Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85 ← Archive 87 Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 91 → Archive 95

Annual MEDRS reminder

Template:Did you know nominations/Vanderbilt exoskeleton

Medical statements are made in this article that are not sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. In fact, it appears that the entire article is cited to press releases or sources related to the product-- as far as I can tell, there is no independent, third-party sourcing. Please remember when reviewing articles containing medical statements to review per MEDRS. I'm unclear why DYK expansion crit are met by using all press releases and websites related to the product. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Will an admin please look at pulling this DYK from the mainpage? As far as I can tell, the hook is not cited in the article; there is no medical evidence in the article that "people are learning to walk again" with this product, that is still in development. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Resolved at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I must admit, I skimmed that article ages ago and couldn't find reliable sources supporting the hook, but didn't get around to formally reviewing it, and never checked back to make sure that the problems I'd seen had been fixed. Sorry. I don't think the quid pro quo reviewing system is doing the job in all cases at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem using DYKcheck

I've never used DYKcheck, and asked a question here [1], to which an editor, Maile, responded directing me to the page containing the instructions.

Since I don't have DYKcheck in my Toolbox, and am uncertain about how to install it, I followed the instructions for using it without installing it, which are:

With or without a username, you can use the DYKcheck tool without installing it; just put this

javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck(); into your URL and hit Enter when you're viewing a mainspace page.

I copied the line beginning with javascript and pasted it into the URL on two different articles I've worked on, Elizabeth Howard, Duchess of Norfolk, and Jane Neville, Countess of Westmorland, hit Enter, and nothing happened.

Help with this would be much appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hit enter twice. The same thing happens with me when I press enter only once. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion! NinaGreen (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Formatting of DYK box

I asked about this last month, but was politely asked to go away and come back later. I don't see a lot of discussion still going on here about fundamental changes to DYK, so I'm bringing it up again.

The title and wording of the DYK section is somewhat awkward because the items are worded as though they were introduced by the words "Did you know..." but the words immediately above the list of items is "From Wikipedia's newest content:". During a brief discussion at Talk:Main Page, it was suggested that the two things could be switched: move "Did you know..." to the first line of the section and make the section title "From Wikipedia's newest content". This would (/might) have other benefits, as well, including having the title of this section echo the one above it ("From today's featured article"), making the "Start a new article" link seem more relevant to the section, and inviting other kinds of content besides just "Did you know..." hooks (if desired in the future).

To be specific, I'm talking about doing something like this:

From Wikipedia's newest content

Did you know...

  • ... that in the Battle of Sidi Bou Othman, ...
  • ... that Happy Days producer Bob Brunner ...
  • ...
  • ... that the inscription on the Statue of ...

              Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article

Comments? - dcljr (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I like the idea. Ryan Vesey 21:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a big issue, but then I also don't have a problem with the suggested change. I'm pretty apathetic on it! Harrias talk 21:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've personally never given the "From Wikipedia's newest content:" placement bit any thought at all. I prefer the present presentation, as the section is called "Did you know", not "From Wikipedia's newest content". Is there really a problem with the present way the words are ordered? I don't see it. Manxruler (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is, "From Wikipedia's newest content: ... that in the Battle of Sidi Bou Othman ..." doesn't make any sense. People will naturally link the first line of the section with the list that immediately follows, not the section heading. Yeah, people can figure it out almost immediately and get used to it (as you have), but the awkward arrangement makes the section look... not well thought out (IMHO). - dcljr (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There's a huge problem in my mind. I had no idea that content had to be new until I was told at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 66#Question on the Rules. As a reader I didn't know either, I just thought it was a bunch of interesting facts. Re-ordering it makes it clear and I believe it would increase the interest among readers. Ryan Vesey 23:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't care much in which order, but was made aware by the discussion that "newest content" seems to promise too much, with suggestions from October still not reviewed. How about "recent additions", as the archive is called anyway? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "From Wikipedia's newest content" is splitting hairs, considering how many DYK noms are expansion of old articles. Technically, the expansion part is new content within old content, you might say. GA on DYK is still up in the air, but if the vote ever happens and it's a majority in favor of GA being added to DYK, GA does not necessarily mean a new article. And then there's this Scenario. I would not be too quick to switch the Main Page heading around. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • “Did you know” is not just a phrase. It is the name of one of Wikipedia most dynamic Project. By the same token Wikipedia:Featured articles is also a project although it isn’t i-linked on the front page under its own name, and neither is Portal:Current events, both piped at the bottom of their subsequent boxes. I think projects could be i-linked by way of introduction, at the box top line. After all, actual Wikipedia is already i-linked inside the very top gray box. “Did you know” is the only box on the front page without a working link to its own project flagship, the Wikipedia:Did you know page. Poeticbent talk 05:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
So... does that mean you support the change, as long as "Did you know" is linked in the first line of the section? - dcljr (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I didn't say that. Poeticbent talk 19:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

My Little Pony hook

The hook currently on the Main Page reads like an advert for a product that is, in fact, being marketed as one of the top stocking stuffers for Christmas 2012. There may be no rule violation, but it creates an impression the main page is being used as a venue to promote Christmas sales for a commercial product. Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As the author of that hook, it's almost impossible to talk about impressive sales of a notable commercial product (most comics only get 10,000 units moved) without it sounding like an ad; to try to get any more clarity/perspective, would have pushed the hook well past 200char. And also to note, it's not children or their parents buying the bulk of this comic... --MASEM (t) 16:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Question - does it mean anything that the first two paragraphs under "Concept and creation" section have no inline citations? — Maile (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That can easily be sourced from the main TV show article, and I'll go do that right now. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've shuffled it down a bit in the listing, to reduce the prominence. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Perfectly reasonable. Again, my intent wasn't to sell the product, but focus on the impressive, unusual numbers. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are the DYN's in template namespace?

Why are the DYN nominations in template namespace? Seems odd. Is it due to historical circumstances? Why not have them as subpages of Wikipedia:Did you know? Seems more logical and consistent to me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's a true Wikipedia-by-committee work.
— Maile (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
We should move the whole shebang over to Wikipedia namespace. There is no technical reason not to do it, and all it will need is some editor and bot grunt to do it. WP is hard enough for newbies (and oldbies like me) without throwing these stupid inconsistencies in the way. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Seems not very template-y.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

While my grasp of wiki-nomenclature is pretty basic, I must agree that it's often seemed incongruous to me to have such a large slice of my editing pie in the "Template" and "Template talk" categories. Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have a very different reason for wanting a change of namespace. I think IPs should be able to submit nominations, so I would support a move to either Template talk or Wikipedia talk. My preference would be for Template talk, since they're subpages of the main nomination page, which is in that namespace. If I recall correctly, when the subpage system was first introduced, subpages were in Template talk. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Mandarax, humor me for a moment and let me know if I understand what you are saying. As I understand it, everybody else thinks that the pages currently under "Template" should be moved to subpages of "Wikipedia:Did You Know". But you feel it should be moved the other direction - that the entire work should be subpages of nominations page "Template Talk:Did You Know". Did I understand you correctly? — Maile (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Mandarax, IP editors can edit Wikipedia namespace pages as well as their associated talk pages. Template talk is even further removed from where the DYN noms should be. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say I wanted IPs to be able to edit; they can do that now. I said I wanted them to be able to submit nominations, i.e., create the subpages, which they cannot do now. Now they have to either ask here for someone to do it for them, or they create the subpage in a talkspace and transclude it on the nominations page hoping it works, which it doesn't. I've moved a lot of such subpages created by IPs from Template talk to Template.

IPs already have to go through something such as Articles for creation to get their articles in mainspace; it would be nice if they didn't have another obstacle when they want to nominate an article which they, or someone else, wrote.

You said that you wanted it to be "logical and consistent"; having the subpages of the main nomination page being in the same namespace as that page sounds pretty logical and consistent to me. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So I guess IPs cannot make nominations at present. I don't think letting IPs make nominations is as important as having it logical and consistent. Do you think there is a high demand for IP DYN noms on WP? Let me know ASAP. (LOL ) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps adding another element to the statement Mandarax has made about IP noms is discussion section below. Ryan Vesey has assisted the IP and created a nom template for Jeremy Boreing. As Ryan notes on the template, is this considered a self-nom? Bluemoonset in the section below advises QPQ on this one. Would an issue such as this resolve itself if we went with Mandarax's suggestions? — Maile (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is a desirable thing to do, it would make sense to map out everything that is touched and would need to change, and what things would look like afterward. It looks like a great deal of template code, several pages in the template space, listed above, plus the bots that supply data for them and move the DYK sets from queue to the main page and then archive them. Has anyone asked Shubinator how feasible this would be, and what kind of timetable would be required? Would anything special be required to change a direct feed to the main page, or doesn't that part matter as long as the protections are the same? The main page code itself would have to itself change to transclude from the correct place. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it will be quite a change as you have alluded to. Having said that redirs are left behind on a page move so templates and the Mian Page do not have to be changed immediately. There is a huge number of DYN subpages that are in template namespace and I don't know if they should all be moved across if this change is to proceed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Three hooks with some problems (two minor, one a bit more major)

In the current Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4, there are a few hooks that have some problems:

  • The first one reads "... that 21 players from the 1976 Michigan football team went on to play in the NFL, and another (pictured) opted instead to play Major League Baseball?": it is quite bizarre to have the "another (pictured)" part, where "another" is unlinked despite the fact that an article for him exists: Rick Leach (baseball).
Looking at Template:Did you know nominations/1976 Michigan Wolverines football team , the reviewer had suggested inserting the link, and there actually was a link as Alt 2, with a comment from the author. — Maile (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Naming and linking the player is not a good idea. That would divert traffic from the subject article. The purpose is to draw traffic to the newly improved article. The alt 1 hook that was promoted is best. Cbl62 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Then it shouldn't be the pictured hook! I too thought the wording was bizarre and the picture poor quality. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is about a sports team, and the photo is of the team's most famous player. The hook is intended to draw people to the team article, as it should. Those interested in learning more about Leach can link to his article from there. Of course, reasonable minds can differ but I thought it was an interesting hook and a solid sports action photo that reproduces well at 100px. Cbl62 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
My thought yesterday, when I was adding a couple of hooks to this set to fill in gaps, was that either the hook should identify the pictured player or forego the picture (and lead position) altogether. Under the circumstances, I agree that another lead may be in order; I've put an "Inuse" template on the set to prevent it from being promoted until this issue and the others are thrashed out. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest finding another lead, but I'm no American sports fan... Espresso Addict (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The fifth one reads "... that the extinct Oligocene-age vulture Phasmagyps may be the oldest New World vulture from North America?" It is either the oldest New World vulture, or the oldest vulture from North America, but the first automatically includes the second; placing "from north America" earlier in the sentence may solve this (e.g. "the extinct North American Oligocene-age vulture..." or something similar)
Template:Did you know nominations/Phasmagyps — Maile (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
As is clear from the article, "New World vulture" is a proper name, though I do see how the wording lends itself to confusion. I’ve implemented Fram's solution. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ugh, that is very bad wording now. Phasmagyps is possibly the oldest member of the family Cathartidae, commonly called "New World Vultures", a family that is found in North, Central and South America. The family also has a fossil record that extends to at least one species which lived in Europe. That is why I chose the wording I chose.--Kevmin § 22:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • How about restoring the original wording with New World vulture wikilinked? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be (and would have been) the simpler and more understandable wording.--Kevmin § 06:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Espresso Addict, its much more understandable now.--Kevmin § 22:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The sixth and last one is "... that Coty Award-winning jewelry designer Clifton Nicholson currently breeds phoenix?", with phoenix leading to Great Argus, which is apparently "(also known as Phoenix in some Asian areas)". This is the stuff one expects on 1 April, not on other days. Interesting doesn't equel misleading, and the "phoenix" part has nothing to do with the subject of the hook, but is an obscure fact about a bird. I know it is intended as a joke, but including fringe science in such a way is not really a positive development. Note that the part about the "phoenix" originally wasn't even included in the article, and has only been added to it to make the hook possible (see Template:Did you know nominations/Clifton Nicholson). Making articles fit the hook is obviously compeletly the opposite of what we should normally do. Fram (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The Argus article has a mess for referencing. We should not have bare URLs, people. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The Argus article is not the featured article. Are we now supposed to review every article that is linked in a hook, even beyond the bold and linked hook? If so, I was not aware of such a requirement. This should be clearly stated if required. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Good point. Perhaps next time the hooks could be copied as displayed (i.e. in the proper code?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There's often abnormal latitude for the final hook to be humorous. The Argus article doesn't look too bad apart from the bare urls, and the fact that the bird can be referred to as a phoenix appears to be properly referenced in the Clifton Nicholson article, though I haven't checked the refs. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't consider this to be a major problem, but then I'm the one who both required that the "phoenix" be documented in the article and later approved the article: it's a minor facet of this guy's life that he raises weird birds, and one of them has an alternate use name of phoenix. (The bird was in there from the start, but the author thought a link to the Great Argus page was enough to identify it as the phoenix; I thought it was a routine misunderstanding of how DYK worked so I pointed out that an explicit connection must be made and sourced in Nicholson's article.) It would be nice to achieve consensus on this, but I can't hold the set any longer now that the other two issues have been addressed. I'd still be interested to hear what others thought, and imagine an admin can pull it back if others think I and Espresso Addict are on the wrong track. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The bird is sometimes referred to as phoenix "in certain parts of Asia", not in a country associated with Clifton Nicholson. This is WP:SYNTH, the fact that the bird is sometimes referred to as phoenix (in English? Doubtful) doesn't belong in the article on Clifton Nicholson as it has nothing to do with Nicholson at all, and therefor shouldn't certainly be in the hook. Bhy the way, looking at the three sources given, none are clearly about the Great Argus instead of another argus (like Crested Argus), and the second source given in the article for this fact[2] explicitly names the Crested Argus, not the Great Argus, so this source actually contradicts the hook. Basically, we have a hook that is not only totally irrelevant, but seems to be simply wrong as well, according to the one explicit source given (with the other two sources being too imprecise to decide one way or the other). Fram (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps "phoenix" can be replaced with "peafowl and pheasants" (or "pheasants and peafowl"), and the problematic "one of the birds identified as the original phoenix" phrase removed from the article due to WP:SYNTH concerns? We'll need an admin to do the former, but the hook would still be a bit quirky and appropriate for that placement in what is now Queue 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I have corrected the hook, will change the article as well. Fram (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest "currently breeds peacocks" which is still quirky and pretty accurate, and about the same length and punchiness as phoenix. Incidentally, I'd have appreciated being notified of this discussion. Mabalu (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Just seen the current version which reads "breeds Peafowl and Pheasants"? Sounds a bit Edward Lear, certainly rather absurd as these aren't proper nouns. I still think "breeds peacocks" would be infinitely preferable (and indeed, that was going to be the wording of my original hook before I saw the phoenix ref). Mabalu (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The birds project insists that all bird species are capitalized. No idea why, but the articles use the capitalization rather consistently, so it seemed best to follow this. Fram (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It looks/sounds ridiculous. Surely they can't mean capitalising general species names? If it was more specific bird breeds (say, Adelie penguin or Passenger pigeon) then capitalisation of the proper name is correct - or would they insist on Adelie Penguin and Passenger Pigeon? It actually looks ludicrous. Mabalu (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Just seen this on Bird project page: "The common name of a species is always capitalised to differentiate it from more general terms.[1][2] The phrase "in Australia there are many Common Starlings" indicates a large number of Sturnus vulgaris. In contrast, the phrase "in Australia there are many common starlings" indicates several different types of starling." - I think in this context, because Nicholson breeds several varieties of pheasants and peacocks, rather than one specific breed, lower case is valid. Mabalu (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Decapitalized in hook. Fram (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2012 (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) 22:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers needed for older hooks

It's been a while since I last did this, because reviews had been picking up, but the rate of hook reviews has dropped over the past few days: at posting time there are 36 open slots, and only 23 approved hooks to fill them.) Here are some of the older submissions that need attention, including six over a month old. Thanks for your assistance.

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

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2012 (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) 06:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead hooks

I just had the disconcerting experience of having a lead hook that I had selected demoted with the comment "better hook, better article, better image = better lead". The hook that took its place was one that, in fact, had not been submitted with an image to begin with.

However, there's another principle at stake: as someone who assembles prep sets, do I get to choose the image I want to head the set? Selecting what I think is a nice image is one of the joys of the time-consuming task of assembling a prep set. I've always given due deference to other people's lead choices, even if I disagree with them, and thought to have that same deference shown me, rather than be second-guessed. I can understand changing it if the image is problematic in some way: doesn't show up well as a thumbnail, is not properly licensed, or so on. And, of course, hooks that need to be pulled because they violate DYK guidelines have to go regardless.

