Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95 ← Archive 99 Archive 100 Archive 101 Archive 102 Archive 103 → Archive 105

QPQ RFC summary

I earlier initiated a RFC on when QPQs needed to be done, and here is what I feel was shown (please feel free to correct me):

  • All round QPQ was split, 8 for and 8 against. I think this is far too close to implement
    • The points for were the fact that there is a permanent backlog of hooks, and the fact that otherwise "the numbers don't add up"
    • The points against were "there's no glory in nominating other people's work", that it was too narrow, and that nominations of others' work to DYK is a benefit
  • QPQ for nominations of others' work if they have more than 5 credits received a better response, 12 for and 5 against. I am not sure if this is enough to proceed with. Should we have a vote on this alone?
    • The points for were that if an editor has over 5 credits, they don't need an introduction to DYK, and prevents "gaming of the system", and "There's no acceptable reason that an article created/expanded by an experienced, multi-DYK user should be exempt from the QPQ requirement"
    • The points against were that it was similar to the first proposal, and possibly over complicated
  • Non self nominations require no QPQ [the current status of DYK] was again split down the middle, with 12 for keeping the process as it is, and 13 against
    • The points for were that finding an article to nominate in the first place constitutes a review of sorts, that finding the articles takes time, and that "if it works, don't fix it"
    • The points against were the fact that finding an article to nominate doesn't take as much time as writing/expanding an article, and it is creating an ever expanding backlog
  • Non self nominations require no QPQ, but creator/expander needs notifying received universal opposes, 0 for and 13 against
    • The points for were that it would help introduce new editors to DYK, and alert them to the nomination of their articles
    • The points against were that no-one owns articles, so can't give permission, and that it was an optional courtesy
  • Creator/expander requires notifying was proposed late on, and received 0 against and 4 for
    • The points for were that this would be done by a bot, so that the creator/expander would be able to see the review, and work on issues

To conclude, I feel that the split issues are all round QPQ, and the current status. However, the proposals which received support, QPQ for nominations of others' work if they have more than 5 credits and Creator/expander requires notifying may require additional discussion before implementation, if that's where we go now. Let the discussion commence. Thanks, Matty.007 17:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Having a bot for the notification should be easy. On the other one, as an example: If Maile nominates an article created by Matty, and Maile has more than 5 DYK credits, then Maile is obligated to do a QPQ to help the backlog. I'm all for that. — Maile (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I wasn't massively clear in my proposal, but I think it is 'If Maile nominates an article created by Matty, and Matty has more than 5 DYK credits, then Maile is obligated to do a QPQ to help the backlog', so that new editors can be encouraged, but it discourages an 'I'll promote yours if you promote mine' idea. Thanks, Matty.007 18:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. I'm still in support of the bot idea. But under the QPQ you have described, I would never nominate an article by another person because I don't want to be responsible for the DYK credit level of the creator. And that would also unfairly put a burden on the nominator, who might have just wandered over after seeing DYK on the main page. If brand new registered user Jay Fred Muggs decides to nominate somebody else's article for DYK, he is responsible for the QPQ. And Jay Fred might not even know about the QPQ obligation, nor have any clue of how to go about it. — Maile (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To be honest, it could work either way, and I think that your way is probably better. Matty.007 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe which way it would work is worth a discussion here. — Maile (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It seemed that many of those who opposed that QPQ proposal did not really understand it. As I kept trying to point out, it was actually a simplification of the rules. The proposed rule is not a complicated addition to the rules. It should be looked at as a simplified replacement for the current rule: a QPQ is required whenever the author has five or more DYK credits. That's it. That sums up the entirety of the existing QPQ rule merged with the new proposal. The QPQ could be from anybody. I think it would preferably be done by the author, but could also be by the nominator, or anyone else who wants to see the nomination proceed and is willing to "donate" a QPQ. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Mandarax, while I agree that it's a straightforward QPQ proposal, and simple, I disagree with "preferably done by the author", and think you're moving the goalposts by slipping this in. The nominator is responsible for his or her nomination: that includes vetting it, fixing it up as necessary, and if a QPQ is required, making sure that it gets done. Period. If I haven't nominated an article I've worked on (probably for good reason) yet someone else comes along and nominates it, I should not be on the hook for the QPQ review. If a creator is willing, that's fine: I agree that the QPQ could be done by anyone. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As I attempted to indicate with the "I think", I was expressing my own opinion that the person who will be receiving the creation credit should be responsible for the QPQ. I know that if someone nominated an article I had written, and a QPQ was required, I would certainly feel the responsibility to do the review myself. I didn't intend for this to be part of the rule, so I probably should not have mentioned it. I'm perfectly fine with anybody doing it, as long it gets done by somebody. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd rather do a review myself when nominating someone else's work then hope they do it... many just can't be bothered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that the qpq should, as a necessity, be undertaken by the nominator, as happens with self nominations. Many do not know their article ha s been nominated, and this should not be forced into the process. On the other-hand, contributors of non-self nominations are willingly stepping into the DYK process and it makes sense to have the full QPQ done for all noms by the nominator.--Kevmin § 23:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

