessing whether their review "quid" matches their nomination "quo" should expect to be beaten around the eyebrows by reviewers. --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't question the "what's fair" issue at all. What I'm suggesting is that we finally write this into the rules, so that there's one place where one can look up what the story is rather than having to trawl through the archives or having to ask the regulars who might remember. I believe the draft rule text above captures all the previous discussions, but by all means, let's amend those words to deal with the "what's fair" issue. Schwede66 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added additional rule H4 now. Schwede66 20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but what's your point? That the rule needs to be amended to decide whether hook-for-hook or article-for-article is required? Then start a new discussion at WT:DYK. That Schwede66 wrongly thought there was no consensus in previous discussions (one way or the other) when in fact there was? I think that would just be wrong as a matter of fact. That we shouldn't have a pointer in the supplementary guidelines to the fact that there is no agreement? I don't see why not - unless you think that the guidelines should come down on one side or the other, in which case we're back to point 1. I don't think there's much problem with H4 since it's not out of line with the DYK community's (in)decisions in the past. I certainly don't see the point in removing it or commenting it out unless WT:DYK decides so. Bencherlite^Talk 19:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Bencherlite on this and can't see the point that you are trying to make. The issue comes up regularly in reviews and it's rather handy to be able to point to H4, where everybody can see what the situation is. To me, this appears to be a pretty sound way of dealing with it. Schwede66 19:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

We need a real discussion. This isn't lack of consensus we're talking about here. Schwede66 made a fresh new proposal, went ahead and created the rule, although the only other participant in that thread, Orlady, didn't agree. That's the end of story... not the lack of consensus. The problem I'm trying to address here is the result of a recent precedence in our DYKnoms with 30 in 1 submission, originally with just one review made in exchange. It didn't seem fair to others. Poeticbent talk 20:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Then have a real discussion about it, but at WT:DYK, where more people will see it than here. Bencherlite^Talk 20:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You are rather disingenuous when you talk about me having made a fresh new proposal, having gone ahead and created the rule. You appear to have missed that I tried to synthesise the six previous discussions. Not all of those discussions fully focused on QPQ for multi-hooks, but the issue was brought up in all those six discussions. In total, there were 26 individual editors involved across those six discussions. It's a bit rich of you to simply omit that background. If and when you create a new discussion on WT:DYK, would you mind reflecting on that? And for what it's worth, I agree with your sentiment that QPQ should be on a hook-by-hook basis. But there was never consensus for it, and all I've done is to document that so that we don't waste all this time going over the same stuff again and again. Schwede66 01:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take it so personally. There's a crisis situation developing at DYK. We need to shut down gaping loopholes to help with badly overdue nominations. And yes, I intend to follow up on it at WT:DYK. Poeticbent talk 03:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A5

"If some of the text were copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." Maybe i'm just tired but i'm having a hard time understanding exactly what this means. Does this mean that any copied text does not count towards a 5x expansion? Or does it mean that the copied text must also be 5x expanded, in addition to 5x expansion of the rest of the article? Or have I missed the mark entirely and it means something completely different. Please clarify. Thanks for your time. Freikorp (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Both, as I read it. If you start a new article with text copied from another one, it needs to be 5X expanded to be eligible for DYK. If you include text copied from another article in an ongoing expansion, the final result should be 5X the total of what you copied and what was originally there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

First woman to do something--can we make a rule/guideline about it?

I'd like to propose a C11 that discusses "first" hooks. Something like "try to avoid 'x was the first to y' and focus on the person's achievements. See Wikipedia:Writing about women for other best practices when writing about women." The Writing about Women article phrases it well: "When prioritizing that the subject is a "first woman," make sure it really is the only notable material available about her." I don't want this rule to make it more difficult for women to be approved for DYK, and I also agree that it's better to focus on a woman's achievements than the fact that she was the first woman to do something. What do you think? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

A few people over on the TDYK discussion[1] commented, and since "firsts" hooks are appropriate for many people, we decided not to make an additional rule about it for now. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hook and picture should be about the article

One of the current hooks is a good example of a fault that has long bothered me:

• ... that of the six known Anglo-Saxon helmets, the Shorwell helmet was originally mistaken for a pot, the Pioneer helmet for a bucket, and the Coppergate helmet for a rock?

Here, the DYK article is "Shorwell helmet" but two-thirds of the hook is not about the helmet, but rather about two other helmets. It is true that the quoted information about the Pioneer and Coppergate helmets is given and cited within the Shorwell article, but as an aside. The bolded article should be the topic of the hook, not incidental to it. The given hook would work for the six known Anglo-Saxon helmets article. Another recent example...

• "... that in the 1929 NFL season, players on the Orange Tornadoes, including Heinie Benkert, wore letters on their uniforms instead of numbers?"

...where the hook works for either of the other two links byt not the DYK article.

Similarly, the picture should relate to the DYK article, not to a different article in the hook as here:

... that the highwayman Tom Cox kicked the ordinary and hangman out of the cart taking him to be hanged at Tyburn (pictured)?

Tyburn gallows, 1680

jnestorius^(talk) 08:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

H5 - a reviewer-modified hook needs a third-party reviewer

I think that Yoninah proposes to add H5 to "Rules for evaluating other people's hooks and articles", something like:

"If you, as a reviewer, suggest a non-trivial variant (ALT1, ALT2, ...) on the nominator's original hook, then this might be considered to be "your" hook. You should then leave it to another Wikipedian to finish reviewing the nomination using {{subst:DYK?again}}. Alternatively, encourage the nominator to write his/her own alt hooks."

Any support or opposition? Or variants...? Boud (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Just editing the proposed text above a little. Boud (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that at all. In my note on your talk page, I specified that your hook tweaks were just variants on the nominator's hook, and therefore allowed. I do that all the time myself. Rule H2 stands when the reviewer suggests a completely different hook, and then must recuse themselves from the review. I think Rule H2 is clear enough: You're not allowed to review your own hook. Yoninah (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying your intended meaning. :) I misinterpreted "the nominator did tweak this one enough to make it his own" to imply that one of the ALTs was "mine", rather than a "tweak". Boud (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

C6

Why does this exist? Can someone show me where this came into being? It seems arbitrary. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The change was made in this edit, but looking over the discussion page for January 2009 and December 2008 I cannot find anything about this. Perhaps I am looking on the wrong page? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• For the record, I'm prepared to believe there's a real need for this rules, but I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's related to the idea that articles on fiction shouldn't be written from an in-universe point of view (except on April 1, of course). EEng 22:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

F9 vs MOS:DYKPIPE

As F9 requests, I've just asked for clarification on the fact these two seem to contradict on another at Wikipedia talk:Redirect --valereee (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Where I responded and then removed F9, renumbering so F10 is now F9. Art LaPella (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

So do we put MOS:DYKPIPE into F9? I have no opinion one way or the other, just want to have a place to point people when they bring up a redirect as an error in DYK --valereee (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Don't renumber things. It makes nonsense of archived discussions. EEng 21:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Good point...F11, perhaps with a note at F9 that its recommendations for DYK pipes has been replaced with F11? --valereee (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not quite sure what you're saying but it sounds right. EEng 22:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)