So I'm not happy about the change, but even less happy about the prospect of a new DYK world where people feel free to swap in their own preferred image for the one that's there. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry to have disappointed you with that edit, but I must say that to me this is not "a new DYK world", this is how DYK always operated when I was a regular contributor here. I spent a lot of time assembling sets with Borgqueen and later Materialscientist and others, and as I recall, there was constant tweaking of each other's sets going on throughout those years. My attitude then, as it is now, is that DYK sets are generally better the more people are engaged in working on them, the less scrutiny there is overall, the poorer they tend to be in quality.
With this particular hookset, I wasn't at all bothered with the choice of image, I thought that was fine, however, I thought the hook a little weak for a lead (is a 2.5 ph level exceptionally low? - it wasn't at all clear from either the hook or the article). Even so, I had no intention of changing it, but in reviewing the other hooks and articles in the set to verify their quality, I just happened to find that very nice image of the bird, and since the hook was also quite a good one it seemed serendipitous to have stumbled upon it as an alternative to the existing lead hook.
Having said that, I am usually reluctant to change a lead hook, not so much with regard to the updater, but rather out of concern for the user who had his hook chosen in the lead in the first place, who might be very disappointed to have lost the lead spot. In this instance though, I checked the author of the original lead and it was Casliber, who has had many, many hooks of his chosen for the lead spot and whom I felt sure wouldn't mind a great deal if he missed out on this occasion (especially since the article itself was also pretty basic). So that basically summarizes my thinking regarding this edit. If you really feel that strongly about it though, you are of course entitled to restore your original lead - however, if you do so, I would appreciate it if perhaps you could find a substitute for the bird hook in that set, as I still think that bird image is quite attractive and would like to see it get a lead spot at some point. Gatoclass (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't around back in that era, and while things do change over time, even now there is tweaking of sets to improve them: separating like hooks within a set (sequential bios, same country, etc.), swapping hooks between sets if one set has too many long hooks, or moving those hooks that would run during the overnight hours for a particular country, and so on. Lead hooks have been the usual exception since I began, and if it's something you're also usually reluctant to change, then I can stand having one of my selections undone, since it's unlikely to become a typical event. Thanks for letting me know your reasoning. I'm glad to know that there wasn't anything inherently wrong with my choice. Everyone looks at things differently—I think, if I'd discovered that image and been unable to resist featuring it, my solution would have been to move the hook to be the lead of a new set, and found a replacement for it in the original set. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
("especially since the article itself was also pretty basic" - fantastic pun there!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Admin needed: Bot won't promote Queue 2 due to protection issue

I think that the bot isn't willing to promote Queue 2 because the image was not properly protected when the set was promoted from prep to queue. (See User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors for details.) Can someone please do what needs to be done with the image so the bot can do its job? The set should have been promoted about 50 minutes ago. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone was working the issue; the bot updated the main page a minute after I posted the above. Many thanks to whoever solved the problem! (Anyone interested in promoting a prep set to the queue now, so we don't have the bot complaining about no queues ready in under six hours?) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it stuck again? It doesn't seem to be updating. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK updates stopped – DYKUpdateBot offline back online

It appears that DYKUpdateBot is offline—the bot that moves hooks from the queue to the main page—since it didn't make the most recent update over 80 minutes ago. I've left a note about it on Shubinator's page, but there's no telling when he'll be able to restart the bot. Are there any admins around with experience in doing this update by hand?

This has also affected other DYK bots: the DYKHousekeepingBot is also down, which means the list of nominations and approved nominations on the queue page has not been updated in several hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(Note: just updated the header in the hopes of conveying more urgency.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Will update manually. Materialscientist (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Materialscientist. Looks like we're set for the next third of a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
... though we will need someone to move Prep 4 to Queue 4 before then, since the bot won't post a reminder about empty queues unless Shubinator can get it started. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I've brought both bots back online. Sorry for the delay. Shubinator (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Shubinator. So glad we're back in business, and wish I'd noticed the problem sooner. I've fixed the headline of this section so people won't panic. Now about finding an admin to promote that prep set ... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Representative democracy in Singapore

This has just been promoted to lead hook at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. The hook is in the article, however, it is not supported by reference. In fact, there are no references in that paragraph at all, and no references in five paragraphs of the whole lead section which the hook is a part of. The picture of parliament building has virtually no relation to the subject of this article and is grammatically wobbly, i.e. "individual Members of Parliament (building pictured)"... individuals as building? Poeticbent talk 04:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced to here in the very first section of the article. Remember that the lead is a summary of the article and need not repeat citations. Ryan Vesey 04:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
DYK rule #3 says, quote. "The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source..." There's no citation in that whole long paragraph. Poeticbent talk 04:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I just pointed you to the section and gave you the source used in the article. Ryan Vesey 04:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Please keep your cool. It's just rules ... that's all. Poeticbent talk 04:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I assure you I haven't lost my cool. I asked what you were talking about because you responded to my comment showing the rule wasn't violated by posting the rule. To be completely clear, the hook is cited in paragraph two of Representative democracy in Singapore#Government's understanding of representative democracy. Ryan Vesey 2:01 pm, Today (UTC+9)
(edit conflict)It is cited in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the first section (Government's understanding of representative democracy); is what he's trying to say. Not just in the lead. Yazan (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Please, do not point me to the Moon. Inline citation is a requirement, which hasn't been met. By the way, the source you mention (featured half way down into the next section), doesn't even say what the hook says. Poeticbent talk 05:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The hook doesn't need to copy text in the article. The requirement is that the fact in the hook is referenced with an inline citation in the article. The inline citation article is clearly met in the statement that both myself and Yazan have pointed you to. Ryan Vesey 05:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Parenthetic segment in hook now reads (Parliament building pictured), to correct initial comment about hook text. Sourcing, however, appears to be fine, and DYK has never required sources in an article's intro, as per WP:DYKSG#D2: "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Heads up for reviewers and promoters

Rather than doing full reviews, I've been doing spot checks on articles for this:

  • Stub ratings
  • Bare urls
  • Tagging
  • DYK Check for length, newness

What I'm noticing of late is an increase in articles being given the Green Tick approval even though they're tagged for these things:

  • Orphan
  • Citation need
  • Tagged sections that are entirely void of text
  • No categories

It's not an epidemic, but it's something to watch for. There has been confusion with reviewers that citation tagging is only an issue if it applies to the hook itself. And at least once I noticed one article that got promoted to a Queue while still carrying a Stub rating. It doesn't matter which article or who promoted it. We are all imperfect humans, but I'm just mentioning what I'm seeing slip through.— Maile (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well orphan is no reason to reject for DYK. So my solution is to remove this tag as it is pretty useless and looks ugly. And any article large enough for DYK will not be a stub. So that kind of template can be removed. The other two issues are easily fixed also by deleting or adding, hopefully empty sections or tags have not been used to count towards the size. Tagging an empty section is another useless activity as it is obvious anyway. All issues are simple to resolve, so they should be resolved rather than not passing for failing the nomination. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Graeme - Three Cheers for You re the orphan tag issue. I could not agree more. Also, I've been removing the Stub rating/template - I was just saying it should be noticed and removed before it hits the main page. Tagging a lot of things are useless activities. However, now that we have Page Curation, it's easier than ever for random people to tag all over the place. Woo! Hoo! Tag mania! (oh, dear, is my POV showing?)— Maile (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Today a stub rating (still in place, I don't care) and marking of the article as stub (with other things that had to be reverted) was added to an article while on the Main page, s. history of Klaus Hofmann. ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, dang! It's DYK's rules that they shouldn't be Stubs. However, after the fact makes it moot. I've been told that the assessment levels are meaningless except to active projects, and overall not important except FA or GA. I've been involved with a few projects - and I don't see any guidelines on any project that tells its members what plan of action is advised for the individual ratings. If there's no game plan, I fail to see the value of ratings. But, then, I also fail to see the value of tagging thousands/millions of articles with no workable plan of action to resolve the tagged issue and remove the tag. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I can tell you about Project Classical Music: no ratings other than GA and FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of 1500–2000-character stubs; indeed, there are plenty significantly longer if they fail to make a stab at covering the basics of the topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I have worked with the rule (of thumb) that if it passes the DYK length parameter and it has all the normal bits then its a "Start". If an article gets through DYK review then its definitely a "start" and (today) its very likely to be a "c" Victuallers (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Tell that the one who rated yesterday's a stub while (!) on the Main page ;) - I argued once with Project Opera, they have higher standards, but I was told, "she appeared on DYK, no problem". It still looks strange to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes 1500 prose characters just isn't enough to get an article out of Stub and into Start. It's why DYK review instructions say that 1500 is necessary but not necessarily sufficient, and gives latitude to its reviewers to require adequate coverage of the topic before it hits the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I've followed the same general rule that Victuallers describes, but I generally don't change the rating to "start"; instead, I simply remove the stub rating. I've also run into the situation of users who don't agree on DYK's article ratings. A while back I had a talk-page exchange with a user who puts a lot of effort into adding Wikiproject templates and article ratings for a wikiproject. He had assessed a DYK-nominated article as "stub" that had ~1800 characters of prose, an image (no infobox), and citations to 5 references. He had been unaware of the DYK rule, and said: "Personally I think thats a fairly stupid rule and it advocates the practice of people not assessing articles so they can get DYK." I explained: "The general idea is that any article that truly qualifies for DYK (at least 1500 characters of prose, reliable-source references for at least the hook fact, reference citations throughout, not plagiarized) shouldn't be considered a stub." His reply indicated that his main concern was with my practice of removing the stub tag without giving the article a new assessment. (He said: "I just don't agree that unassessed is better than an assessment" and "I just think its silly to tell users that they can submit unassessed articles to DYK because they don't allow stubs. If they are going to not allow something it should be unassessed.") I can only conclude that we are dealing with conflicts between contributors with different sets of priorities, and we DYKers are going to continue to collide with other users who place a high premium on talk-page article assessments. --Orlady (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with colliding with such people... and I fondly hope that one day they may find other things on which to place a high premium. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
If an article is not a stub, then it must be a start, or higher, & you might as well rate it as such. Whether something is a stub depends on the subject. A 5000 or 10,000 character long World War II would be a stub, and we do have a few very big subjects with very small articles. Indian art is 20,900 bytes long, but is so useless I have rated it a stub for the Visual arts projects - a rare downgrading for me, generally I promote a good proportion of the "stubs" I see to start. But most assessors rate entirely by length it seems, and it is easy on historical subjects for an article that gives all the information known to scholarship to be rated as a stub. This is a large part of why our assessments are only slightly useful. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Error and desperation

The hook at {{Did you know nominations/Penticton Regional Airport}} which read "... that for flights to Vancouver International Airport, residents of Penticton prefer the more distant Kelowna International Airport rather than their local Penticton Regional Airport?" was not only the most boring DYK that I've ever seen, it seems to be a very good example of taking a few odd sources and making them say what someone wants them to say, per WP:ERRORS. I initially tried to resolve the initial error report but it became clear this was not only an error-strewn DYK, but an entirely uninteresting one, once corrected, so I removed it entirely from the main page. This is a courtesy note to explain why it was removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI. The article is an expansion article. It was nominated for DYK on Nov 29, 2012. It became a GA on November 30. It is currently being peer reviewed for FA status. — Maile (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the article was and never has been questioned, it was the uninspiring hook and the inaccuracies noted at WP:ERRORS. Hopefully the PR will shake out these issues. This notification is about the pulling of a dull and inaccurate hook. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rambling Man. I didn't put the notation there for that reason. It was just a notation, like a footnote, about the article. Take it easy. It wasn't my nomination or anything I have an opinion of one way or the other. — Maile (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Maile66, I'm taking it really easy right now. This hook should never have been approved, I'm saying you did anything wrong, but with a dull hook, and an erroneous one at that, this shouldn't have been passed for main page inclusion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The only trouble with this (and I don't disagree over boring nature of hook) is that it's bumped up the controversial My Little Pony comic hook again.
Is there any way in which the current system could be adapted so that regular editors spotting problems with hooks whilst on the main page could be persuaded to look at them during the day or so that they are queued in the queue/prep areas? (Not intended to be sarcastic, by the way. I think the current system isn't working very well.) Espresso Addict (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Why wasn't I told about this, after all I am the nominator and expander of this piece of work. There's no need to be rude, saying things like "was not only the most boring DYK that I've ever seen". And it is sourced by Penticton Herald, I don't see problems, it isn't inaccurate as it appears to me. If you do have concerns over that, please leave them at the peer review, as I am attempting to get that work up to featured article status, unless there is a rule for a topic being "boring" now. TBrandley 07:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the hook shouldn't have been pulled, all it needed was a tweak for accuracy. Gatoclass (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
TBrandley, I agree you should've been informed about this. However, I think you're misunderstanding some of the comments above; it's not the topic that's being described as "boring", but the hook. Do you feel the hook was a very interesting or unique fact? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The hook wasn't very good but this type of article doesn't lend itself to strong hooks; it is still no doubt a topic of interest to some. With a little tweaking it probably could have been made acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
As someone else who would have appreciated being notified that their hook was being discussed here, (and fortunately came across it in time to help resolve things) I think there should be a precedent for notifying the original submitters of hooks if their hook is being discussed at depth here regarding wording and suitability. I would have been quite nonplussed if I had seen my hook go up with an alternative wording without knowing there had been a discussion about it. Mabalu (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles don't have owners. If someone is interested in what happens to an article, or in a template, they should put it on their watchlist. Kevin McE (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you miss the point. I say "my" without it necessarily being a claim of ownership, just a note that it was my contribution. It is WP policy to notify a page creator or any major contributors if a page they worked on is being nominated for deletion, for example. Similarly, if someone submits a hook, and it is approved, and subsequently discussions such as this arise (on a completely separate page, I might note) they have no way of knowing when discussions such as this arise - the page is unlikely to be on their watch list. It was pure chance that I noticed the hook I had contributed was being discussed like this. Basically these hooks were being nominated for deletion/rewriting (after having been accepted) so it would have been common courtesy to notify the person who submitted the original hook that this was taking place and allow them to have a say and input. Mabalu (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough to me. Maybe we should have a recommendation "If you raise any aspect of a nomination at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, please mention the discussion on the nomination page or pages." We can't reasonably expect all nominators to constantly monitor the thousands of edits and endless arguments on this talk page just to check if their nomination got mentioned (it's not always clear in the thread titles, either, including in the instance we're talking about.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I've added this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

List of verified hooks

I'm thinking that the list of hooks listed here would be useful added to the top of the nominations page (ie T:TDYK). Any comments? Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful, but isn't the nominations page long enough already? If I'm reviewing noms or trying to build a hook set, I'm perfectly happy to have the queue in one tab and the noms page in another. --Orlady (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Prep 3

Is there some reason why the hooks in Prep 3 are mostly about murder and death? :) Yoninah (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A limited selection. It's what was available for non-overnight hooks at the time. I'll see if I can swap between Prep 3 and Prep 2, which runs a day later at the same time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Y'know, never mind. Between burial mounds and Megadeth, it's the Armenian weightlifters who need to get with the program. ;-) I think I'm done for the evening, or at least done with assembling hook sets; I've done most of four days worth now. If someone else wants to shuffle them, they'd better do so soon, since Prep 3 is destined for {queue|1}} and promotion in about four hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Above discussion has gotten too long to edit

DYK for Christmas has gotten so large that editing within that section is difficult. I type on my keyboard, and it delays displaying it on the edit window. It's only that section. Is there a way to subsection it to ease that up? — Maile (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(assuming this is not being caused by Server Lag) — Maile (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sub-sections added. BencherliteTalk 16:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Alternately, it could just be hatted. It has no chance of passing, and the commentary is getting off-topic/unpleasant. Does anyone object to this? The Interior (Talk) 21:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
For the record, up to and including the last vote by Carrite, I count 27 in support and 36 opposed. You might double check my count. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2012 (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) 23:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It is overdue now. If anyone can promote Prep 1 to Queue 3, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A hook for Christmas

No big rush, but I would like Junitoite, Ruizite to run on Christmas, so I'm leaving a note here so that it is reviewed in a timely manner. Chris857 (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Template: prefix on Template talk:Did you know

In the spirit of WP:BRD I'm starting a discussion here, even though I think its completely ridiculous we're even discussing this.

Rcsprinter123 took the bold action of removing the "Template:" prefix from all the nominations (example) and updated the instructions to reflect that. BlueMoonset then re-added it back in saying that discussion should be opened here to discuss it.