International Women's Day

We have about six weeks until International Women's Day on March 8. Let's return to what we did in 2010, 2011, and 2012, and devote all sets the entire day to hooks about women. Last year we instead observed Women's History Month for the month of March. That was fine, but with the hooks spread out over the course of a whole month, it looked like any other month, with no special occasion apparent to the casual observer. We can still try to highlight women's achievements throughout the full month, but let's concentrate on making International Women's Day a truly special DYK occasion again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support — Maile (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I respect the motivation for this proposal. However, women are about one half of the population -- and being a woman I am a bit offended by the notion that articles about women are rare enough that we need to set aside one day of the year to feature them. (In particular, I'd hate to think that we would run lots of male-only hook sets in order to save the scarce woman hooks for the single day that's dedicated to women.) Let's encourage hooks suitable for International Women's Day, and make sure that women are featured in each set for March 8, but please let's not treat the topic of women as something so peculiar that all women-related hooks must be saved for that day. --Orlady (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I was curious about how well women are represented on DYK. I decided to check the most recent full month of DYK archives. I looked through every hook for the month, and for every bold article about people, I noted whether they were male or female. (This was a very tedious task which I very quickly regretted starting, but I still finished it.) I discovered that 78% were about males, and only 22% were about females. So there is a big disparity, and I think that if celebrating International Women's Day encourages people to write more articles about women, that's a very good thing. Hopefully the rest of the month would still have at least its normal share, preferably more. (Disclaimer: I'm male.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Gobonobo might be interested in this proposed March 8 IWD idea. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Every section of the main page regularly favors articles about men over articles about women. Some days I look at the main page and don't find a single article about a woman. We can try to address the systemic bias behind that disparity in the long term, but I think it would be nice to have just one day where the reverse was true. The upcoming 20+ city Art+Feminism edit-a-thons on the 1st should produce a handful of articles appropriate for DYK. And it won't be too hard to set aside a few more articles in the coming weeks to fill up the queues. Gobōnobō + c 13:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I have set up a subsection for this at the bottom of the Special occasion holding area. And one possibility could be the above-mentioned Good Article Asia Bibi blasphemy case, assuming it makes it past the debate on whether or not it's too inflammatory for the main page. — Maile (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Even if we just concentrate articles about women on one day without writing any extra then we at least highlight the issue. Can I recommend @T.Anthony 's Women in Red] list. Choices from this list ensure that we also get a good geographic spread for biographies. These women are already notable in several languages already. Victuallers (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I've already prepared one article for this date, about a female film producer from Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Embarrassing fancruft masquerading as a DYK article

I've just pulled Kanako Momota from prep area 1 as a rather poor article full of assorted bits of unrelated trivia masquerading as a biography. I mean, only the most diehard fan will think that "Her image color in the group is red" is a fact that provides a good summary and important enough for the lead. I'm hoping someone will take a more serious look at the bio, clean it up a little... or maybe a lot. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reinstated the nomination template at T:TDYK and completed the removal process per Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is a good example of why we should look at reviewers who approve poor quality work. The article is awful, it contains trivia and irrelevancies. I don't understand how a reviewer could read it and not comment on the prose and content. The hook is also poor - maybe it could have reflected the absurdity of "singer falls over" as news. Thanks to Ohconfucius for pulling it. I can imagine what Tony1 would have said if it had appeared on the main page. EdChem (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Tony1 had already seen this thread and the article in question. Thinking practically, is there anything that can be done to make reviewers' and admins' job more straightforward in identifying these outliers? I guess there's a check-list already. Tony (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's very sloppy reviewing. The prose is awful, obviously written by Japanese fans. Stuff like "As for weaknesses, she is a slow starter, sometimes lazy, often fails to listen to others" doesn't belong in a WP:BLP even if it was a direct quote. If these weren't red flags, the fact that all the sources are in Japanese, and yet the reviewer simply flies overhead with an "AGF" should have been caught by the closing admin. It's a Daniel Caverzaschi incident waiting to happen again. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, Tony1, speaking as the person who approved the last hook that finally went to the prep area - although not the only reviewer involved - I think you are on the correct track. We have a systematic issue, and we all fall short at times. ALL reviewers and admins are not perfect. The DYK checks-and-balances system requires multiple eyes in the chain for any nomination to make it to the front page. We mess up, and some get pulled even from the main page. Over 200 nominations to review, 21 hooks a day that need to make it up the chain, and few who build preps, much less are admins to approve the queues - witness how many times the bot tells us DYK is almost overdue. Suggesting the solution is going after individual reviewers is suggesting something personal in the offing and resolves nothing. We've seen enough of those personal tit-for-tats here to last a lifetime. Develop a better system. — Maile (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Maile that all reviewers make mistakes, I have had a few... issues. Maile is a great asset to the DYK process, this is the first slip I've seen her make in the few months I have been working with her. Matty.007 18:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for admitting to your role in this. You correctly said that this is a collective effort. Unless humans become machines, no system based on humans will be infallible. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Maile: my comment was about the system. How can it be made easier to operate? What, in other words, are the key things to look for in even a quick flick through a nomination before promoting it to a queue (if that's the critical point in the pipeline)? Thank you, BTW, for your work here. Tony (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Tony, I understood perfectly you were talking about the system. It was another editor comment. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Maile66:I apologise. I was mainly targeting the editor the reviewer who took an AGF flier on the sources. I'm aware the closing admin has plenty to do, and can't be blamed for everything that goes wrong, which is one reason why I hang around the prep areas. Apologies again. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Understood - we all get to that point of frustration on some reviews we see as flawed. I feel uncomfortable with targeting anyone on competence, because we are all at different levels. Rather than correcting the problem, it seems to lead to a bunch of other editors jumping on the bandwagon against an individual. And, quite frankly, that AGF encourages us to pass nominations where we do not know the language of the source. And right there puts DYK between a rock and a hard place. Do we pass those articles, because Wikipedia is global? Or do we not pass it because none of the volunteers understands the source language? Which means we would discriminate against a contributor based on ethnicity. It's a sticky place that I don't have an answer for, and I'm not sure there is an answer within the current structure. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Maile66:Well, knowing the language enables you to verify that the source is bona fide and reliable, and that the article's content reflects the source. you don't need to fully understand the language for the citations to know if an article is coherent and has some encyclopaedic worth (i.e. not filled with fancruft). The article I pulled it was pretty low value. It's already considerably improved because of the scrutiny it has received. The reviewer I accused above of taking an AGF flier probably needs some assistance. They nominated this article for DYK. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