Removing the "Template:" prefix makes no difference whatsoever on the rendering of the page, and reduces the amount of code in the edit box which is a good thing™. When BlueMoonset re-added the prefix in, it added 55k+ bytes to the page (by my count). For anyone with a slow connection, that amount is a significant amount, which isn't even needed. Removing the prefix is the right thing to do. Legoktm (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As I just pointed out responding to Legoktm on RCSprinter123's page, the instructions whenever someone creates a new DYK nomination tell them to place the template, with the "Template:" prefix, on the T:TDYK page under the date when the creation/expansion began. The process is a bit confusing, but what would make it much worse is if few or none of the entries on the page there contain the "Template:" prefix they've just been told to cut-and-paste there. For the new nominators, this adds an extra level of complexity and confusion that I think is unnecessary and unhelpful. The template pages have "Template:" on them, the instructions say to use it, and to suddenly have the destination page for that template say something else entirely is bad documentation and bad process.
The true size of the page is not the byte count shown there, but the transcluded total, which is orders of magnitude larger than the byte count shows ... but exactly the same size when displayed with or without "Template:". Only when editing the page would the underlying byte count matter, and as people usually edit a day at a time, the difference is small. Sometimes bold actions are not the best ones: I believe this is one of those times. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for missing your earlier reply. So then why don't we just update the instructions if that's a problem? Legoktm (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, my reply hit an edit conflict with you adding a comment directing me here, and I didn't realize it until now. Sorry about that. I've resolved the conflict.
As for updating the instructions, it's an idea, but the point here is that sometimes being bold breaks things and confuses people. For a process like DYK, there's frequently a reason why things are the way they are, and asking can help prevent such confusion. I don't know the reason why those pages were designed with "Template:" in them, but I'm loath to make a unilateral change in the actual templates lest there be a good reason why it was set up that way in the first place. (For me, one good reason is that the actual page being created has "Template:" in the name, so it makes intuitive sense to copy the page name and plop it down between the braces to transclude it and brackets to link to it. That may have been the reasoning at the time, but it happened before I started using DYK.) If there isn't, then it makes sense to stage the changes so they're all made at the same time, and can be implemented so the various instructions agree with each other rather than conflict and contradict. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I knew you'd have something to say about this BlueMoonset. Do we need to start an RfC or something? Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 15:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Why don't we have a regular discussion here first and see what develops; that's more usual before going the RfC route to bring in outside editors. As a potential complication, there's WT:DYK#Why are the DYN's in template namespace? above, which may or may not change how things are structured and possibly render this moot (but which would seem to require an order of magnitude more coordination and changes if attempted). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So, regular discussion. Legoktm supports removing the prefix, BlueMoonset wants to keep it. I think we need more people and a decision. Rcsprinter (state) No, I'm Santa Claus!@ 22:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why someone would want to remove the "Template:"; when I'm editing an article and find {{Template:Whatever}}, I replace it with {{Whatever}}. But this is different. I think it might be more intuitive for a new editor, who may not know that the two formats are functionally equivalent, to be told to paste the whole title of the page they just created. The notice which is displayed when creating a new nomination was recently changed, so that it now instructs users to paste {{Did you know nominations/Subpage name}} onto the nominations page, but to use [[Template:Did you know nominations/Subpage name]] in the edit summary. I prefer the consistency of having the instructions mention the same thing in both places. It is indeed a very good idea to have a link in the edit summary, so the subpage can be clicked on from the page's history or from one's watchlist. I do so frequently. For an edit summary link, the "Template:" part is mandatory. It's very easy to copy the full file name, then paste it onto the nominations page surrounded by curly braces, and paste the same thing into the edit summary, surrounded by square brackets. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Can we change that recently changed notice back to regain the consistency? Brevity, as you note, is not always best, and it is frequently not intuitive. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 (film), List of banned films

DYK nompage links|nompage=Did you know|2012 (film)|List of banned films

  • Comment: This my first time doing something like this, sorry if I'm not doing it right. It's also possible that it's too long, if so, please shorten it, I can't make it any shorter without removing any infomation. Please save this nomination for a couple days so it can be on the main page for December 21.

Created/expanded by Creator of the article "2012 (film)" (talk), Creator of the article "List of banned films" (talk). Nominated by 109.76.211.156 (talk) at 13:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of the linked articles appear to qualify. DYK articles must be either new or expanded by a factor of five in the past five days, and none of the listed articles fit that description. Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Try it now, I added more things in.

From Whata. 109.76.211.156 (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Go check "List of banned films" now, I think it's edited enough now.

From Whata. 109.77.87.234 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Whata, this should not have been on this talk page. It should have been saved as a Template acccording to instructions at Template talk:Did you know, and the template then added there where the discussion would happen. But what Gatoclass is telling you, is that DYK on an expansion of an existing article, must be 5X (five times) expanded on readable prose within 5 days of the beginning of expansion. Readable prose does not include graphics, lists or quotes. Right now at 16531 characters (0 words) "readable prose size", it is almost exactly the same size it was on December 1 of 16120 characters (0 words) "readable prose size". You see? You would have to increase the size of this article five times on the prose. Just to increase it from December 1, it would need to be 80,600 characters of readable prose, which is a pretty huge article. Not including the photos, infobox, lists. That's why it's not eligible. But if you think you can increase the readable prose by that much in 5 days, then please re-do this nomination on the Template talk:Did you know according to the instructions there. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Maile, since IPs cannot create DYK templates, this is pretty much the only good route they have to get articles nominated. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. — Maile (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again and sorry, I don't think I would be able to expand the page any longer than I already have it, maybe someone else can have a go at it.

From Whata. 109.77.136.168 (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Infinite Love

The above article was nominated a little over an hour ago, and placed in the special holding area for December 21—which starts, UTC, in about 15 minutes. It's a new single by an artist in India, released today, apparently intended to pick up the spirits of those expecting the apocalypse tomorrow.

While not impossible, there are a number of reasons why it's unlikely to appear on the desired DYK date: it hasn't been reviewed and both queues for the 21st are already in place. (One of them debuts 15 minutes from now.) An admin could, of course, just add another hook to the next queue (Queue 1), which wouldn't harm anything, as it's becoming clear that we need to increase the number of hooks from six to seven anyway.

So, if someone thinks this is important enough to give priority to, review and report back here whether it's approved or not; if it is reviewed, then it's up to an admin as to whether it should be inserted in Queue 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed and found the references there, but some mixed up, 8 is equal to 6. What now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It needs to be fixed. (And I just found a significant issue that leads me to wonder whether close paraphrasing issues were checked. I'm about to do a more robust check.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec) ref was fixed and I approved, go ahead for a robust check, it's too late for me to do more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Gerda, we did (edit conflict) there, too, unfortunately. Under the circumstances, I think this one is going to have to wait. Thanks for trying to see it over the finish line. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It appears as if the hook is now ready and approved for being put on the main page. I wonder if an admin could replace one of the other hooks from the Queue with this one (inorder to make sure this hook makes it up to the mainpage on Doomsday) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This article has now been approved for promotion. If an admin would like to add it as a seventh hook somewhere inside Queue 1—all the following prep sets have seven hooks, so this would bring the queue up to our new set size—that would be fine, and put it on the front page on December 21. If not, the nomination will simply wait for promotion in the normal manner. Note: please do not remove any hooks from the queue as TheOriginalSoni suggests; either add this one, or don't do anything. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: it did not run on December 21, the world didn't end, and there's no need for it to get a special promotion. I expect it will be added to a prep area in due course. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

How many DYKs in the history of DYK?

The discussion about publicizing an editor for 1,000 DYKs has me wondering, how many DYKs have appeared on the main page in the history of DYK? Having a notice about passing a major milestone in DYK history would do much more to promote the idea of DYK, as compared to publicizing a person. Either way, I can't be the only one who is curious about that number. First Light (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The current total membership of Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles, Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles, Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles, and Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured lists‎ is 64,367. But some articles which have appeared on DYK may not be in any of those categories, and I've seen some that were in more than one of them. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, First Light (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Reduce queues into two per day?

I wonder whether we should have three queues, even when we have 20-35 verified hooks. There have been many overdues lately. --George Ho (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change to two updates per day. Shubinator (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • A bit more discussion, perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I was WP:BOLD and requested it on Shubinator's page. I've been thinking about it for a few days. We're way down on approved hooks, I seem to be the only one putting together sets, and admins are thin on the ground in terms of promotion. So since things are slow, it makes sense. We can up the number of hooks to eight a set, which is almost the same number a day as currently (16 vs. 18). (Adding: let's stick at six per set until we can actually fill more than three of seven empty sets.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Between BlueMoonset, George Ho, and DYKUpdateBot's edits to this page, it made sense, so I went ahead with it. I agree that more discussion would be nice, and I'm completely fine with someone else reverting my change. Shubinator (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Until the new year, I guess this would be okay. A lot of people are gonna be out of contact for a week or two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Going to two a day seems more sensible than decreasing hooks per queue. I like to leave something in the prep area for 12 hours to allow minor or major fixes, bu even that cannot happen! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

All of a sudden reviewers have come out of the woodwork, and instead of being 30 short, we can actually just fill all the empty queues and prep areas. Anyone think we should perhaps try seven per set instead of six in the prep areas? Or do we want to be sure the reviews continue coming in first? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless more than three queues (excluding prep areas!) are set up already, perhaps someone more experienced and more active right now should put verified hooks into prep areas and then queues. For now, I think six-per-queue should suffice, even with over 30 verified hooks. --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Now we have 40-50 hooks. I hope six-per-queue is enough, especially at the time of holidays: the enormous five-day Christmas weekend and countdown to the New Year. Otherwise, perhaps seven-per-queue? --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Going to seventh hook. We're up to 60 approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
When Christmas Day is over, perhaps reduce hooks back into six per queue? Excluding Christmas Day hooks, we have right now 33 hooks. --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
George, it's premature to even speculate on this. It's five days until Christmas is over, and impossible to predict whether submissions and/or reviews will pick up or die down or do a bit of both. Right now we have more than enough hooks to fill all the hook sets to take us through Christmas with some left over. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, your counts have been off. We have 42 regular approved hooks as I write this, plus another 10 approved ones in the holding area destined for Christmas Day and Eve. I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but what you've been reporting here has not been accurate. Perhaps you haven't taken into account the fact that hooks in the special holding area are not counted in the totals on the queue page? BlueMoonset (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I don't know how they are counted exactly, so I'll stop pretending to know everything. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
IMO, it was premature to switch from 3 sets of 6 per day (18 daily) to 2 sets of 7 (14 daily). I attribute the recent drop-off of activity to (1) holiday shopping/travel/preparations and (2) exam periods in US universities. It's still the holiday season, but the students who had exams are now out of school on holiday, so the pace of activity should be picking up again. I predict that we'll regret the change very soon... --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
No worries... We'll request reverting the system back to three set of six-hook queues per day (18 daily) when either Christmas or the New Year celebration is over. We'll see what happens. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Orlady, we were struggling to keep up, so I don't regret the change for a minute. We can easily change back if it becomes necessary, but until we see more regular prep to queue promotions, I think it would tempting fate to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Although I've been inactive for some time, I'm very aware of the current struggle to keep up. However, I've been doing DYK for several years, and I've seen the same predictable "feast and famine" cycles play out year after year. Radical changes in the pace generally lead to new and different problems (for example, after a period of throttling down on the pace, this page can fill up with rants from contributors who want to know why their approved hook has languished on the noms page for a week, leading to a panicked effort to pick up the pace dramatically). The current nomination inventory includes more than a few stinkers (meaning noms that appear to be doomed), but between (1) the content that is currently in the prep areas and queues and (2) the approved hooks (including special holding areas for dates through 1 January), there are enough approved hooks for more than a week of DYKs at the rate of 14 hooks per day -- or 6 days of DYKs at the rate of 18 hooks per day. In most of my years of working DYK, that large an inventory of approved hooks would have been considered a backlog, not a shortage. --Orlady (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
At the time I requested the change, we had one day of filled sets, only another day of approved inventory, and had been on a downward trend for days. I don't think it's the end of the world to slow down for a week or two—we can always go up to eight hooks, or 16 a day, very close to the 18 a day we had been on for a while, yet still only need to have two sets promoted a day, which is a benefit with the DYK admins not as active. Let's take another look after Christmas is over ... or, if a flood of Christmas hooks arrive, we can go to eight starting that day and continue at that level. I gather that DYK used to operate with a leaner, more "just in time" approach to hook reviews, but that hasn't been working well of late: when I, or Allen3 earlier this month, do almost all the prep sets for days running, that's a problem: among other things, hooks that we've approved have to sit because we can't promote them. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are currently nine reserved hooks for Christmas Day; each of the rest has one to two (or three) for that special day. When Christmas is over, if administrators are becoming less than patient, I can request that it be reverted back into three sets of six daily. If that doesn't work, then I'll request again when the New Year will have begun. --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

George, I'd like to ask you not to make such a request. Please leave it to the people who are in the trenches, working on building prep sets, to gauge the situation. Believe me, if we think there's a problem, we'll speak up. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've just gone to eight hooks starting with the prep areas that will run starting December 26. That will take us up to 16 hooks a day, two fewer than from before the change. People are continuing to review newly submitted hooks, which is keeping the approved number high. With the change, we'll have enough to cover the empty prep and queue areas with nine hooks left over, which seems reasonable. We can look again in a few days to see where we are. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Prep areas

Can we please make sure that there is at least one Christmas Eve hook in each set for December 24? Christianity is ranked the largest religion in the world today. The number of Roman Catholics who celebrate on December 24 is about 1.196 billion. Poeticbent talk 04:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why it isn't best to have both of those Christmas Eve hooks right where they are: in Prep 3, which when promoted to Queue 1 will run during the day in the US (Italian Hall), and right through the period featured in Pasterka. I can swap Pasterka so it runs 12 hours earlier, but that'll have it running from one in the morning to one in the afternoon on Christmas Eve, which seems less useful than one in the afternoon until an hour after midnight on Christmas morning.
But what I don't understand even more is why Prep 4 was built without a single Christmas hook: it's running on Christmas day, and we have nine hooks (with a tenth being worked), and 14 Christmas slots. Most of those hooks will need to be pushed off by 24 hours; the question is whether to remove them back to the queue—which I would prefer not to do—or hope that a prep or two get promoted so we have room to work around. (But not promoted until you've let me know whether you want Pasterka to be swapped into the next earlier prep.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pasterka was meant to be featured on December 24, but not necessarily under the lead story of a 99-year-old stampede on that day in a demolished American country house. I'm afraid, such layout may be perceived as insulting to those who celebrate the Birth of Christ on that day. Poeticbent talk 05:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks like Gatoclass is doing a massive reorg of everything. Of course, it seems to have put Italian Hall in a slot when "today" is inaccurate, so that will have to be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Special days are run on UTC time, not local times, it's "today" UTC time so the hook doesn't need alteration. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The hidden text inserted in prep 3 stated that both were to be put there. Not to say it was a good idea to do so, but I followed the suggestion — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem Crisco, nobody is blaming you, it's just that some people have sensitivities about certain times of year which were apparently not taken into account with the original setup. Gatoclass (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm not feeling blamed. Just answering BlueMoonset's "I don't understand why" above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Crisco, I put that hidden text there in prep 3. It made sense to me: both were in the special holding area, the wording of the Italian Hall hook ("today") meant this was the only slot that would run during December 24, the "today", in the US, and I thought Pasterka would want to run close to midnight. (As important, I wanted to be sure the two December 24 hooks weren't overlooked when the set was built. People don't always remember to check the special occasions area.) The ostensible timing seems not to be the best. I would still change "today" to "on December 24" in the Italian Hall hook, though. Standard readers of the front page aren't going to know the UTC distinction that is so clear to us here. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "People don't always remember to check the special occasions area" - Mea culpa. Yeah, I thought it was a good idea when I saw it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the latter point Bluemoonset, but I think it should be pointed out that "today" is always wrong somewhere in the world because of all the different time zones. To remedy that, we would have to either write "today (UTC time)" or use the actual date - either would be acceptable to me, but since no-one has objected to the unqualified "today" previously, I have assumed it was acceptable to everyone. Gatoclass (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit of a conundrum. I'm not that fond of "today" for just that issue: that it's bound to be inaccurate somewhere for some part of its run. (We've had a bunch of India's religious celebration days as hooks that use it; the next one is being held for December 27.) My general principal when building a set, then, is to try to have "today" be accurate for its entire run in the place the person lived/event occurred, and then for as much of the rest of the world as possible. If the actual date is mentioned, then things become much easier. This may not be ideal, but it seems to have been working over the past several months.
Crisco, I still remember the Olympics with a shudder. We were trying to make sure we had the special occasion hooks, mostly Olympics ones, pre-staged in the prep areas so that people could finish the sets around them; otherwise, we risked falling behind or missing having someone's hook available before their final competition. (I've already pre-staged the Boxing Day hook, so it isn't forgotten, and an early Christmas hook, ditto.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Creating Template:DYKcredit?

Since I added alternative hooks Template:Did you know nominations/The Santa Simulation, if one of them will be used, I wonder if Template:DYKcredit will be created in favor of crediting those who created alternative hooks but neither nominated an article as "new" for DYK nor contributed to an article. Probably it needs a parameter that credits "ALT<#>", not original hook. I wanted to post this to WP:requested templates, but I think I must discuss it here because of enthusiasm about DYK. --George Ho (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That hardly seems like something worthy of a special credit. It's akin to creating a template rewarding someone everytime they fix a typo. Yazan (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is why I don't like the current standard about proposing ALTs. By making us unable to approve our own ALTs, this makes ALTs seem like a big deal. They aren't. Half the time a word has been changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it's probably okay to approve your own alt if the hook facts have not changed from the original hook. Gatoclass (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess there should be rules about using this template and crediting non-contributor appropiately. --George Ho (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
This seems like a cart before the horse situation: asking for a template to credit something when there is no agreement it should be credited, and where there is no software for such a credit to be processed. Right now we credit people who created the article, and also people who find and nominate such articles. I think suggesting a short sentence—a hook—is nowhere near this level of effort, and it is not appropriate to give it any formal credit. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with BlueMoonset above. I don't even think that ALTs, on their own, should even be counted as QPQs. Yazan (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone been claiming QPQ credit for simply supplying an ALT? I'd require a new, real review in that situation. Replying to Crisco and Gatoclass, I don't think making a minor cut or reordering phrases in a hook (provided there is no change in meaning) requires another approver, but I am very much in favor of not allowing people proposing any other types of ALTs to approve them. The new ALTs are too often problematic to allow self-approvals. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't even try to propose banning others from making ALTs. As far as I can see, one of proposed hooks that I did is approved. --George Ho (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Oh wait, it's the self-approved tweak version. --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth would I propose banning anyone from making ALT hooks? It's a critical part of DYK, and not everyone is good at devising interesting hooks. What I am saying is that creating an ALT hook, while a good thing to do, is not something that we should be giving credit for. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll rephrase: What about this: "not allowing people proposing any other types of ALTs to approve them"? Can you elaborate? --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think what BMS meant was that those people who propose ALTs should not also be able to approve them. Nothing about banning them from proposing ALTs; just that they shouldn't approve their own ALTs. Yazan (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) George, as you're a reviewer should should already know this. WP:DYKSG#H2: "You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article." That's been a rule here for ages. The idea is, as H2 goes on to point out, to "avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest". BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
George, this entire discussion has seemed vaguely familiar, and I've just found this in the archives, where you had raised this credit suggestion before. There wasn't enthusiasm for it then, yet this time you've upped it to a proposed template. I doubt the consensus will support a template or a specific credit; so far, there hasn't been anyone other than yourself supporting the idea of a regular credit at all. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of queue issues: need admin

Queue 6 only has six hooks in it, and should have seven. One of the hooks from Prep 2 should work there: I'd suggest moving the third (British military intervention) from the third spot in the prep to the third spot in the queue. The queue is set to be promoted in a little over eight hours.

Queue 3 will run on Christmas Day, but it has a special occasion hook requested for December 26 in it: the Bach Cantata (third hook). If someone can move that hook to Prep 3 (which is currently empty), then it should be set to run on the second day of Christmas, December 26, as Gerda requested. No hook needs to replace it, as the set has eight hooks instead of the seven it should, and this will get it down to the right number. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be a nuisance, and I realise this was a last-minute thing to fill a scheduling gap, but I really would appreciate it if other factors could be considered when scheduling hooks. British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War is nearly 7,000 words long, on its way to becoming a featured article, and fills what I feel was a major gap in the encyclopaedia. I proposed it with an image (granted, not one of the event the article describes, but one that was relevant to the article and the hook), so I'm slightly disappointed that it features below several much shorter articles, including at least one that's not much more than a stub. I mean no disrespect to the authors of those articles, but I had hoped that such a complete article, that took several weeks to research and write, might be featured a little more prominently, assuming that part of the aim of DYK is to showcase quality content. Sorry for moaning, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
When I am reviewing articles for DYK and I come across a particularly good article with a usable image, I usually leave a note saying "suitable for a lead article" - I wish more reviewers would do this because updaters often don't have the time to assess every article and will often just pick a lead with an attractive image. Gatoclass (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Christmas

NOT DONE
After a only a short while, it is time this RfC be closed as no, because the opposes outweigh the supports, the fork proposals don't work either and, as Maile66 points out, the Bond people might not be happy about this. Furthermore, the Christmas hooks have already been chosen, promoted and put on the queue. Lord Almighty Jimbo may have suggested this but nothing can override community consensus. Rcsprinter (message) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 13:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Did you know ... that the Wikipedia user Dr. ☠ Blofeld has contributed over 1000 Did you know articles to this section?

Can we have the above as a separate DYK? Jimbo said he would not have a problem with that, and that something like this would be a great idea.
We can also link to a separate congratulatory page instead of the talk page, to not have too many people coming over there. Maybe with a 1000-DYK medal proudly at the top of the page there TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Added later Also, he recently got his 1000th barnstar! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this highly unusual and disruptive idea. I've also copy-edited the hook a little. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – great idea. Finally, a DYK hook about DYK itself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support --Rosiestep (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to be a wet blanket, but if there are many multiple hooks in his record, will he have contributed over 1000 entries on DYK, or "merely" 1000 articles for attention on DYK? Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked this myself, but I think it's entries (he counts them as "added" when he gets the notification of appearance, not when he nominates them.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
He has 997, adding the planned 17-articles-hook mentioned above will put him well over 1000. This extra hook could be in the same set, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
If he has 997, then I would contend that this would be his 998th entry. Not looking to undermine the value of the contribution, just that the phrasing is clear and incontestable. ...has contributed over 1000 articles to this section... Kevin McE (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
We don't count "entries" but articles, there were several entries before with more than one article, so 998th would be wrong ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
And by the same token, a blurb that says 1000 entries would be wrong. Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. That is the intention. This hook shall be directly above/below the 17-articles-hook. But I doubt we shall have space for any more DYKs after that. Should we also add 3 more hooks to these 2, or keep a 2-hook DYK for the day? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how this hook shall be approved (Will it go through normal hook review or simply go straight to prep area?) so if anyone can help with that [and putting the proposal to wider vote, if needed, to implement it] it would be good. Thanks TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This hook can't be approved the normal way, because it's only source is Wikipedia, not a reliable source ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
LOL Gerda.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Blofeld, would you rather have it link directly to your talk page, or another page in your userspace? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Gerda, not the first time — this is comparable to "did you know that Wikipedia has an article about everything?", which was true no matter what was in the article :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I similarly don't want to seem to be a wet blanket, but to be honest, I don't care what "Jimbo" thinks; I don't like the idea. I have nothing against Dr. ☠ Blofeld's efforts and contributions in the slightest, and agree that they should be congratulated. Just not in this way. Medals, barnstars and similar paraphernalia is behind the scenes mutual back patting. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. To give such precedence within the encyclopedia to these.. editorial achievements isn't the aim of Wikipedia. Promote the content, not the people. Harrias talk 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • oppose Congratulations and all, but this is a serious case of navel gazing and not something I think we should be promoting on the main page. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that Dr. ☠ Blofeld does a great job, so much so that I'm copying the format of the username to say so, but I totally agree with Aircorn that this is navel gazing. Also, it crosses a line of editor recognition that takes the focus off of the content and puts it on a contributor in a way that I think is not in keeping with the mission of Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I personally think that an achievement as big as this (with respect to keeping the DYK section afloat) needs to be mentioned in a rather special way, especially by DYK themselves. So some WP:BOLDness in the good true nature of recognizing brilliant work could be permitted, I think. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I've reached 1000 DYKs already...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for an outstanding effort, but again, can we clarify, 1000 DYK hooks, or 1000 articles emboldened at DYK? Kevin McE (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry, but this simply isn't the purpose of DYK, and the last thing this project needs right now IMO is a dose of public self indulgence. If some users feel this achievement deserves wider recognition, I suggest they take it up with the Signpost. Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Please no. - Thank you, but no. --Onorem♠Dil 17:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - C'mon it's Christmas :)--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as one ambassador for WP:Wikiproject Editor Retention. While highly unusual, considering it would be within the DYK section itself makes it an interesting fact and serves as an additional incentive to others, knowing their contributions will be appreciated. Every now and then, bending the rules to pat someone on the back and show other editors that those who go out of their way are appreciated, well, its a good thing. Since it won't break anything, cause any particular issues, and serve to perhaps promote more interest in DYK in general, I believe the total benefits warrant an exception here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Dennis and WP:IAR. Legoktm (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Dennis's argument. How many DYKs have there been over the years? To highlight one editor, one time, doesn't hurt anyone. I'm not worried about this "dose of public self indulgence" hurting the project. GIF balloons flying down the mainpage with a flash video of the Dr. dancing to Cher and banners above every article saying "1000 DYKs!!!!" next to his spinning head, yeah, but it's just a single frigging line. Most people who read it would be regulars to DYK and find that interesting. PhnomPencil (✉) 21:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Now why did I not think of That!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Dennis Brown's argument and WP:IAR. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is done, and I remain in strong opposition to it, then there needs to be a link to a page that makes it clear what it means to contribute to DYK. Most people who view Wikipedia will have no idea at all how DYK is selected, and merely linking to one of our current DYK pages would be and overload of information. I don't have anything at all against showing appreciation, but will it provide editor retention truly? What about when the next editor gets to 1,000 DYK and all they get is a "mere" barnstar? What about all the editors who work on Featured articles that provide the main focus of the main page? Are they going to appreciate this show of appreciation, or just feel that DYK is overstepping itself? As I have already said, I think this is a wonderful achievement for Dr. Blofeld, but I don't think this is the best way of marking it. Harrias talk 23:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

By all means it should be linked and explained. That is the secondary purpose, to promote DYK as a whole. I wouldn't expect a wave of jealousy over a simple line that promotes a program by praising the first editor to hit a major milestone. Surely there is enough praise for every accomplishment at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Strong support Dennis Brown makes an excellent argument. There is no visible negative to this and it is a great way to show appreciation to an editor for his service. I agree that something should be linked in the hook to explain the DYK process. Ryan Vesey 00:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The accomplishment is worth recognition, but to put it here, it should be verifiable. In other words, if and when a media publication writes an article about Wikipedia's DYK process, and we start an actual article Did you know (Wikipedia), and we include an inline citation to a source that says Dr. Blofeld submitted 1000 DYKs, then we should run the hook. But doing so beforehand is effectively to declare a friendly exception to our usual standards that DYK hooks are sourced, which weakens their overall credibility because people can't count on us to hold to the standard. Wnt (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Technically, it is verifiable, by going through the contribs. Adding them is just math, thus not original research. ;-) Wikipedia would be a primary source, which are are acceptable for non-contentious facts. But I appreciate your concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, you do have a point - I may have been getting more at notability there, which is a more nebulous issue. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The Dr. has reached an exceptional milestone, and that's grounds for exception of the usual rules for DYK. Outlets like the New York Times occasionally run pieces on awards their reporters have won (2 Pulitzers for Times; Huffington Post and Politico Win). The hook should have links to explain the DYK concept to readers. Yes, it is a bit self-indulgent, but a tiny dose of self-indulgence on a rare occasion can be positive - we are not article-writing monks sequestered in stone cells. Volunteerism sometimes involves celebrating the organisation's own work, in the interest of a healthy community. The Interior (Talk) 16:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
A Pulitzer is an independent and widely recognized award, an announcement of the type being proposed here will breach all the usual DYK criteria and be likely to renew the criticism of DYK as a vanity project run for the benefit of editors rather than readers. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
True about the Pulitzer, perhaps a better analogy would be the "inside the newsroom" meta-pieces you sometimes see. In terms of benefit to readers, I think there is significant curiousity by the readership about the shadowy world of Wikipedians and how WP is written that a piece about Blofeld would be of value to them. As for the vanity project thing, one can't make decisions based on the fear of criticism, especially such subjective criticism as that. However, I can see the points of the opposers here, and won't press the point. Just thought it was a nice idea. The Interior (Talk) 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Gatoclass in all fairness has contributed more to DYK itself in terms of input than I have in article work. I simply nom and QPQ, if anybody deserves to be rewarded for his contributions to DYK as an organization it would be him, he has like over 6000 edits to DYK.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Christmas: Arbitrary break 1