When I mentioned looking at reviewers, I don't mean to punish. I think that, in the case of a scant / poor review, where things that are really obvious are missed, the option of denying the use of that review for QPQ credit is reasonable. More importantly, however, I think that it raises several questions... has the same reviewer missed issues on other recent reviews that we should address in the queues etc before a problematic article appears on the main page? is the same reviewer missing similar issues in multiple cases, so that we might help him / her improve? is this a one-off mistake where we say whoops and move on? is the reviewer in need of a mentor to help with reviewing as s/he is not recognising multiple issues? I think that most reviewers want to do a good job and we need to do better in the help / support areas. Maybe there are some who do sloppy reviews solely for QPQ credit, which this approach addresses by denying the credit, but I think that is not a common situation.

@Maile66: Thanks for your DYK walk, I am aware your work is not typically sloppy. Though I think the hook here is not good, the major problem is with the article and that had been checked before you engaged in the review. This case shows it was an error for you to accept that the existing review of the article was adequate, but that is an error anyone could have made easily. Unless you are saying that you would have judged the article as fine if you had reviewed it in detail, which I don't think is the case, then your mistake is not a big one. I agree that the we need a better system to catch mistakes before they reach the main page, and in this case it was caught, which is good... the question becomes, what can we learn from this case? EdChem (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  • @EdChem: good post. I think that the problem was due to a confluence of factors: habitually crufty subject, novice editors. The habitual and general acceptance of the existence of Wikipedia's "unfinished" status implicitly accepts fancruft and trivia will get into biographies and may or may not get swiftly removed. The supplementary DYK rules remind us to be extra vigilant about BLPs, but this seems to have taken a flier in the review. Preponderance of foreign language sources seems to imply a free pass on checking the article, but the DYK rules remind reviewers to choose reviews we are linguistically competent to tackle, which in this case they were not. Not that this was entirely necessary to spot the problems. Experience helps – BTW I do not read Japanese.

    After the first reviewer gave the OK, it was assumed to not require further eyeballs. Most of the activity on the review template fussed about choosing the hook.

    I believe we need a systematic second opinion about the state of the article. It isn't solely the promoting admin's job, it can be anyone's. Editors are encouraged to involve in all steps of the process, but there are few non-admins there. I sometimes do spot checks and run MOS fixes. In this case, I was attracted by the rather outrageous hook, and it didn't take much for me to decide to pull it from the prep. I don't look at all articles in the prep areas. Things are so "just in time" at DYK that I often miss entire batches. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hard to edit!

I'm finding my browser goes non-responsive when trying to edit the main page. Even in the current format with much-reduced in-line content, I have real problems when I try to add a new entry or make similar edits. I've tried three browsers. Is it just me? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Mine takes forever to load. I think it's because of the number of transclusions (the in-line content, in wiki-markup, is not reflective of the page's true size). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Time for a new machine perhaps... like my Wiki hobby doesn't cost me enough already!! :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • *Looks at Canon EOS 60D bought just for Wikipedia photography* Hmm... yeah, it may be a problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do my "ticks" come out wrong?

Can anyone explain why when I try to use the various "ticks" they don't transclude properly? I see people going in and fixing them, which I'd be happy to do if I knew what to do. Any ideas? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you're typing "subset" instead of "subst". DoctorKubla (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly it. Note that there is a row of these "ticks" within the edit notice that you can simply copy into the edit box if you r in doubt. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
OMG, it's my spell checker. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

How about a qpq for those who bomb tag nominations?

One thing I just noticed in the DYK backlog are the number of "derailed" DYKs that no one seems willing to touch. the tag seems to make them radioactive. How about a qpq that anyone who puts on a or a tag has to re-review a DIFFERENT article and give it a definitive or . I'm not going to put this into an RfC, but am running it up the flagpole. It's awfully damn easy to just say "hold on a minute!" I could barely do up a single prep set last night, there were so few approved hooks and so very, very many that are languishing in "wait a minute" limbo. I know some reviewers here insert these tags AND review DYKs, but there sure as heck is a lot of submissions in limbo. The only excuse for dumping something should be if the nominator or creator just abandons the DYK, not the limbo of waiting for a reviewer to finalize and close. (sigh) Montanabw(talk) 20:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