  • Oppose. I agree with Gatoclass here. I'd prefer to see a Signpost article, with perhaps an interview and a selection of Blofield's favorite DYKs, to mark his tremendous achievement. Sasata (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this is sufficiently contentious it should be taken to a wider audience than just the DYK crowd. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I would at least leave a note at WT:Main page. If it does go ahead I can image it attracting quite a bit of flack there. AIRcorn (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already have DYK Hall of Fame, where other editors have exceeded Dr. Blofeld's achievement. Did these editors receive this same honor? Did these same editors even get a write-up in the Signpost? Will the others who are close to achieving the same thing get the same attention? I am a great admirer of Dr. Blofeld's contributions to Wikipedia in general, and to DYK specifically. But unless the others in DYK Hall of Fame got the same honors, it seems like a fan club recognition. And quite frankly, I see this biting DYK in the rear the next time someone wants to open another divisive thread to destroy DYK. The issue of racking up DYKs seems to make its way into those kinds of arguments. Dr. Blofeld's contributions are extraordinary. But the same might be said of all the others at DYK Hall of Fame. — Maile (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
My understanding of this was that the Dr. was the first to create 1000. It looks like PFHLai has nominated over a thousand, which is an accomplishment, but perhaps not on the same scale. Basing this on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. The Interior (Talk) 18:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. It doesn't change my opposition. — Maile (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
And by the way, after this last year, I've been totally jaded about editors dropping Jimbo Wales into DYK to support whatever they want. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#1000_DYKs is the conversation over on his talk page. I don't see a comment from him there. I also don't see one on Dr. Blofeld's talk page. Nor do I see one on TheOriginalSon's talk page. As has been mentioned in months past, if Jimbo has an opinion of what happens on DYK, he is more than welcome to join in the conversation over here. — Maile (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The comment is in the archives here. Ryan Vesey 05:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--В и к и T 18:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Dr. not just because of his DYKs, but his overall activity in spreading WP coverage to areas suffering from chronic systematic bias (latest case in point, the excellent expansion of Laotian provinces). Nevertheless, looking at the bigger picture, I have to oppose this. After the past few months, I do think DYK needs a little bit of normality, and the requests to IAR are not helping. Blofeld certainly deserves recognition as an editor and a person, I just think that recognition needs to come from somewhere else. Yazan (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I have often found myself taking Dr. Blofeld away from his article-creation work with inane TFD nominations... so partly out of regret for that, partly out of respect for him, and partly because I think it would potentially be DYKSTATS material, I support this.. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not for any of lack of appreciation for the good doctor's work, but because the main page is for readers, not for congratulating editors in public. The TFA spot is not used to point out people with large numbers of featured articles, for instance. And running such a hook without advertising the proposal in multiple public venues and gaining consensus would be the easiest way of killing off DYK as a sensible main page project. BencherliteTalk 11:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact that TFA does not do this does not mean we cannot either. TFA is designed for long articles which makes it inappropriate to give a writer the entire section. Not to mention that TFA existed long after FA. On the other hand, DYK already has a system of one line hooks which make it feasible to try it. It can also increase reader interest and have others too come to DYK to understand how it works and how to contribute; thus increasing overall contributions.
Also, when I started this proposal, I was not aware we must advertise this in multiple forums before approving it. I have advertised it on Jimbo's talk page as of yet. If you can add it somewhere else also, then please do so. Thanks TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
No, if you want to run it without leading to further calls for DYK to be scrapped, then you must advertise your proposal properly, not me. Talk:Main Page, the WP:Village Pump, WP:AN would be three good places to start. BencherliteTalk 12:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thats just rude. I just didn't know that it had to be done. So I asked you to do it if you knew of any more places.
Anyways I advertised this there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details seems like it would reach all logged-in editors. — Maile (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
That will be stretching it too much. I doubt we need to reach ALL the editors to discuss on a single line in one of the sections of the main page on a single day. If you feel otherwise, then feel free to add it there; but I am not doing it. The current advertisements seem more than enough to do that. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely a violation of the rules, but this is such an unusual situation that we really should give him substantial recognition. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I would not call it violation of rules. Violation implies we are doing something against the rules. Its more like making an exception to the rule by being Bold. Plus, since the community only makes the rules, I doubt it would be a violation either way. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Exceptions are violations, since we're not following them, and the rules say that we link only articles in DYK. If it weren't a violation, we wouldn't need to be having this discussion. Just wanting to make sure you saw that I supported, since it's a worthy reason to violate them. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I did see that. Only I disagreed with your definition of violation, so i thought I might point that out. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, I'm with Dennis Brown here. - filelakeshoe 13:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only 1,000? Pft... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support FWIW, Jimbo has spoken. See here. If you don't like that fact, you can deal with it that way. But denying its existence is patently silly. He encourages the effort and thinks recognition is in order. He suggested is is covered by WP:Bold. If you needed it to be even more unique, Blofeld also has received his 1000th barnstar. 1000 X 1000. It is a first. Carl Yastrzemski. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
See WP:Canvassing: [3], [4], [5] Sasata (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Support ... I strongly support our making it the Christmas Day issue. A true Wikipedian. An example to all. Take no notice of Sasata's forthcoming post suggesting I have been "canvassed". I have not and have had every intention of adding my support.  –
     – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|# PS Just to emphasise the matter ... I add my support unconditionally. GG-J
  • Support. Agree with: The Dr. has reached an exceptional milestone, and that's grounds for exception of the usual rules for DYK.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I'm sympathetic to the navel-gazing concerns, but 1000 DYK's is an impressive feat, and worth celebrating.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • meh 1000 DYKs is certainly an accomplishment that other Wikipedians will appreciate. I can't see any reason the entire world needs to be informed of it and if we do it once we will have to do it every time someone reaches such a milestone, and that, eventually, will get messy and complicated. if we do this for the good doctor but then don't do it for the next person to reach some arbitrary but impressive number of quality contribs it will rightly be seen as unfair. We either need to establish a clear and concise set of qualifications for making such an unusual exception to the normal rules of what belongs on the front page or not do it at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
We only need WP:IAR and community consensus. No reason to make boldness so bureaucratic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Praise be to the good Dr but this simply is not the place for it. As Maile66 pointed out, we do have DYK Hall of Fame, where other editors have exceeded Dr. Blofeld's achievement. Robvanvee (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Others have NOT exceeded Dr's achievement, which is why we are proposing it in the first place. The fact that he suggested Gatoclass was just him being humble. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
With respect, Robvanvee, no one has exceeded his achievement, and Dr. Blofeld is the first to reach this milestone. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. Respectfully, you have mixed up your comparisons and missed the relevant mark. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Define "exceed his achievement" and you get into a chalk-and-cheese argument. As noted by Dr. B himself (above), Gatoclass has over 6,000 edits to T:TDYK. User:Wehwalt has 78 FAs and User:Scorpion0422 has 76 FLs. And that's before we mention the Wikipedians with the most edits or the administrators with the most logged actions, for instance. Why use the main page to congratulate one of them but not all of them? What happens when the next person reaches 1,000 DYKs? What happens when Dr. B reaches 2,000 DYKs? "Being bold" is all very well, but being bold on the main page - at a time when some may feel that there are plenty of critics of DYK as it currently is even without trying to run a stunt like this - is not. BencherliteTalk 17:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Touche Bencherlite. WP:WADR 7&6=thirteen, comparisons may or may not have been mixed up(that's not something I am interested in engaging in), but no relevant marks were missed: DKY is not the place for editor back patting. Robvanvee (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
But it is something that you did, whether you intended to or not. In the form you presented, it was a red herring. And in fact you o not deny you misstated the claim.
The only recognition here is the first Wikipedian to have achieved this milestone. When others achieve similar monumental first achievements — think Carl Yastrzemski and Sir Edmund Hillary in the world of Wikipeddia — we can deal with their achievements later. This is a singular first achievement of longevity and excellence. It takes away nothing from other editors. This is not a zero sum game. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gatoclass. Not the place for this. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Blofeld's fantastic achievement can be trumpeted in other ways. DYK is for new articles only, and there is no article about the contributor. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Self-referential content, including but not limited to congratulations like this one, doesn't belong on in Wikipedia article space, much less the Christmas main page. Moreover, the Essjay affair should remind us all that it might be foolhardy to focus on the persona of any fundamentally anonymous contributor. --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support just this once in recognition of the Good Doctor's achievement, and in the spirit of Xmas. Lighten up just a little bit, people. Herostratus (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Why should the spirit of Christmas, whatever that means in this context (apart from being an irrelevant feel-good phrase), make a difference to the success or failure of this proposal? Are you implying that opposers of the proposal have no Christmas spirit? Surely not... BencherliteTalk 18:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
False dilemma mate. Just because we are asking to support it because of the Christmas spirit does not mean that those who do not support it have no Christmas spirit. It just means that Christmas is a time to be jolly, and there is no reason we cannot be a little light hearted at this point. Nothing else. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The "argument" that the Christmas spirit somehow is an argument in favour running a self-referential hook about the DYK process is about as weak as they get. Actually, it's worse than that: "being light hearted", traditionally, is what gets DYK into a huge steaming pile of trouble, because outsiders to the DYK just don't tend to get the funny side of DYK regulars' sense of humour. BencherliteTalk 18:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You seem to make quite a few logical fallacies. In this case its Affirming the consequent. You just decided that DYK outsiders dont get the funny side and therefore DYK seems to get into trouble (which I dont even know is true). There is no "argument" here. Its an "opinion", shared by quite a few people. And its more about appreciating brilliant work and bringing more editor interest to DYK than anything else. I wonder what the stats will say about the number of visits to vairous pages if this hook is run. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, "mate", when you've been around DYK long enough to appreciate the amount of criticism (not always justified, of course) that DYK gets about all sorts of issues, then you'll appreciate why treading carefully is an extremely good idea where DYK innovations are concerned. Of all the main page sections, it is the one that most regularly gets calls for its abolition, after all; check the talk page archives for previous numerous complaints. As a seasoned DYK editor with 100 DYKs to my credit, I don't want to give DYK opponents more grounds for complaint. I'm all for appreciating brilliant work and bringing editor interest to DYK, but I don't agree that glorifying a single editor for reaching one particular milestone is necessary or appropriate for either goal. BencherliteTalk 19:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
See how easy it was to not make a fallacy! (Just kidding, dont take it seriously)
I havent and probably wouldnt be checking through all the archives to check, but just because its criticised is no grounds for us not to suggest something else. And I am pretty sure that if this suggestion is approved; it will generate quite a bit of editor interest to DYK, whether it be "necessary" to do so for this case, or not. And as a new DYK editor with 0 DYKs to my credit, I do want more editors to come and add to DYK, which will reduce, if not stop, criticism on DYK for not being useful to the main page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Christmas: Arbitrary break 2

  • Strong Support It is time that we took care of our own. Einar aka Carptrash (Carptrash) 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Carptrash (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I really don't like using the main page for navel gazing, but I do agree that Dr. Blofeld deserves congratulations for his efforts. This is the kind of thing where I would suggest a watchlist notice. Wikipedians may care about this achievement, our readers probably not so much. Resolute 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Additional note. I notice that the article Wikipedia does not even include the words "did you know", and the only mention of the "main page" is in reference to featured articles. If completing 1000 DYKs is noteworthy enough to vie with new articles for recognition, shouldn't our Wikipedia article mention that there is such a thing as DYK, perhaps even explain the rules and a few controversies (e.g. Gibraltar)? Could one of DYK experts do some expansion there? Wnt (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I applaud the idea of giving direct, explicit editor recognition on the main page. While we're on the subject, I think we should go a step beyond this, perhaps to the extent of an entire "portrait of a Wikipedian" section on the main page. This will be a great way of giving thanks to high-performing members of the community, as well as reminding our readers that we are a volunteer-run encyclopedia that they, too, can join. ThemFromSpace 21:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
And I nominate Rich Farmbrough as the first subject of "portrait of a Wikipedian" — Maile (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless this achievement is notable enough to warrant a mainspace article. This is the worst kind of self-reference that's of absolutely zero interest to non-editors, which is the bulk of readership. There are surely more appropriate ways to commemorate this achievement within the editing community. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - and really, this is not the sort of thing we should even be considering. A Signpost article, by all means. And other coverage if other publications want to cover this (they might if the WMF do some sort of press release and Blofeld works with them on that). But please let's not use the main page to focus on single editors. It completely misses the point. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mainspace, and the main page especially, is for readers, not editors. I absolutely appreciate Blofeld's achievement and contributions to DYK as an editor, but as a reader I simply don't care if he has a thousand or a million nominations, or if he happened to author 75% of the encyclopedia single-handedly while on a wireless internet connection trekking uphill in a blizzard in Antarctica. This would be a particularly bad form of navel-gazing if implemented. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is way beyond riduculous. Give the evil Dr a T-shirt if you want to honour his achievement. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Dennis Brown. This kind of recognition will also boost interest in the DYK project, which will motivate more users to join it. I had no idea I could contribute to DYK for my first 5 years of editing! Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this has got to be the worst half-baked idea to come out of Wikipedia since ... the last reward culture idea ran amok on Wikipedia.
    1. What do our readers care about some character they've never heard of? How not serious can we be? Talk about April Fools.
    2. Furthers the reward culture which is already a problem everywhere on Wikipedia, but even more so at DYK, where folks churn out poor quality just to accumulate baubles and bangles to display on their user pages. DYK has been a process in serious trouble for a very long time; why on earth would we reward that? Where has this discussion been noticed? Has it gotten widespread exposure on Community and policy pages? The DYK pages are hosting a discussion about breaching No Self References ... presumably this has been widely noticed on Central discussions.
    3. Next are we going to do the same for someone's 500th GA, 100th FA, or 10,000 article? Oh, good, I promoted more than 3,000 FAs, do I get one of these days, too? Give Blofeld his Awesome Wikipedian Day and call it a day. If he wants, he can my Awesome Wikipedian Day. Oh, wait ... I gave that away as soon as I got it. Oh, well ... Outriggr will give it back.
This Is Utterly Unbelievable. DYK runs a proposal to breach self-referencing on the main page for five days without noticing the broader community? Are you all bonkers in here? The main page talk was just noticed today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I find it quite believable. How much effort does it take to produce 10 FAs? As compared to 1000 DYKs? Very few care about quality any more. Dr Blofeld ought to do the decent thing and refuse the main page promotion of what exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Having contributed to a number of featured articles myself Malleus, the amount of work and effort I've put into those 1000 DYKs is definitely far greater than the amount of work I've put into my articles which have been promoted to FA. I've got articles up to featured status with collaboration in a matter of days, some within weeks. It is just that the effort has been spread over many articles instead of just a couple. Having promoted many articles to GA and some to FA they do require a lot more research but its generally minor issues which make the difference, a lot of technicalities. Not so much effort as persistence. I don't think you realise just how much research and writing was involved in the writing of those 1000 DYKs and to imply that just because I contribute to DYK as a starting point to improve our worst content on the path to something better I don't care about quality is very wrong. Sometimes quality might not be the best on some of my DYK collaborations but generally I think they're pretty decent. You might value 10 FAs far more than 1000 DYKs but I'm pretty sure that overall our readers don't, and they're grateful of the wide range of content I've produced providing decent information. As an encyclopedia I think that having every article up to at least start class and well sourced and reliable is more important than having just a handful of brilliant articles. Ideally we want every article up to FA status but I think you're missing how valuable these articles are. Its up to the community what they want to do with this, I think a lot of us, myself included, would be happy with an announcement at the signpost and something from the foundation in thanks. But I think Dennis has a valid argument about encouraging editors to produce more content, even if no doubt many will disagree that a DYK about me is the way to deal with this. I'm flattered by this proposal, but its promoting content which is of primary importance, and beyond the flaws of DYK, it has more purpose than I think you give it credit for. Just how many good articles we have today and that you have reviewed Malleus were originally DYKs? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I concur with most of that. Creating 1000 start-class articles is an achievement that I think very few wikipedians could match, and one obviously requiring a great deal of effort. And while it's probably not possible to reliably compare the amount of effort that goes into an FA versus a given number of start-class articles, one might point out that many FAs look barely distinguishable in quality from GAs, and GAs are not that difficult to create - indeed many DYKs by our better contributors are probably GA-quality or close to it out of the box. Having said that, it doesn't change my view that a DYK slot is not an appropriate venue for giving recognition to such achievements. Gatoclass (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Break for central notification

At this point, Central discussions was added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support well deserved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose if it was me or anyone else. There must be some other way to reward this editor? I'm certain this is well deserved, but DYK is part of how the sausages are made, and no reader is interested in how the sausages are made. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is navel-gazing - and a "portrait of a wikipedian" plate would be even worse. In a real encyclopedia project, when someone edits 1000 articles or something, they might have a party. They don't put an entry in the encyclopedia noting that so-and-so editor edited 1000 articles. No. They get their names on the editorial credits and that's it. If we run this we are quite clearly saying WP is not a real encyclopedia project. (Except perhaps April 1, where it might be seen in a different light..) Gimmetoo (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose For years I was the "leader", ahead by hundreds of DYK entries, until I took a Wikibreak from DYK with "only" 880-odd entries a few years ago. It's fantastic that other editors have "caught up" with me and pulled ahead and the effort and persistence demonstrated by User:Dr. Blofeld's in crossing the 1,000 mark on new and expanded articles is truly remarkable. But the primary recognition is the fact that articles he has worked on have been on the main page 1,000 times. They are not his articles and a self-referential post to the main page honoring him would be inappropriate and would only serve to perpetuate and intensify the score-keeping tendencies at DYK and elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as the fetish for trivial edits to run up the score and boost rankings at WP:WBE (though in full disclosure, note that I am somewhere in the mid-teens on this list as well). I'd love to see independent reliable and verifiable sources cover Dr. Blofeld's remarkable accomplishment and it would be great to see a Wikipedia article created about him that could then be posted to DYK. Now that would be a truly appropriate honor. Alansohn (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – highly inappropriate self-referencial navel-gazing. Graham87 06:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Not only is this a remarkable achievement, it wouldn't hurt to inform the world that Wikipedia articles are written by real, individual evil geniuses human beings, as much as some of us would like to pretend otherwise. Danger! High voltage! 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per most of what has been said already. This is absolutely not the purpose of the Main Page and would set a terrible standard. What about the tremendous amount of work that goes into creating the quality content of featured articles? I don't mean to take anything away from Dr. Blofeld's contributions or minimize his work, as I don't believe I've ever encountered him, but this simply isn't what this project is about. --auburnpilot talk 06:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wnt. Tony (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)�
  • Oppose - the main page should be about Wikipedia and its articles, a gateway to welcome new people to either see our wonderful content or to edit and improve the site. Showing off DYK users does nothing to help achieve this purpose. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we are here to support the encyclopedia, not the other way round. While we do (appropriately) have pages for assisting, motivating and congratulating ourselves, we do not do it on mainspace, and we never should. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Dr. Blofeld's evil schemes will be more easily foiled if exposed to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. 10:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose - he's done great work but this simply does not belong on the main page. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
While I'm not sure a DYK on the front page of me is appropriate, this has raised a valid case for something which recognizes the achievements of editors. Yes it is true we are about encyclopedic content, but it is also true that some editors work damn hard to improve wikipedia, with little in return. I would support a sub page which recognizes achievements by its editors and announces them to the community so they know what sort of work is really going into the project. While it would be unreasonable to announce every time sometime has 10 DYKs or a major expansion, I would support something which a] Publicizes the editors which recently promote articles to FA and GA. b] Special consideration to editors who reach major milestones like 10 FAs, 5 FAs in a given year or whatever. b] Mentions DYK contributors which reach major milestones like 500 DYKs or 1000 DYKs. I think something which makes editors feel valued and recognized for their achievements in some form would promote content and good feeling in the community that content contributors are respected and an example to others. Would a sub page for this really be inappropriate? You could dismiss it as unnecessary flattery and self indulgence, but editors do matter, and editor motivation is the key to producing content. Anything which makes major article contributors as individuals feel valued by the community I think its a positive thing and the sort of environment which will promote further content and encourage others to do so. That would be a good enough reward for me, to allow similar content producing editors recognition for their hard work when they reach major landmarks on a sub page which promotes content growth.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Well said. 👍 Like TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
No. All it does is encourage people to participate in countable or quantifiable tasks to the detriment of others. Everyone in the community contributes in different valuable ways, not just 'content contributors', and the encyclopedia would not be what it is without the efforts of people undertaking all manner of tasks, many of which go unnoticed or unrecognised even by veterans such as yourself, Blofeld. Barnstars are, for the most part, handled manually by community members with considered reasons, and can be given for tasks that don't get counted on some big tally board somewhere. That's where community recognition comes from. Quality, never quantity. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Let's share the holiday spirit! :D ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 13:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As a special, one-time-only honor.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not all new articles are nominated for DYK, lots of editors contribute without collecting awards.J3Mrs (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I highly doubt "many" editors contribute without rewards. I would like to see examples before I believe that. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You could compare the rate of DYKs to rate of article creation - there's a very big difference. Personally, I write articles because I like contributing to the project; I rarely bother putting them through DYK because the number of DYKs is finite and I would rather leave them to other people who really want to collect those little trophies. bobrayner (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to peruse Wikipedians by the numbers and look for whatever you think their rewards were. I recognize names at the top not for their barnstars, but for coming in and adding categories, tweaking existing articles. None of them got Main Page recognition. — Maile (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "I highly doubt "many" editors contribute without rewards." Really???!!!! What sort of culture do we have that editors can actually believe such statements? I contributed hundreds of new articles before I was even aware of DYK, loads more through the DYK process, and loads more since I got so irritated with the "DYK community" that I refused to have any more to do with it. I agree 100% with bobrayner. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have some outstanding editors across en.wikipedia who deserve great praise for their work, but content must take precedence over personalities. If anybody put their name on an article, that name would be removed - no matter how high quality (or how singlehanded) their work. In fact, we should strive towards an encyclopædia where you can't guess the background of the person who wrote each sentence; individual editors' voices being subsumed into an single anonymous voice, like the Economist (alas, on a few controversial topics we're a long way from that goal). If you want to be a rockstar in wikipedia-space, fine. If you want barnstars and/or the respect of your peers, fine. But the main page is a place to showcase content, not editors. bobrayner (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The main page is for informing readers, not for praising editors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Horrible. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks unprofessional. --Claritas § 17:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, until such time as the account is notable. William Avery (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While Dr. B is to be congratulated, and I do, I think the WP Signpost is the place for such accolades, not the mainpage. It smacks of navel-gazing otherwise... Carrite (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • support I don't myself work on DYKs, but giving a public tribute to someone exceptional is perfectly professional and appropriate. Recognition is deserved, and it belongs where the work is visible. The people who work here are part of the encyclopedia; it doesn't build itself. I consider this a one-time non-precedent, justified by editor retention as an example of what one person can do here. (and for anyone who is concerned that we're favoring one type of contribution, it's not as if his other work wasn't also excellent.) DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Christmas: Arbitrary break 3

  • Oppose per Wnt. Andreas JN466 21:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - seems a big accomplishment, this doesn't hurt anything. --Nouniquenames 21:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Ye guys can put DYK April fool jokes on the main page where a period of 1 year is given. Did you know ... that Elvis' Greatest Shit was dropped in 1982? or ... that Christina Aguilera had sex for breakfast with slow jam and honey dip?; you will see them on the Main Page next year! You appreciate enjoying jokes but cannot think of appreciating real hard work of a fellow 'pedian!!! This DYK will be a great motivation for the readers to join a hardworking community. Obviously, it is going to be at the top of WP:DYKSTATS. ···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too insider. NE Ent 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I greatly appreciate all the work Dr. Blofeld has done, DYK should be about the articles, not the contributor. David1217 What I've done 03:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sorry, this isn't what DYK is for. –sumone10154(talk) 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not only uninteresting and confusing to non-editors, but also uninteresting and confusing to many editors. The highlighted link just points to Dr. Blofeld's userpage; it doesn't explain his story or the significance of his person. Plus, what does this have to do with Christmas, other than the fact that some self-aggrandizing editor is exploiting people's fuzzy feelings to push through an embarrassing, abusive, and self-referential proposal? Shrigley (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone else. To be fair to Blofeld - who is generally a very good editor - I don't think this was actually his suggestion originally, even though he's gone along with it. But reward him with a nice big write-up in Signpost where he can say what he likes about DYK, and set out his ideas on everything else that's wrong with WP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A congratulations on their talk page is enough. Till 11:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If I understand correctly, the proposal is to recognize an individual editor's accomplishment on the main page, in the DYK section? No editor's accomplishment is ever worthy of such a thing, because the main page is just not the place to highlight individual editors. Everyking (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, without meaning anything negative about the Dr. or about the intent of the proposal. Yes, it does seem more like navel-gazing rather than attention to our non-editor readers. It also seems to me to go against one of the basic premises of the wiki: that, by hitting the save button, we give away our contributions to the public. That means giving up a bit of "look at what good work I did". This sort of thing belongs on talk pages, for sure, but not in the mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Congratulations to the Dr., of course. Navel-gazing on the main page, though, that helps our readers how? We need to remember the purpose of the project. Cheers, LindsayHello 04:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It's helpful to give general readers an occasional insight into the community behind Wikipedia. Kbog (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The strongest argument that's been made here has been Dennis's editor retention one. The thing that got me interested in Wikipedia in the first place was the glimpses behind the curtain, so to speak. (Following talk page links to essays and finding myself in project space, for instance.) Our most promising untapped contributors are people who read articles a lot - they start wondering where it all comes from, who writes it. An entry like this is the perfect glimpse behind the curtain - it snaps people out of their encyclopedia-reading just enough to pique their curiosity, without in any way detracting from their perception of the encyclopedia as a useful/enjoyable/well-assembled project. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Congrats to Dr. Blofeld, but the Signpost is the more appropriate outlet for his narcissism. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - per Francophonie, whose reasoning is spot on. My congrats and thanks to the good Doctor, and Merry Christmas to all! Jusdafax 08:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Have Blofeld pick an FA that he wrote that hasn't run as WP:TFA, and have that run on the day his 1,000th DYK is promoted. That way, we honor him with a mainpage slot, without breaching self-reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The only problem being that his 1000th DYK has already run. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything wrong with recognizing his accomplishments by naming him; they're highly impressive, to say the least. I'd strongly discourage doing this in the future, though, as it focuses the reader away from our goal of presenting factual information in an encyclopedic fashion. dci | TALK 19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion and would share the achievement with my other fine contributors Schrod and Cassianto. I think Peter Sellers is the only one not yet been a TFA.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternate alternate proposal

This can only go nowhere good. Let's avoid the drama.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I propose that we run the following "Did you know... that Liu Huang A-tao, a Taiwanese woman forced into sex slavery during the Second World War, was labelled a "prostitute" by Wikipedia editor Dr Blofeld?" Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is hardly a constructive suggestion. It also fails a number of our criteria; "the hook should be neutral", hooks that "focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." Harrias talk 21:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A side issue

Has anyone considered the thought that whoever owns the rights to name, image and likenesses of Bond characters might not be amused to see someone using the Blofeld name on the main page, including any unauthorized images which might be on anyone's user page? — Maile (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC).

No. No one has. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kettles are not properly sourced

The hook for HVDC converter, currently in Prep 2, has an unsourced fact about kettles. From the nomination discussion, it appears that the nominator and reviewer may have thought that it was properly backed up by an inline ref for an offline source, but that is not the case. The only inline ref after the fact is to an online source which makes no mention whatsoever of kettles. The source is probably the inline ref before the fact, but DYK rules require a ref after, and only someone with access to the offline source can verify that and add another inline ref after the fact. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Mandarax. I'll remove the final clause of the hook so it stops after "AC": I think it's still interesting without the kettles and it'll also be shorter, but we can restore the kettles if the source is added where it needs to be. I'll drop a note to the article's author. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy to go with it without the "kettles" reference if you think it will be sufficiently interesting without it.Clampower (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Shortage of Christmas DYKs

Here we are with less than a week to go to Christmas, and unless I've missed something, we have only four Christmas hooks to feature. Is there any chance that some of our contributors could get cracking on a few Christmas hooks to fill out the DYK stocking? Anyone have any suggestions on where we might broadcast a call for more contributions on this topic? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You could always do six different ones on my evil Christmas pursuits.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Only if you manage to get them reported in reliable sources :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If you have to, you can run the cantata for 26 December (2nd day of Christmas) already on 25, and a new Christmas nom needs a review, Das Christ-Elflein, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Shepherds (Domenichino) and Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas sweater are awaiting review. I haven't checked back before December 13. That's 7 without the cantata, for 2 updates. One could just skip the update, for the day of the year with the lowest views, & get a full set? Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have found a few hooks that should have been in the Christmas section and moved them, there might be a few more yet. But I would prefer to have at least two full sets for Christmas Day if we can manage it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The instructions are to list unreviewed Xmas hooks as normal, then move them after. Maybe that should be changed now. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think they need to go straight into the Christmas section now, so they are not missed. I have checked the rest of T:TDYK now and haven't found any more Christmas hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think we should follow the instructions. Most reviewers don't look in the special holding area—witness the Gibraltar hooks—and the chances of a review are greatly reduced if the hooks are sequestered early. Also, note that we are down to two hook sets a day (every twelve hours), which means we probably don't want to encourage a flood of such hooks, since then we won't have room. And, frankly, it's nice to have a couple of non-Christmas hooks in the mix. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
We are talking about two right now, they were moved and should perhaps not be moved again, but reviewed, the links are above. In general, I agree, nominate normally and move when approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that there are only a few days left to Christmas, I think it's important to have all the hooks in one place where their current status can be quickly reviewed. Since there are only a few hooks, I think the regular reviewers should be able to take care of them. Gatoclass (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
One more Christmas Eve (December 24) hook (not in the special holding area) is awaiting a review at Template:Did you know nominations/Pasterka. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 19:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that one, I started a review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strange, there doesn't seem to be an article on Christmas in Gibraltar. Would there be time to write the article for next Tuesday, do you think? --John (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You planning one? Be sure to leave enough time for it to go through two full reviews, if so. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It'll need a better hook, but it's certainly a possibility. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There's a better hook; now it needs a reviewer (and fast). BlueMoonset (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Darn it, now I notice just how short Partridge is! That would have been a great expansion target. Miyagawa (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
There's always next year. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Special Occasions

Does anyone else think it might be a good idea to have a specific page for the organisation of special occasions (such as Christmas, Easter, Women's month etc). Now I'm not advocating a system where hooks can be nominated anytime of the year and held in the manner of fish day, but just something which can be a central point to organise such events in advance and perhaps help encourage some collaborative editing. Plus it'll keep those discussions off this central talk page and on the event related talk page. I'm also thinking it might help highlight some lesser known event days. I think the only links we'd need is under the Special Occasions subheader on the nomination page. What do people think? Miyagawa (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort of neutral on the idea, but would like clarification about details. I think you mean one of these:
  • Leave the nominations themselves on the nomination page, but with a Hatnote at the top of the section pointing to a different page for discussing them
  • Move all the Special Occasion nominations to their own page for both discussion of varied occasions and development of noms, and leave a Hatnote on the main nom page that points to the new page
— Maile (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I mean the first, not the second. As I'm not thinking we'd nominate ahead of time as with April Fools, I think moving the nominations to a separate page would just be confusing. Miyagawa (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

prep2 first hook

"... that Japanese girl group Momoiro Clover Z member Momoka Ariyasu (pictured) claims to be stupid but is actually always studying, even backstage?" Wouldn't this be hyperbole? Is she literally studding all of the time or does she just study more than one would think she should? Shouldn't this amount be quantified?--Found5dollar (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have given the hook a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Can it please be tweaked again? Using "others" is very odd (which others? her parents? stagehands? friends from school?); if instead it says "other members" it reflects the article, which indicates that "other members" of the group (at least two, but possibly not all, which is why "the other members" really can't be used) make the studying backstage claim. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. I agree the original tweak wasn't ideal, but I couldn't think of an alternative that would not make the hook too long, but as it turns out, there is enough information in the rest of the hook to make it clear which "members" are being referred to with no further explanation required. Gatoclass (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed?

Why would one administrator tag the hook for elaboration? At least the notice lasted for one minute. --George Ho (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely ridiculous, I agree. See here. Yazan (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: it was actually there for thirty one minutes. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a valid question, just not an appropriate way of asking it. Prioryman (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Starting end-of-year review cleanup

We have far too many old submissions languishing: seven ready for reviewing are over a month old, and another seven are almost that old, from the end of November. Please help review these before the end of the year. Many thanks for your assistance.

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

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Crossed off a couple that I looked at, but still need work. I'll keep them on my watchlist for eventual approval. The problem is that a lot of them (and probably a lot more of the above too) simply have very boring hooks that didn't even manage to hook in a reviewer. If you can't hook in a wikipedian, then how are you going to interest the general readership? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Currently no DYK image on Main Page

Resolved

The lead hook was removed and not replaced. See WP:Errors#Errors in the current or next Did you know.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

My suggested alteration of the original hook was accepted, and it's been restored. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated January 1 date request

Since this nomination has dragged on so long, I am hoping we can get Template:Did you know nominations/Venric Mark approved for the final January 1 queue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thus, I am hoping to target Prep area 3 that will go into queue 5.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Another one mentioning New Year's Day and not yet reviewed is Christophe Coin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Minor Queue 3 edit

In the third hook of Queue 3, only the album's title should be in italics: '''[[2 (Mac DeMarco album)|debut LP, ''2'']]'''. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 WikiCup

Hi, this is just a note to say that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting soon, with signups remaining open throughout January. The WikiCup is an annual competition in which competitors are awarded points for contributions to the encyclopedia, focussing on audited content (such as good articles, featured articles, featured pictures and such) and high importance articles. It is open to new and old Wikipedians and WikiCup participants alike. Even if you don't want to take part, you can sign up to receive the monthly newsletters. Rules can be found here. Any questions can be directed to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Riin Tamm nominated as AFD

It appeared as part of DYK yesterday, but how was concerns of the notability of the person disregarded until deletion nomination? Can we stop promoting any more hooks whose articles may not pass notability guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  • That's part of a reviewer's task, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • George, how do you propose "may not" should be handled? Remember, "may not" also means "may well"; the discussion on the talk page at the time used the assessment "borderline", which to me means it could easily go either way. If our reviewer thought it was notable enough, that's a judgment call just like "borderline" was. Should it be required of DYK reviewers and promoters to start an AfD even if, in their judgment, the article seems to just make the grade on notability? That seems to be the only close to foolproof way for preventing articles that just might be insufficiently notable from appearing on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not implying that AFD is required to test notability of a topic. There should be reasonable doubt without setting up AFD. Ngaire Thomas did appear in DYK in 2008, but instead I tagged it for "cleanup" because... the article is badly structured, and the person did only one book, as far as I know. If notability is on "borderline" per talk page or anywhere else, then let's re-review again and consider merits of arguments next time... Oh wait, that was required on Gibraltar-related articles. --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6: Gundicha Temple

Can someone please change the hook to ALT (Template:Did you know nominations/Gundicha Temple)? much more hooky... --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Queue 6: Hans Severus Ziegler

The hook says: "... that Hans Severus Ziegler proposed the name "Hitler Youth" for the Nazi youth movement?" - He didn't, he proposed "Hitler-Jugend". (You can speak about it using the English name, of course, but you can't say he proposed that English name.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose he proposed it in his own language, but things are translated all the time; this is English Wikipedia after all. There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity here with this translation. To make a change here would sacrifice accessibility to English language readers for some sort of linguistic nitpickiness. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
How about this to satisfy both sides: "... that Hans Severus Ziegler proposed the name "Hitler-Jugend" (Hitler Youth) for the Nazi youth movement?" Sasata (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that works. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone with admin powers please take care of it? This hits the main page in about three hours. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Allen3 talk 21:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Cobscook Bay hook

The Cobscook Bay hook (currently in Prep 3) contrasts a 1935 scheme to generate electricity to a current one, but while it used vague language—"new tidal power scheme is now active"—to match the information in the article from a July 2012 source, the project actually went on line in September 2012, a fact that had not been included in the article. I've updated the article, and boldly changed the part of the hook quoted above to "new tidal power generation method succeeded there in 2012".

I would, however, like someone to check my work to make sure I've adhered to all the DYK rules in terms of article and hook sourcing, accuracy, paraphrasing, and sustaining the hook's interest. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've just revised the hook again, as the 1930s scheme was not abandoned in 1935 but at least a year later than that. Since the year it stopped when additional congressional funding was not supplied is not clear—it could be 1936 or 1937—I've restructured the opening on the hook so it says "a mid-1930s attempt" rather than "in 1935 an attempt". BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Second review needed?