When I put a icon on a review it's because the review has stalled or needs the attention of someone new. The icon was created to draw attention to reviews that need a reviewer; without it, people's eyes went right over the mass of text, assuming that it was being worked or was too messy to get involved. Once a review gets to a certain length, even if it's only wrangling over possible hooks, some people are going to assume radioactivity no matter what anyone does. The icon is meant to attract the people who are willing to start a review fresh but aren't willing to wade through mounds of text to figure out whether that's needed: if the review icon is the last thing, they might check it out. There's no way I'm going to do a QPQ for helping to attract attention to a stalled review, and it's wrong to ask me to. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As for the use of , it's intended as a temporary symbol; reviewers are hoped to return to the review, assuming nominators clean up the issues. Requiring anyone who uses that symbol to require a whole new article altogether is just going to piss people off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Often when I put the icon on an article, it's because I reviewed the article, found everything OK except for the hook (or rewrote parts of the article to fix issues), and wrote a new hook that needs to be checked (and, hopefully, quickly approved) by a reviewer who isn't me. Incredibly, those hooks sometimes wait for weeks until someone reviews them. (This one has been waiting for 23 days now.) I see this as a peculiar issue in the psychology of DYK participants -- do we need to change the color of that icon?
Aside: Back in the old days (before the QPQ era), most of the time I could simply pronounce my new hook as OK, so the nomination would move forward. Now, however, even a minor rearrangement of words is often treated as something that requires a full re-review, so the backlog grows... --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, extremely slight hiccups seem to invalidate a review ... IMHO, if a nominator and a reviewer can agree on a new hook and that's the only hangup, then criminy, just let it be approved, no need to drag more poeple in. Montanabw(talk) 05:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite. I'm fine with word rearrangements or trimming being approved, but if the reviewer devises a hook that involves a new fact, then someone else needs to check that it's supported. More than once I've found that the reviewer's hook wasn't supported—the reviewer may have seen it in a source, but it's not in an article, or it's in the article but without inline sourcing or not actually in the cited source. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You are right, BlueMoonset. What I had in mind was the fellow reviewer who raked me over the coals for rearranging the hook for grammar, saying it was a "new" hook so it needed a new reviewer. Certainly, introducing new facts requires another pair of eyes. Yoninah (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That shift has been... what, a year and a half now? Personally, I've stopped suggesting new hooks on my own, and just suggest that the nominator suggests a hook... rather have a lame hook than a backlog. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco, most of the instances where I suggest a new hook are not cases of a "lame hook". More often, it's a totally incoherent hook written by someone with a limited command of English, or a policy issue with a hook fact, or a hook fact that isn't supported by the sources. In the case of the nom I linked to above, the article topic is not one that is often seen at DYK, the original hook was interesting, and it was seemingly supported by a source. The only problem was that it wasn't true (you can't believe everything that gets printed in books). Two DYK reviewers (User:MelanieN and I) researched the subject, revised the article, and rewrote the hook. We both think the new hook has been thoroughly vetted -- it's well-supported and it's interesting. Neither one of us claimed this as a QPQ and neither of us is claiming "DYKmake" credit for the article, but we can't approve the current proposed hook because we wrote it. The original creator/nominator hasn't touched the article or the nom in nearly a month. It shouldn't take more than 5 minutes to finalize the review, but apparently all of the rest of you are afraid to look at it. And now you are suggesting that MelanieN and I should be required to do additional reviews as penance for our voluntary efforts to make a positive contribution to DYK?!?!? --Orlady (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As noted below, that isn't me making the suggestion. Most of the time I suggest a hook, it is because the phrasing is sub-par or another hook fact is more interesting. Experiences vary, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, my concern is that we are making the perfect the enemy of the good. My intent here was to stimulate discussion and we are well underway. If someone such as BlueMoonset is sort of the person giving overall coordination and and overview to all of DYK and flagging stuff, I'm wondering if what is needed here for someone doing BlueMoonset's work isn't so much a tag as sort of a coordinator's toolkit that is more specific, i.e. "nominator/creator attention needed" , or "Ignore former review and start fresh" or, as some have done, "second opinion needed" - etc. As it sits, I'm not about to wade into an editing dispute between someone who sticks on a tag and a nominator. Radioactive. But if the drama has settled, then, frankly, the person tagging it for problems needs to do something to alert the rest of the community that this is the case. It's tl;dr to go through each of these. Somehow, the taggers need to take some action to either accept or decine these. Montanabw(talk) 05:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Montana, putting a "hold on" tag is perfectly valid if we're giving the nominator time to address issues. As for the redirect tag... I'm a bit hesitant to add another 2 or 3 tags, as it is already fairly confusing. The thing is most of the community doesn't even look at the top of the page, but clicks on a link and goes to that date. Hence why few people see the oldest noms. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, indeed. But the question is when the review has gone stale and someone needs to be pinged to get off the dime and do something review, rewrite, pass, fail, whatever, but get it off the DYK nominations page. I mean, there is stuff there since November!?! Montanabw(talk) 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Reading this makes me think… Blue has way too much work on their plate already, and a lot of it is stuff like this. I have a similar problem, with thousands of pages on my watch list, I don't see problems in my noms until someone posts on my talk page, which may be days or weeks later. Perhaps we might kill two birds with one stone here… How hard would it be to make a page that searches the list for entries with, say…

  • no check marks (with added filter for "and it's older than…")
  • one of the "bad" check marks
  • a user name, which defaults to you

That way I could keep on top of my noms without all the searching and paging I do now. And you could use the tool to look for all the 's. And Crisco could use the tool to find any non-reviews noms about to expire. Etc. Or perhaps such a thing already exists and I'm too dumb to notice it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've taken to calling in The Little Red Hen phenomenon, it exists all over wiki, not enough worker bees. (And yeah. almost 4,000 pages on my watchlist at the moment) Montanabw(talk) 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Many good ideas. I for one, did not really realize that meant "someone totally uninvolved can now look at this and approve it." (Sometimes that's said in the comments, but often the comments are tl;dr) I kind of figured it was a second (or third or fourth) opinion done and back to the same team of reviewers. Or could it mean either one? I know that my decision to post this was because I was looking for articles to put together a prep set and had a heckuva time finding enough for just one! (There were a few more than seven, but the rest had nice images that were each suitable for being the lead image of a set...I don't view myself as experienced enough to say one editor's image is in, but another's is out). I got pretty frustrated seeing a but then overridden by a followed by some (often legitimate, but sometimes just a hook dispute) drahmah or another. Some of this I suppose relates to those who are superficial with their observance of the qpq requirement (but I happen to agree with qpq and it's usually when I have an article of my own to submit that I'm promoted to go over here and do a review, put together a prep set and otherwise help out), but I guess the real issue is how big the backlog of pending DYKs is and what can be done about it. Montanabw(talk) 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


Maybe one thing to do is to have standard boldfaced summaries with the cute icons so people like me can just do a word search to find these sort of articles. Also, maybe any article marked with a could be eligible for being re-reviewed and then COUNT AS A QPQ?? (Now THAT would clear the backlog!!!). Might I suggest something standardized (doesn't have to be these, just my ideas) like:

  1. New reviewer needed
  2. Second opinion requested
  3. Nominator input requested
  4. Stale nomination, will be deleted in 10 days if not reviewed
  5. Reviewer has abandoned review without completion, new reviewer needed


I also wonder if anyone who puts on a tag needs to be the person to "bless" the issue once it's resolved. OK, all for now. Onward!(?) Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the stale one works because usually it's the nominator who abandons a review, not the reviewer (and when they do, a request can always be made). The rest are a good idea to standardize the re-review tick policy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominations that have been identified as having problems and have been abandoned by their proponents are a definite issue on the noms page, but not one that qualifies for a "re-review". --Orlady (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Dealing with alt hooks can certainly be done by the reviewer and the author; that shouldn't be a problem needing a third set of eyes. But the case referenced above by Orlady is a perfect example of a case which was tagged as needing a new reviewer. She and I both had a problem with the initial hook. So we made a lot of changes to the article, expanding it, adding references, and (importantly) removing the claim on which the original hook was based and coming up with a new hook which we both liked. At that point we both felt we were too involved in the process to judge the result. Should one of us have simply gone ahead and approved the DYK for promotion anyhow? Or how should such cases be handled? --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Back when I first was involved with DYK, it was common for hooks to be reviewed, approved, and sent to a prep area (we had only one prep area back then) by the same user -- and all in the same edit. Sometimes that user also revised the hook wording. I believe that the people who did those reviews were typically better reviewers than a lot of our current QPQ contributors, but mistakes were made, and things got chaotic sometimes. Innovations like additional prep areas and the "rule" that the person who approves a hook shouldn't be the same one who sends it to a prep area have greatly improved quality assurance and made the process run more smoothly. However, Crisco1492Montanabw's suggestion -- in effect, that reviewers should be penalized for doing reviews that don't lead either to an approval tick or an outright rejection -- suggests that something has gone terribly wrong with the current "system". When I peruse the nominations page (most often looking at old noms needing to be reviewed or that are finally ready to move to a prep area), I'm often taken aback by the number of comments I see in which one DYK participant is criticizing another participant for not doing the review properly. I estimate that all of us regular DYK participants have written those "fault-finding" comments from time to time, and that almost all DYK contributors have also been on the receiving end at least once. (And that's not even counting the derogatory comments that get made on this page.) I can't help but think that the barrage of negativity directed at reviewers helps explain why DYK participants are so afraid to review noms that someone else has commented on (and why noms with problems sometimes sit for weeks before drawing a first comment). If we want to reduce the backlogs on the noms page, rather than finding new ways to punish reviewers (which is the way I saw Crisco1492Montanabw's suggestion), let's consider a moratorium on making judgmental remarks about other people's reviews. Cutting back the criticism may be a time saver, too -- often it's easier to fix someone else's error than it is to write a statement about what they did wrong. Additionally, we all could become a wee bit less rigid about the bureaucratic requirements for 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties to approve every action another DYK participant takes. It should not be necessary to find a new reviewer to "bless" every hook rewording -- and maybe (for example) MelanieN's and my agreement regarding the Carleton Washburne ALT hook (which waited for 24 days until finally being approved) should be a "good enough" review. --Orlady (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Orlady, I don't see where Crisco made that suggestion—I believe it was suggested in Montanabw's original post. My interpretation was that Crisco preferred to have the nominator come up with the new hook so he could continue his review, rather than come up with a hook that would therefore have to be reviewed by someone else.
On the post that started this thread, I'm unclear as to why number 4, the stale nomination entry, is there. It's a DYK failure that an old nomination hasn't yet been reviewed, and I don't understand the notion that a nomination should be deleted simply because no one has yet reviewed it.
Isn't there some criteria, somewhere, that stae DYKs DO get deleted, eventually? I remember feeling a bit of panic sometime back when a DYK of mine sat around for a week or two without a review... or did that rule change? Montanabw(talk) 18:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
So far as I'm aware, anyone who picks up a review that has stalled and finishes it is eligible for QPQ credit. Maybe not if all that's being checked is an ALT hook proposed by the reviewer who approved everything but the hook and that he or she has proposed, but doing major work, sure. There's also no requirement that the person who finds a problem has to be the one who puts the approval tick once the issues has been resolved. It's good form to give the original reviewer a chance to do the reassessment, but if nothing happens in a few days, then by all means give it a look. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
My apologies to all -- and especially Crisco -- for the case of mistaken identity. I've corrected the erroneous references in that comment. Apparently I need more sleep -- or more caffeine -- in my life. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries here, but I wasn't implying "that reviewers should be penalized for doing reviews that don't lead either to an approval tick or an outright rejection" - more the opposite, I think too many reviews are approved and then someone else comes in and adds the . Seriously, if you are going to add a AFTER someone else has approved the hook (not if an initial reviewer does so), I think you SHOULD then take responsibility for taking over another languishing review that is in the same situation (or if none, then a regular qpq). That's what I mean by "tag-bombing" - it's easy to find fault, it's actual work to fix it. As they often say in a workplace, "don't go to the boss with a problem unless you also have a solution." I share Orlady's concerns (I think this is what you were saying, Orlady, hope I'm not misinterpreting) and I too am "often taken aback by the number of comments I see in which one DYK participant is criticizing another participant for not doing the review properly." And damn straight, I agree that "the barrage of negativity directed at reviewers helps explain why DYK participants are so afraid to review noms that someone else has commented on ..." It's sure why those are "radioactive' for me and I ain't-a-gonna touch them! Now, BlueMoonset's comment that is not the same thing as is well-taken, and we DO need a "DYK WikiGnome" like BlueMoonset overseeing the page in its totality, but I hope it's clear to all that my concern is that we have a backlog and the backlog seems to be due, sometimes, to rather petty problems. Montanabw(talk) 18:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