I just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Soldier Artificer Company. As it appears to be sufficiently Gibraltar-related to need a second review (the discussion above doesn't seem to have finished yet), I thought I should drop a note here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear from the discussion above (which, assuming the usual week being allowed for it, is due to close this Thursday) that the second review requirement is going to be discontinued. Given this, I don't think there's any point in asking for a second review. Prioryman (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I've moved it into the Gibraltar holding area where it's now with a number of other recent hooks that only have a single review and no mention of a second as a possibility. My assumption has been that the second review requirement was likely to be lifted, so it seemed like a poor use of reviewing resources to point people at them when so much else needs reviewing. If the situation changes over the next couple of days then we can revisit, but I doubt it will: if the double review requirement is lifted, a bunch of hooks will suddenly become fully approved, presumably this one among them. However, until that final approval icon is added to this particular nomination, it won't be ready to go with them. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Going forward with multiple DYK submissions on one topic

  • I'm involved in the GibraltarpediA project, so I won't make a substantive comment wrt the proposal, but I would just say (as somebody who has been an occasional nominator, reviewer, and admin at DYK for several years) that DYK needs to find a better way of handling influxes of nominations on relatively narrow topic areas. We've had it before (though usually on a smaller scale) and we'll have it again even if there were no GibraltarpediA or similar projects, so I think it would make sense to establish a process that gets suitable articles their time on the main page while ensuring that the volume of nominations doesn't compromise DYK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm putting this in its own section, because it's something to think about on its own. Can you find what used to exist before on this subject? Do you have suggestions of how the mechanics of it would work? DYK editors tend to write about and nominate their interests. Those who enjoy getting involved submit many noms on one subject. One extreme I just found - and these are superb articles - is one editor who has submitted 353 DYKs since 2010 on Science subjects (flora, fauna, minerals, etc). That's a lot. There have also been large runs on horses, sports, governments, bios, geography, monuments, architecture, music and pop culture. How does DYK put the brakes on it? — Maile (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Two ways to do that-
  • Stop all DYKs. Puts he brakes on such extremes. [sarcasm]
  • Have a classification and count what which are the topics of every DYK. Have an upper limit for the number of DYKs from one topic over a time period. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Option 1 clearly isn't going to happen, nor should it, so we can forget about that. Option 2 is more interesting. I sought to do something like that for Today's Featured Article by creating Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Statistics, which provides info on subjects and national affiliation of TFA topics. It was intended to provide a basis for analyses of the geographical and topical variety of TFA. It would probably be possible to do something similar for DYK. However, I would caution that it would require a lot of work given the number of DYKs run daily. Prioryman (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Option 2 is way too labour intensive, so I can't see it happening. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
How? Just add another option to DYK nomination process - Choose any one of the 10 broad topics that cover all DYKs (I suggest the 10 topic range for Peer Review to be a good start.) After a couple of weeks, it will appear obvious which ones of the subtopics needs a topic of their own, and which need to be merged. Once we have a satisfactory topic-wise classification this way, we can easily put an upper cap to the number of nominations that come out of one broad topic (and similar caps for smaller subtopics) in a given week. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no need to put the breaks on. We are already suffering from insufficient nominations, so if you crimp the enthusiasts there will be even less. Instead we just need to maintain a balance on each preparation area. The limits that we had before eg no more than half US related or half Olympics related will be adequate for topics in general. So no more than 4 of any one kind of topic, so no more than half biographies, no more than half music related, or half science related. FOr narrow topics we can limit it to one per prep area. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that's all part of making up a good spread. There should be a variety of topics - for instance, I always try to give a 50/50 split between bios and non-bios, and keep it to a single hook per subject area. Although that being said, it hasn't always been possible, especially in recent months with a lack of US based hooks available (compared to other countries). In fact, I've found myself putting out very UK-centric hook sets because of this. The Olympic stuff was unusual, and it shouldn't come around again for another two years (and even then I think the take-up during the Winter Olympics will be significantly lower than the Summer Olympics). I think that while it might not be necessary as a rule, perhaps there should be a guide to good set construction (if there isn't something along those lines already) and a proviso for nominators that if they nominate a whole bunch of hooks on the same subject then it will take longer for them to be posted than if they nominate on a variety of subjects. Miyagawa (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There seem to be a few different situations here:
  1. Projects like MonmouthpediA and GibraltarpediA, where submission of articles to DYK and their approval are part of the criteria used to award prizes
  2. Competitions like WikiCup, which allow people to submit to DYK as one way of accumulating points
  3. Major events like Olympics or Paralympics, which generate a flood of submissions
  4. Academic classes which include submitting to DYK as part of their program/syllabus/requirement for students
  5. People who find a subject and mine it for many articles, sometimes submitted in batches. Recent examples include Lebanese parliamentary elections and video games; past ones include racehorses and Australian women athletes.
I wouldn't mind seeing DYK establish ground rules about how the first group should be handled: do we bend over backward to allow hooks to come through, to the point of perhaps running multiple hooks in a set or in a day, or do we limit the numbers? Do we have conflict of interest rules about who can review and promote hooks? For that matter, should we be trying generally to limit the number of hooks any one contributor can have in a single set? In a certain period? I don't know the answers, but I do know that there are times when I see a lot of the same names with articles in a set topic area. Some of them end up sitting around a little longer, because of the need to balance sets, but there are sometimes runs of similar articles over a series of sets, which is far from ideal. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute... Will this affect holiday-related hooks, like ones on Christmas and April Fools' Day? --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to find a hard rule. I have written maybe fifty DYKs inspired by one painting and no one minds/noticed (I think). I also ran Halloween one year when every hook was about Halloween for 36 hours. After I withdrew from DYK we had((and have) numerous editors creating Gibraltar DYKs (despite their being no advantage in the Gibraltarpedia challenge). DYK is a wonderful way to bring on new editors - and to get them to give up wikipedia for ever! Most of the regular DYKers have their "thing". Suggest that DYK concentrate on looking after new editors and its regular maintenance crew. Victuallers (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
One thing worth noting is the wikicup this year is rating larger expansions and articles which have been stubs for some years as worth more points. I've at times suggested folks look at stub lists or other areas to add some variety (as we clearly have had runs of birds, mushrooms, olympics and all sorts of topics) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Old unreviewed hooks for the new year

It's a new year, but we have many old DYK submissions that need reviewing. Since a couple of these old ones are huge multis, I'm starting up a new section for them; also, with the GibraltarpediA competition having ended, it's past time for getting those hooks reviewed. Many thanks for your assistance.

The two megamulti hooks are:

Finally, here are five Gilbraltar-related hooks that need reviews, three of which are from October; all are in the special holding area, where it's hard to find them. Gibraltar hooks still need two careful reviews, and while two only need a hook review and one has a completed first review, two do need the full treatment. You can also look in the holding area for other Gibraltar hooks needing reviews, though a few are also lacking their required QPQ.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are we accepting 54-article, or even 17-article, hooks? That's crazy. Who are we expecting will be clicking through to them? Prioryman (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Backlog influx

Since the new year started, the rate of DYK submissions—and the QPQ reviews along with them—has skyrocketed, and we now have a backlog of 95 reviewed hooks, which is way too many. (The total of 242 hooks is way, way too many.) Right now we're using 16 hooks a day in two 8-hook sets. I think we need to go back to three sets a day soon, even though it means more frequent set building and promotion.

We currently have four queues filled, each with 8 hooks; all the prep areas are empty, and could only take 48 of those 95. If we up the frequency soon enough, Queue 2's "Infinite Love" lead hook might have to be moved back a set, since it needs to run on January 6, but that's the only change we'd need. The simplest thing would be to stay with 8 hooks per set for the short term to help reduce the backlog, and reevaluate after the weekend.

I'm not sure whether 7- or 8-hook sets are best for the longer term: the former uses 21 hooks a day and the latter uses 24, and 24 is more than we tend to generate on average. If people have a sense of how long the start-of-year bounce lasts, please say what it is: I'm sure some of the current increase is related to the start of the 2013 Wiki Cup, and will slack off. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want three sets per day, amount of hooks must be six or seven. There could be articles with notability issues or badly organized or misinformation. --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Remember, replacing a lead hook took around 20 hours for one prep area. --George Ho (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) George, we ran 3 sets of 8 hooks a day during the Olympics. So "must" simply isn't true: we've done it, and there are no rules against it. If we did 6 hooks thrice per day, that's only using two more a day or 14 more a week than we are now, and it won't address the backlog at all. I certainly hope that a significant number of the already approved hooks do not have the problems you mentioned, since that means fundamental problems with our reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that six or seven hooks per set is the optimum number and one should only go over that number from necessity. Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree with Gato here, let's not go overboard. Right now we're at 16, let's not jump to 24 right away. 18 or 21, maybe — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • A switch to 3 set of 6/day (18 hooks/day) would be the easiest change. As we have three set currently scheduled in the queues, I recommend the change become effective with the 00:00 7 January 2013 update (next set in Queue 4). --Allen3 talk 14:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • We have 100 approved hooks now. Going from 16 to 18 hooks a day just isn't going to get the backlog down, and may not even stop it from continuing to rise. I can see that 24 is too ambitious at present, but 21 a day should not be; it will take five days to run through what's been approved now, and the current nominations are averaging about 20 per creation/expansion day. (As of this writing, there are 138 nominations listed for the most recent seven full days, the week of December 28 through January 3, and the last five of those days are still open for nominations.) Let's do 7 hooks thrice daily; 6 is simply not enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Personally I think 3 of 6 will be enough for now, but no opposition from me about 3 of 7. 3 of 8, on the other hand... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been four hours since the above and we've added another 10 approved hooks (110 approved of 251 total), so I'm going to be bold and say 7 hooks per set. Further, I don't think we can wait another couple of days, so I'm thinking we should start the new 3 sets per day schedule with the 00:00 6 January 2013 update, which contains the currently constituted Queue 2 and will ensure that the lead hook there still runs at the same time on January 6; the only difference is that it will run for eight hours instead of twelve. (We can move one of the non-lead hooks from there to a later set to get it down to seven hooks, if that is deemed advisable.) I'll start building new prep sets on the assumption that this is okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
3 of 7 sounds appropriate given the long queue.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I suspect the WikiCup is the cause of the influx. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
OMG, a competition is flooding DYK! We must immediately impose draconian restrictions! Clearly this must be the work of a conspiracy. </snark> Prioryman (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
←I've made the change to 3 sets/day. Shubinator (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Shubinator. Looks like we're all set. Now all we need is some of those new seven-hook preps promoted to queues... BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC close

I just closed an RfC started by Dr. Blofeld, to be found at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_86#Let.27s_extend_the_5_day_viability_period_to_10_days. I can't be much more concise than I was in my close: there is no consensus to extend the viability period. There's good arguments on either side, but no consensus. With my apologies to Dr. Blofeld. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/"Where are your keys?"

I wonder if omitting "that", required by WP:DYKSG, may work. --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded on nomination page. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I did want to point out that WP:DYKSG actually lists the inclusion of "that" in the "'Rules' sometimes invoked but lacking a consensus" section under E1: people may think "that" must be included, but it has been omitted on occasion. One of the more notorious examples was "... ?" on the most recent April Fools Day. With certain hook wordings, a "that" wouldn't work, and should in such a case be omitted. (In this particular case, I agree that the proposed hooks didn't work well in a sentence with "Did you know".) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Notorious, eh? Interesting word choice... for this current article I wouldn't mind not using "that" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I meant "meritorious". Or perhaps I should just have said "extreme". Or would do well to stop digging myself in deeper... :-) It is the textbook example of both brevity and of where "that" would have been inarguably inappropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Forgot about that part (if I ever read it), but remembered the hook. So much for my choice of "inarguably"... BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My 100th DYK

I've just noticed that my most recent DYK (ORCA (computer system)) appears to have been my 100th - see the newly created list at User:Prioryman#Articles I've written. Not a bad landmark. :-) Is there a page anywhere recording the number of DYKs people have produced? I'd be interested to see who's at the top of the list... Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The page is Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs, but you have to do it yourself. Did you know that Dr. Blofeld passed 1,000? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
No, but I'm not surprised. How does he find the time? ;-) Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm well paid... 1000 articles in 6 and a half years is an average of about 12 articles a month. Add the fact that half of my DYKs have been collaborations with Nvv, Rosie, Gerda and a few others, with significant varying amounts of content, its not that difficult. If you count the ones I've purely written myself and longer than start class you'd be surprised... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines for long-run balancing of image selection?

How do the assemblers of hook sets choose which hook-accompanying images they will retain and promote, and which images they will discard? My impression is that there are enough slots for about half, more or less, of the images of promoted hooks to be retained. Are the valiant and dedicated editors who assemble the hook sets given any guidelines to help them ensure, over the long run, that they are balanced in their choices of images (for example, not unduly promoting or neglecting any particular type of image, or images for any particular kind of topic)? Many thanks in advance --Presearch (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally the way I do it, is to consider what the image looks like as a thumb. As long as I see the elements in the image easily then it is in the running for a lead hook. The other considerations I have is if the hook is a comedy hook then it might fit better as a final hook in a set, and also what the current images are in the queue. So I try not to follow a black and white headshot of a person with another, or a building with a building etc. Miyagawa (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The current image is very dull, and immediately follows another image of a person. Also there are two marine organism pictures in the current prep areas, and one appeared yesterday. They are beautiful, definitely, but not very varied. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd worry more about being too similar to the TFA & other photos on the page at the same time myself. If we have say 3 male heads it does look a bit bad. But realistically there are so many other things to do.... Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that the image of Nugroho Notosusanto was chosen because it was a) a subject from a non-European background, b) showed up well at thumbnail size, and c) linked to a fairly extensive article. There are enough considerations for DYK preps without thinking about other parts of the main page. As for DYKs over time... I generally try to vary it, which seems to be what has been done thus far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

These are useful narratives from DYK editors about how they seek balance. I also wonder if we implicitly attempt balance across major demographic factors so that none is unduly emphasized and none unduly neglected? Lists of such factors are available in codes of ethics, for example, that of the American Psychological Association (p. 4, "General Principle E"): "age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status." My hunch is that we intend to balance all those factors. And mostly I suspect we do a good job. But I began to wonder when only 1 of 6 hook images I proposed in 2012 was selected (for better or worse). I realized we largely depend on individual editors, and it seems possible that an individual may sometimes think "if it doesn't interest me, it's not interesting," and despite their best intentions, may unintentionally neglect and underselect certain classes of hook images. I've been wondering whether having a list like the above as an explicit "guideline" (not a "rule", since it's too ambiguous to be a rule) might aid/sensitize editors in transcending the limits of their own personal interests and proclivities. Like other people, I dislike legalistic clutter. But a parsimonious guideline like the above, about image selection, strikes me as a possible good thing that rightly used could foster sensitivity and balance. --Presearch (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Hmm... well, you're not the only one who's articles were often not chosen without the picture. Nugroho was my first picture hook since September, and I had nominated at least 5 image hooks in the period. Selection does depend heavily on the editor, and one of the reasons is because the current guideline requires images to also be eye catching (and eye catching, naturally, is a subjective criteria). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, agreed, there may be no mistake in so many of my proposed images being omitted. Maybe many were boring and were properly dumped on that basis — though I doubt all were boring. Luck of the draw also surely plays its role. I mentioned my own experience merely as what got me thinking about this issue. I would prefer that the broader issue should stand on its own merit in this discussion. For you, perhaps you can comfortably ascribe your dearth of promoted images over that period as entirely due to luck of the draw. Can everyone with a similar experience be so confident? My own experience got me wondering, that is all - and more importantly, wondering how to prevent imbalance, if it ever were to (or does) occur. -- Presearch (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Since I've just realized I was the one who did not select your most recent submission and selected Crisco's instead, perhaps I ought to explain why I chose not to select yours. It was an intriguing image of ancient Egyptian jugglers, but it seemed to have only a very tangential relationship to the hook, which was about a book on leading a spiritual life that, among other things, teaches one to juggle mental "likes and dislikes". So it wasn't about actual juggling or about ancient Egyptians, but about mental juggling: I couldn't justify using it to myself though I personally found it interesting. I frequently don't go with images that only have a vague connection to the hook or article, even if they seem attractive. I know others have different criteria from me; it's this variety in criteria that allow for many different kinds of images, though of course people who prepare sets should try not to go with an image similar to the most recent ones. These selections include ones I'd never pick because they seem quite uninteresting to me, or are from a subject area that's gotten a significant number of lead slots in the recent past. Two of the reasons I went with Notosusanto was that I couldn't remember the last time we used anyone from Indonesia, and that the article was extensive and interesting. I put Conquest of Mind second because I thought it, too, was a good article and deserved a high spot in the set, but not the lead. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi BlueMoonset, thanks for your kind words and also for your clarification. Indeed, I suspected that "only a tangential relationship" might be a consideration, and not invalidly so. Of course, as someone who writes a lot of articles about books, there's seldom a free image of the book itself, though occasionally a book will be mainly about a particular topic (e.g., a person) who has an image. So maybe an above-average proportion of "tangentialness" strikeouts is a frustration – or at least a phenomenon – that will inevitably (???) come with the territory of writing book articles. Or maybe not, who knows. I think your narrative above about balancing shows how many things one might take into account in skillful balancing - such as the last time a hook image focused on one of the largest but comparatively neglected countries in the world (i.e., Indonesia). If this thread continues for a few more speakers and reports of their hook image balancing, there might be enough material for an "essay", even if we refrain from offering a "guideline". -- Presearch (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Translated Articles

What's the policy on articles that are translated from another language wikipedia article? Would that be considered "new" or "copied from other articles"?  The Steve  11:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!  The Steve 

Only 1 queue filled?

Admins, why is there only 1 queue filled? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Because nobody had gotten to it. There's two filled now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ending the Gibraltar restrictions

Consensus to lift restrictions is forming. More discussion needed for precisely how this should be done. See comments below archived section. Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Back in September, a set of temporary restrictions was put in place on DYKs for Gibraltar-related articles. This was in response to a controversy about the GibraltarpediA project, part of which involved a competition to write or expand articles about Gibraltar and the surrounding areas of Spain and Morocco. These restrictions have been in place for three months but were only intended to be a short-term measure to deal with the controversy.

The original circumstances which led to the restrictions are no longer applicable. There is no ongoing controversy, no issues of conflicts of interest or promotion have been found with any of these nominations, and the GibraltarpediA competition ended yesterday. The frequency of Gibraltar-related articles appearing on the Main Page is low (only 3 in the whole of December to date) and the drive to create fresh articles has now ended, so there is no likelihood of a sudden flood in the future.

I am therefore proposing to lift the restrictions as there is no longer any good reason to continue them. This would involve:

  • Ending the use of a special holding area for Gibraltar-related DYK nominations. Existing nominations listed there would be redistributed into the daily sections as per any other DYK.
  • Ending the requirement for Gibraltar-related DYKs to be reviewed by two different editors. For existing Gibraltar-related nominations have not yet been reviewed by anyone, the requirement for the second review would be removed and they would only require one review as normal. Nominations which have already had the first of the two reviews would be accepted immediately for promotion. Nominations which have had one completed review and have a second review ongoing would need to have that review completed before promotion.