QPQ, Thank you

Thank you very much for the reviewer and to have my little translation of Josiah Marshall Heath at DYK. I generally gnome around and I know the reviewer said that is my last freebie, and I have been following the discussions about QPQ (I didn't even know what QPQ stood for, I know what a quid pro quo is, but QPQ is your own jargon).

I can do a QPQ if I must, but I also gnome around fixing spelling mistakes, adding convert templates, infoboxes, biographies, references to articles and that kind of thing. In my opinion it is harsh for DYK to ask for a QPQ in the way it does, that one has to review someone else's article etc. I understand the principle, but you don't take into account that maybe some editors spend time at WP:RFD or WP:AFD or WP:PNT and (if they are a bit inclusionist) then go and check sources and take them out of the frying pan and into the foyer. Not often but now and again.

Old Rouen Tramway for example I got to GA, although looking back on it it still needs some work to get rid of the French sentimentality. And in doing that I also then had to do a few funiculars like Bonsecours funicular and ended up doing half a dozen funicular railways and VFILs and various back biogs, and then I have done some viaducts in the north of France you know the way one thing leads to another, those articles were not on EN:WP and I translated them and where possible got English sources instead of French ones. They take time and effort to do, which is my contribution, so that is my quid for your quo. I don't see why I should have to pay DYKcoins as well.

My sincere thanks for reviewing my DYK... it got 26 hits I think. I do sincerely thank the reviewer for it. I just can't always give the quid back in the same way by reviewing at DYK... I was also told off once for calling at a GA review my "penance", for me to do the GA review, which I meant as a kinda joke that it was my penance, but apparently that didn't go down well with the GA regulars, although the contributor and I got Elegy in a Country Churchyard to be GA, but weren't popular for calling it a penance. Just because I take things seriously does not mean I can't joke does it? There should be a WP:CANTJOKE or something. I always thought kinda slightly taking the mick out of oneself is a sign of bona fides, or I suppose WP:AGF or whatever.

In short, each to their own. So I think the principle of QPQ is a non starter. People put in where they can. I thought Wikipedia was something people volunteered to do.

My sincere best wishes. Si Trew (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate your contributing that article to Wikipedia, Si Trew and I think it's nice that an interesting fact from your recent article made it to DYK. The article got over 800 hits on the day the hook hit the main page. I do hope you will continue to nominate some of your work here now that you have passed the 5-DYK threshold. Seeing your skill at crafting DYK hooks and your translation ability, I think you will be good at DYK reviews and likely will find them rewarding. I have done far more DYK reviews than DYK nominations. I can't fully explain why, but I guess it's because I enjoy taking a few minutes' break to read about an interesting topic that often is entirely new to me, I am pleased when a hook I reviewed (or placed into a queue) makes a big splash on the main page, and the experience of reading other people's DYK work has made me a better Wikipedia contributor. It seems to me that DYK is a more satisfying place to spend time than AFD because the quality of the work here is better and the article topics tend to be more worthwhile (but I've also brought a couple of worthwhile articles to DYK after helping save them at AFD).
As for the "principle" of QPQ, please know that QPQ is more about practicality than principles. Before QPQ, we had periods when lots of nominations were being submitted, but only one or two volunteers were doing all of the review work and creating all of the hook sets for the main page. The workload, which ranged from 18 to 32 hooks in 3 or 4 sets per day, could quickly get overwhelming for one or two people, and the quality and integrity of their work inevitably suffered. Also, there were some contributors who produced large numbers of nominations (often for pretty dreadful articles with hooks no more interesting than "... did you know that John Doe was an Anglican priest?"), never participated in reviews (or any other aspect of DYK), and were wont to harass DYK volunteers for not providing the promotional services that the nominators thought their work was *entitled* to receive (for example, during that era, I was once nearly crucified for identifying an article as a blatant copyvio). QPQ is far from perfect, but it helps spread the workload across more people, and I think it makes DYK contributors a bit more sympathetic to the active volunteers who keep the feature running. Try it -- it's not all that hard, and you might even like it! --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: you could look for a collaborator who is willing to nominate articles you write for DYK. That collaborator would get a nom credit and do the QPQ review, you still get the same DYK credit as the creator, and the project gets an extra hook to post and a review. How does that sound to you? EdChem (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

To Orlady, thank you very much for your kind coments. I'd never heard of him meself but he seems like a fairly notable chap. I had to take out some of the reference at French WP because they wouldn't meet EN:WP's notability standards.
To EdChem, thank you too, I think the word "collaborator" is unfortunate but I know what you mean. But I just volunteer to WP when I can, I go some months without putting anything in.
Completely off the subject I put a few photos of prefabs in Letchworth into Mid-20th-century_system-built_houses. I must be bold and move that to where it should be. BE bold be bold , Trew.
THank you all very much for it shows that you care as much as I do about this wonderful project and we know we can only add to it a little at a time. Si Trew (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI @SimonTrew: - Your DYK hook got 1018 views (see here). :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I checked grok.stats.se via the link that was left on my user talk page saying did you know your did you know got on the main page etc, and when I followed the link it was 23 hits or something. I am not out for getting medals etc just it is nice to know that maybe someone enjoyed reading it.
My favourite DYK hook (well a hook I cast, it was a better editor than me created the article and did the hard work) was about a methodist preacher. I twisted the hook with bizarre pipes so that he "tied men and women together" (he married them) and "pushed babies' heads under water" (he baptised them) and "saw sane men into their graves", you know, that kinda literally accurate but initially misleading kind of hook, so that the poor preacher ended up sounding like a complete demon. But of course if every hook was that misleading thing DYK would become Ripley's Believe it or Not which as far as I see is not quite its intent, and these things are best kept for special occasions (Hallowe'een or April 1 etc) so I find it hard to know which side of the line to steer, sometimes. Si Trew (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: thanks for the response. You could always just post here when you have an article ready, and ask for a colleague to nominate it for you and do the QPQ in return for the nominator credit, or ping a regular on her or his talk page. Like you, I come and go so I do understand. Maybe people who would be willing to look at doing an occasional nom for you could say so here or on your talk page? I, for one, would consider it (no promises, though).  :) EdChem (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@EdChem: Quite right, there are never any promises on Wikipedia (I forget the policy but it says something like don't expect an editor to be here tomorrow or next week, they might have other things to do etc.) Just with DYK what would get me is all the fiddly buttons and links and stuff though give me a {{convert|3000|mi|in}} and I can do that in a doddle. I can even understand {{sfn}} these days. So I am better off just gnoming around with that kind of thing. I should probably update the articles on MÁV as well at some point, since I have some nice new pictures and some new stats now... I never get around to it. And Budapest Metro Line 4 needs a good going over. So lots of things that may come up at DYK, sorry to bore you all but it has kinda inspired me with all your positive feedback that Wikipedia is sometimes worth the bother... I must have been in a good mood cos I even threw a bit in the Wikipedia charity pot this evening.... long may it reign. Si Trew (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Re Thor Heyerdahl Upper Secondary School

Groan. Op47 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Putting nonsense on the mainpage just to accommodate some very dull wordplay isn't appropriate. Save it for April 1, please.

Peter Isotalo 23:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The play on the word "hammer" is very, very strained too. -Well-restedTalk 23:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Doughnut

And we have another one: "... that GCHQ replaced 50 buildings with a single doughnut?"

These wordplays aren't just far-fetched to the point of actually being false, they're also very dull. Stop this, please.

Peter Isotalo 00:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would disagree, I would say that they actually attract more viewers, this particular one having near 10,000 views, and the other having close to that. Matty.007 20:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who has a problem with the nickname "The Doughnut" needs to take their complaint to GCQ. And it did replace 50 buildings. All verified by the sourcing BBC and The Guardian. USA has The Pentagon. UK has The Doughnut. — Maile (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. I think puns are a valid tactic, like "The North Face is suing The South Butt" a few years ago. That was very whimsical, but still completely accurate. In other words, entertaining but technically not false.
The two examples above were whimsical, but not actually funny and, worst of all, created by plain cheating. If you write "a hammer" or "a doughnut", you've not obviously not referred to Bjarne Hammer and a proper name that is The Doughnut. I mean, it's not like you can pretend English capitalization doesn't matter if you're engaging in word play. The whole point of these exercises is to be clever, not to ignore rules to fit the joke.
Peter Isotalo 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, puns and misleading hooks are funny and weclome here when done well, but the donut and hammer ones stretched too far. I think in general changing capitalization should be verboten. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it has been a while since I promoted hooks to the prep queue and I seem to have lost my touch. I promoted the hook for Cape May Brewing Company to prep area 2, but it still shows on the nominations page. What did I forget to do? Sorry, I was trying to help not to make more work for you guys. Allecher (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong that I can see. The problem is that the noms page is slow to update these days. It may need to be purged to get it to update. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Prep area — Valley National Bank of AZ

I see Valley National Bank of Arizona is ready to go in with this hook:

"... that Valley National Bank of Arizona employed a full-time art curator to manage the art displayed at all of its 200 bank branches?"

I want the concise hook from User:Edwardx instead:

"... that Valley National Bank of Arizona employed a full-time curator to manage the art displayed at all of its 200 branches?"