Going forward, we should return to the status quo ante situation of Gibraltar-related articles being treated no differently from any other DYK, though I would suggest informally limiting them to no more than one a day appearing on the Main Page (which I would think would be sensible for any topic area).

Please indicate below whether you support this proposal. Prioryman (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Why not have the restrictions lifted for all articles which are nominated after the current ones? There is no reason to allow the current ones to not go through the same restrictions we have sanctioned. Let the current nominees follow the normal sanctions; and all further articles go through the normal nomination as all other articles. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is that the current nominations have suffered very long delays in being reviewed, mainly because they are hidden away in a holding area which nobody seems to be looking at. Some articles have waited for two and a half months for their reviews to be completed. That's really unacceptable and counter-productive. I can see no good reason (and in fact you offer no reason at all) for this situation to persist. I proposed merging current nominations back into the daily sections specifically so that we can get away from this problem of the nominations being buried. It makes no sense to treat any nominations differently when there are no ongoing issues of concern. Prioryman (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ending the restrictions and grandfathering all the current Gibraltar nominations into the lifting of the ban. Take them all out of the holding area and move them to the correct date with all the others. The original temporary restrictions vote above was put out there by me, to try to find some resolution to the furor that was happening a few months ago. Putting the restrictions into place, IMO, did nothing to stop that backlash, which kept coming back until it ran out of steam on its own. Then the next topic of rage arose, and then ran out of steam. In restospect, all the uproars of the Fall 2012 seemed more about agenda-driven personalities than real issues. I don't see that the restrictions have accomplished anything. On an average, the Gibraltar articles were often of better quality than a lot of what we generally see. One review - two reviewers - I'm not sure that did anything, either. At the end of the day, we may have lost one of Wikipedia's best editors - Anne (ACP2011) who disappeared sometime in late November. Yngvadottir also seems to have been absent, resulting from a different uproar. The only thing all of this has accomplished is to prove it's not the way to attract and retain quality editors. End the restrictions, and with them, the discrimination of it all. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, my reading is that TheOriginalSoni is supporting continued sequestration of the Gibraltar articles nominated during the Gibraltarpedia contest. (See Prioryman's reply above for a similar take.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've corrected my statement. — Maile (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Since the competition, which was the thing that caused this, has ended there is no further concern of COIs with intent to gain a reward. It seems pointless to keep them now so I'd say remove all the restrictions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't have to make a second review, do I? I did review one or two articles, but I still have no interest on Gibraltar-related pages. With Gibraltar-hooplah dying down, restriction is pointless. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Regardless of the motives, no nom that meets DYK requirements should be blocked.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Partial Support, with restrictions: I think the limit on no more than one Gibraltar hook per 24 hour period should be maintained until all the hooks submitted during the Gibraltarpedia contest have been reviewed and published on the main page, and I'm not in favor of lifting the restrictions on who can review these already submitted hooks. Also, no "good to go" reviews on these Gibraltarpedia ones: if there's only one review, I think it should have to be specific about what was reviewed, and including a required mention the neutral/promotional aspect. I'd be fine with having the special holding area closed down and the Gibraltar nominations being put back into the regular list. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "No more than one" in one set is too strict and pointless other than to frustrate promoters. I could be in favor of reviewers mentioning which part of a Gibraltar-related article is reviewed, like one section or another. But that would require nominators to identify a nomination as part of Gibraltar. --George Ho (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
      • George, if promoters aren't doing this, they're ignoring DYK rules which say to have a balanced and diverse set, which for a small place like Gibraltar effectively limits it to one per set. And if promoters aren't taking a look at the articles they're promoting, enough to determine the subject matter (including Gibraltar), then they're not properly doing their job. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I definitely don't agree with the idea of maintaining any restrictions. I don't see the rationale for making reviewers specifically address "the neutral/promotional aspect" (literally; you don't offer any rationale). Why treat Gibraltar differently from any other topic area on Wikipedia? There's also no evidence I'm aware of that this is a special problem for Gibraltar. There hasn't been a single case of a Gibraltar DYK with neutrality/promotional issues. If there's no evidence of a problem what need is there for a special solution? Prioryman (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
      • All reviewers should be checking for neutrality/promotional issues as a matter of course, as it's a DYK requirement: having them say that they've checked is a good doublecheck for those articles that were submitting during the contest. And I point you to Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Heritage Trust, currently on the main page, which had POV language removed during its review. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with Prioryman's statement right above this. In addition, I respectfully disagree with Bluemoonset because the restrictions are a discriminatory practice that never should have been. If DYK doesn't discriminate against any other topic, I don't see how it justifies this. — Maile (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Did you look to see which restrictions I wasn't in favor of lifting for already submitted hooks? Primarily, there are two in terms of who are currently prohibited from reviewing: not Victuallers, and not IPs. Why should these users suddenly be allowed to review these particular hooks, when there were cogent reasons for not allowing it previously? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, I respect your opinion and don't want this to go around and around. I'm the one who thought up both the "No IPs review" and "no Victuallers" aspects of the Gibraltar restriction. I was trying to cover all the bases, without really knowing how to put together an RFC type of discussion. I believe the process was flawed due to my not knowing how to set it up. And hardly anybody voted on it anyway. Victuallers voluntarily recused himself from the process and has not been involved with Gibraltar DYK noms since. Should he renege on this the promoter could require a second review. Somehow, I can't image why Victuallers would want to open that Pandora's box again. I mean, the man did end up resigning from the Wikimedia UK board. As for IPs, are we having a lot of IP reviewers at DYK? How is it handled normally when an IP does a review? — Maile (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I didn't think IPs were allowed to review DYKs anyway; I don't think I've ever seen a review from an IP. I certainly haven't seen any reviewing Gibraltar-related articles. Why are IPs a special issue of concern (I never understood this aspect of the restrictions anyway)? I don't know if anyone's mentioned this discussion to Victuallers (I'll do it next to make sure) but I'm sure he'd be amenable to voluntarily absenting himself from DYK reviews in this topic area. I don't see any need to impose a formal restrictionon him - that seems over the top and I don't think we should be singling people out like that. Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Prioryman, when I set up that RFC type of discussion, I pulled the IP review thought out of thin air. Again, I really didn't know what I was doing, and am not sure now what I was thinking at the time. But it was probably something more along the lines of the subject matter had gotten heated, and I wanted to cover the bases on who might try to circumvent any decision. However, as I say, I had no idea what I was doing. There was no basis for concern. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • At the time, it was my impression that a voluntary absention of Victuallers was not going to be adequate to calm the storm: not only were there major conflict of interest issues involved, but he had mistakenly approved his own DYK nomination of a GibraltarpediA article. Under the circumstances, it seemed reasonable to me that the restrictions should include a specific prohibition against him reviewing Gibraltar articles, and my recollection is that some of the votes specifically cited that provision when supporting the package. Calling it "over the top" seems to be forgetting what happened and why damage control was necessary. The thing about voluntary agreements is that they can end at any time when the volunteer considers it to be reasonable as opposed to when the community thinks it reasonable; under the circumstances, I think keeping this requirement in place until the GibraltarpediA hooks submitted during the competition are all processed is appropriate. As for the IPs, it seems unlikely that an IP would do a DYK review even if at the time it may have seemed like a useful potential loophole to close to help calm the waters, and any such would certainly be closely scrutinized today before promotion to a prep area, so it's probably harmless however it's left. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Suggestion It's Republic Day in Gibraltar on January 29th - we could simply have some Gibraltar themed sets to clear out all the ones currently sitting around in one hit. Miyagawa (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Republic? Gibraltar? Have you had too much brandy butter on your mince pies? Kevin McE (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I think you mean Constitution Day? (Gibraltar definitely isn't a republic!) It's a nice idea but I don't think it's very workable - it's still a month away and there are at least six Gibraltar-related articles ready to go now. And to be honest, it's not an occasion that has much international significance. I think it's a bad idea to flood DYK with related topics on the same day unless there is some kind of major, internationally-recognised event on that day (e.g. the Titanic centenary, Christmas Day etc). Prioryman (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Yep, Constitution Day. Whoops! Miyagawa (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • With restrictions proposed by BlueMoonset. "Projects like Gibraltarpedia are a test of our mission," says Mr Bamkin, adding that the next target is expansion into northern Africa [ ... ] "Morocco, Algeria, or Mali." (BBC News) Poeticbent talk 06:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Victuallers is a remarkable Wikipedian. Our history goes back years. By the same token, the official government-sponsored campaign is far from over, that's why it is best to err on the side of caution. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm. And what if Canada launches a like campaign? Should DYK topic restrict Canada? How about Australia? Or maybe just topic restrict the smaller ones like Tahiti. For that matter, since promoting and improving articles on individual interests is the basis for Wikipedia projects, why don't we topic restrict anything connected with these projects? — Maile (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, why not come up with the most absurd possibility? Or, more helpfully, why don't we recognize that DYK needs to be better about handling competitions and other organized projects that wish to use it as part of their methodology? Should we be giving Monmouth or Gibraltar (or Canada, or Tahiti) special attention such as multi-hook sets or lead hooks, or should there be guidelines on what's acceptable and what amounts to conflict of interest? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
comment Thanks to Maille who contacted me. The reason I am not editting Gibraltar DYKs is because I agreed that this was a good idea. The idea of banning IPs and me personally was a bit over the top. I'm obviously not surprised that no one has found even a snippet of promotion, but I am very pleased that it has been generally acknowledged above. I am/was one of the top editors in maintaining DYK and if I say I am not going to do something then you should assume good faith. No editor should be working with DYKs where there is a COI and I would be surprised if any DYK could be approved by an IP address editor. I also looked at the BBC quote above but I cannot see why it is being quoted. What I said there seems to be implicit in our mission statement. I would also like to raise the problem of innocent editors like Anne who have seen there DYK submissions being reviewed in what appears to her in an unfair way. Is there anyone who thinks she is owed an apology? Victuallers (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing like statistics. The RFC proposed idea where on Sept 22, 2012 Victuallers volunteered to recuse himself. Toolserver DYK search shows his last DYK was Sept 11, 2012. He has been good for his word. — Maile (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes I think Anne is owed an apology. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. WMUK is currently under investigation with a final report expected to be made public later this month. Let's at least see what that report reveals about how deep the conspiracy goes and the extent to which WMUK remains a threat to the neutrality of enwp's front page. Kilopi (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The outcome of the review is frankly irrelevant to the discussion. The historical question of how Gibraltarpedia was set up in the first place has no bearing on how Gibraltar-related articles are to be treated going forward. The restrictions were only imposed because there were concerns about COI and promotion in relation to the competition being promoted by Gibraltarpedia. There was never any connection between the restrictions and the review, which was announced after the restrictions were imposed. As that competition ended a week ago, the rationale for those restrictions no longer exists and the editors who proposed and agreed the restrictions agree above that they should be lifted. Citing the review as a reason for not lifting them is moving the goalposts and makes little sense. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way, it's worth pointing out that the review will not be addressing DYK or any other on-wiki matter. Its scope does not extend to "matters governed by the Wikimedia community on the Wikimedia projects" such as DYK.[6] Its outcome will solely be about the governance of WMUK. Prioryman (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no misunderstanding. I read what I link to, including the sentence you quote. Of course they will not pass judgment on on-wiki content matters, but I may use knowledge of off-wiki matters to inform my opinion of on-wiki matters. Kilopi (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Since your "understanding" apparently involves a belief that there is a "conspiracy" (seriously?) I think there's reason to question how based on reality your opinion is likely to be... Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support ending any special restrictions in place. It is important to remember that normal restrictions that allow for variety and balance will inevitably cause a delay when such an influx of related hooks are nominated. While I support removing restrictions, I do not support any special considerations related to expediting their appearance on the main page. --My76Strat (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Since the competition, which is now over, was the main reason for the restrictions in the first place, I see no reason for them to remain. SilverserenC 08:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The set of restrictions is still a good idea because the topic is still under investigation. The proposal by Prioryman is too soon. Let's wait until Mike Hudson and Kevin Smith issue their report. At the same time, I think Constitution Day, 29 January, is a fine time to bend the rules and dispose of display a set of Gibraltar DYKs to reduce the backlog. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Your premise is incorrect. The topic is not "under investigation", nor has it ever been. The review is of the governance of Wikimedia UK, not the general issue of Gibraltar-related articles on Wikpedia. The scope of the review explicitly does not extend to "matters governed by the Wikimedia community on the Wikimedia projects" such as DYK. Whatever it says, it won't say anything about DYK. Prioryman (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The consultants are not experts on WP, and their terms of reference do not include editing on WP as such, though they are aware DYK editing has been an issue. (WMUK Trustee) Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The consultants will look at Gibraltarpedia, Monmouthpedia, etc., and will comment on issues of conflict of interest. I happen to think that such issues being considered at Wikimedia UK are indeed relevant to the Gibraltar DYKs. The consultants will point the way forward, and we will find whether Gibraltarpedia is to be seen as a model for like projects in the future, or whether it will be seen as a mistaken direction, counter to Wikimedia best practises. If the former, we end the restrictions and welcome all such DYKs. If the latter, we keep the restrictions or even tighten them further. Binksternet (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-consensus

  • Closing comments (down here because these are extended notes). I was asked on my talk page by Prioryman to look at this discussion with a view to closing it. What I've concluded so far is that a consensus appears to be forming, but it is not clear what it is yet, so more discussion is needed. Specifically seven people (six plus the proposer) have supported lifting the restrictions, three have opposed, and three have partially supported some form of lifting the restrictions. So a consensus is forming to lift the restrictions in some way, but more discussion is needed to identify precisely how this should be done.

    To explain this further, I've read the discussion that has taken place here, and the previous discussion here. My recollection was that there was a lot more (rather heated) discussion with many people participating at the time this was originally discussed (presumably in various talk page archives), so I was slightly surprised to see so little participation in either discussion. It might mean that not many people care about this issue, though this thread on the Main Page talk page does indicate that a notice there may have increased participation in this discussion. Further, Prioryman also asked Casliber if he would be willing to close this discussion - that talk page thread can be seen here. The point was made there that "The issue has been an important one, and not publicising it and closing it at seven days does not give the appearance of due process/transparency."

    I suggest this proposal is reworked based on the discussion so far, and publicised more to see if a clearer consensus can be formed. There were also some new suggestions (such as Miyagawa's proposal) and other points raised (such as the WMUK-related review) which not all those commenting may have seen, and further discussion may help form consensus there. Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • There was a subsequent RfC here on WT:DYK, started October 25 and closed November 10, in which a complete ban of Gibraltar hooks was proposed. The discussion has been archived at WT:Did you know/Archive 87#Gibraltar, again; over 100 individuals responded, and the closing consensus was that no such ban should be implemented. The discussion on the ban support side included how long the ban should last; that on the opposition to the ban on whether there should be any restrictions on how often Gibraltar hooks should run. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I have to say I'm not at all impressed by this. The restrictions were established by the members of the DYK project, not by non-members, and the handling of DYKs is a matter for the DYK project. This discussion has been treated no differently from the original one that imposed the restrictions. It wasn't treated as an RfC because the original one wasn't. It wasn't "canvassed" because the original one wasn't. We have a clear majority - ten to three - in favour of partially or fully lifting the restrictions. And as we've seen here, the members of the project have voted in favour of partially or fully lifting the restrictions. As far as I'm concerned there already is a consensus. Prioryman (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:OWN? The handling of DYKs is a matter of all interested editors of Wikipedia, not just for DYK project members. FWIW, considering the poor quality of many Gibraltar-related DYKs, and the poor controls done by many reviewers (often from the same group of people), I oppose the lifting of these restrictions, although some modification may be useful. Take e.g. the example of Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Casemates Gates, where Prioryman seems to believe that a positive review for a long-since rejected hook may be counted as one of the two required reviews. Looking at the current batch of Gibraltar nominations, it seems clear that they need a lot of attention, despite mainly being made by experienced editors. Fram (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could thread the reply a little better? As for your position on Gibraltar-related things... I think that's quite clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Rethreaded. As for my position being clear, that could of course be said about many participants here. Doesn't stop anyone from repeating it when needed (as is in my case evidenced by the current Gibraltar nominations and the actions of some vocal proponents there). Fram (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As is mine, although to be honest I'm surprised to see you didn't !vote above. Thanks for rethreading. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself, not participating was an active choice despite being aware of it. It became clear to me in the weeks/month after the restrictions were placed that the situation (that of DYK being used as a marketing tool for the enrichment of a few select individuals) would continue as long as there were proxies willing to act on behalf of the individuals profiting directly from Gibraltar. While superficially they can claim they have no (financial) interest, the subverting of the intent of the restrictions was obvious. Couple that with the insular nature of some of the DYK regulars who resented outside scrutiny/interference, there was/is no point in attempting to change the mind of someone who is ideologically opposed to a position. Its just not worth the time. If everyone who participated at the previous discussion had been notified directly, I suspect the votes would have been significantly higher in the oppose section. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_89&oldid=1151036074"