Thanks for your attention. Raymie (t • c) 03:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. I can second that! Edwardx (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. --Allen3 talk 14:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Pull it, it needs a CE. It is a good article but doesn't meet MOS in several ways, but I don't like to edit while something is up for discussion. It is enjoyable article and deserves DYK and readership more generally, but could do with a bit of copy editing. Si Trew (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping Super Bowl

Crisco suggested I post here. He just approved the hook for Thunder (mascot), and I have a date request to run it at DYK prior to the Super Bowl this Sunday, (Thunder is a team mascot for the Broncos, who are playing) so either Feb 1 or before 4pm EST on Feb 2 would be best. So a ping to whomever is promoting hooks and building sets. Thanks so much! Montanabw(talk) 19:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've put it in the special occasion holding area under February 2, suggesting the 12:00 UTC slot (07:00 EST). That's the best timing, I think. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
How long does each DYK queue stay up these days? The kickoff is 18:30 hours (6:30 pm EST) ... if it's a 12-hour run on DYK, then 7am to 7pm is perfect, but not sure...? Montanabw(talk) 00:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
They're currently twice a day (12 hours), but no guarantees that won't switch over to three times a day (8 hours). If that happens, then the set would hit the main page four hours later but end at the same time, assuming it's a smooth switchover. We'll do the best we can. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonset, am I right that to get it where we want now that it's an 8 hour cycle, this article means it needs to wind up in the current Queue 2? Montanabw(talk) 03:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wresting claims

I was about to promote Prep 2 which includes the hook " that Total Nonstop Action Wrestling held a match at their Turning Point event that used barbed wire instead of ring ropes?"

I'm unhappy with this as this describes how wrestlers have their faces rubbed on the barbwire and how extra weapons are smuggled into the ring (really?). I don't watch wrestling but my credibility is being tested here. I know this stuff is cited but its showmanship. Actually the ref says something like the cameras then showed the ropes being changed to barbed wire.... as if even the reporter didn't believe it IMO. Can we changed this to

that Total Nonstop Action Wrestling held a match at their Turning Point event that claimed to use barbed wire instead of ring ropes?
Agreed? Victuallers (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
OK agreed Victuallers (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
@Victuallers: Well, I wouldn't have agreed, but this has been on the main page for seven hours now, so I guess it's too late to object. You're not supposed to make major alterations to hooks while they're in prep or the queue; if you question the factual accuracy of a claim, pull the hook and reopen the discussion. In this case, the claim that you're so incredulous about is fully verified by the reference provided (did you read beyond that sentence you quoted?), and another ref later in the paragraph. But now we've got a hook on the main page that doesn't even make sense; how can a spectator sport "claim" to use barbed wire instead of rope? Well, what's done is done, but next time you have a problem with a hook, just pull it. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
(The article we're talking about is Turning Point (2005 wrestling), if anyone else is interested.) DoctorKubla (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Strongly suggest that Prep 4 be taken as the next queue, since Prep 3 is only partially filled. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Most of the nominations on the last list have been reviewed, so I've compiled a new set of 38 nominations that need reviewing. One is from November and two are from early December, so please take one of them on if you can. We currently have 179 total nominations, of which only 24 are approved. Thanks as always for your reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC on QPQ for non self noms

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

OK, for those of you who dislike abbreviations, QPQ is short for 'Quid pro quo', which is described as "a favour or advantage granted in return for something", in the DYK project, it refers to the fact that when you nominate your own article, you need to review someone elses. DYK, as most people know, refers to the 'Did You Know' section of the main page. The abbreviation 'noms' refers to nominations. Recently, we have seen lots of drive by nominations of other editors' work, the first they hear about it is when they get the credit on their talk page. The general consensus of the discussion seemed to be that something had to be done to stop drive by nominations of other editors work, or even nominations of another editor's work with their permission, with no QPQ required. Listed below are short summaries of various possibilities, please comment, and vote if you so wish in the appropriate section. Please support/oppose/comment on as many as you like, and feel free to add solutions. Matty.007 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

QPQ for any nomination

Solution 1: that any nomination from an editor who has over 5 DYK credits requires QPQ. Easy to check. Matty.007 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • Please get rid of QPQ. It has huge potential for conflict of interest, and it encourages superficial and quick reviewing. It has been a gaping wound in DYK since it was started. Tony (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: you should probably make it clear that the 5 DYK thing also applies to self noms, so this solution simply extends the current QPQ requirements to non-self-noms. (I was a little confused about the proposed solutions until I realised this). -Well-restedTalk 07:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Votes

Please vote, with a comment if you want, in either support or oppose. Please number votes!

Support
  1. I have done a number of nominations of others' work since the QPQ was instituted and in each case, such as here, noted in the nomination that I was exempt as a third-party nominator but did the QPQ anyway because I think it's good for the process and is not a heavy burden, especially for people already well familiar with it having done more than five in the past. However, I do foresee one problem. There may be some individuals who do just a lot of these, multiple per week or even day, and it would be unfair and a burden to make them do a review for each one. Accordingly, I was thinking of an escape valve, a carve out, such as that if you have nominated more than one article for DYK in the past seven days, the meeting of the QPQ requirement for the first nomination covers (or exempts one from the requirement for) all nominations made during the subsequent seven-day period.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. The level of effort involved in finding and nominating a work is similar to that involved in the creation and nomination of a new work. The assertion of undue burden does not seem to have been supported so far.--Kevmin § 16:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Per the above. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. As proposer. Matty.007 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. I do concede points made by opposers are valid, but at the end of the day the numbers just don't add up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Per Fuhghettaboutit... the numbers don't add up otherwise. - tucoxn\talk 22:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support because this simply extends the current QPQ requirements for self-noms to non-self-noms. After thinking about it, I think QPQ is a necessary requirement that has probably helped the DYK process not devolve into yet another extremely backlogged Wikiproject. Since the concern appears to be that people are making a lot of third party nominations for whatever reason without contributing to the DYK process, the logical solution seems to be to simply to extend QPQ to third party noms. -Well-restedTalk 07:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support QPQ should be required across the board. I hate seeing my new article nomination languishing for three weeks waiting for a QPQ while some QPQ-exempt nomination skips by within an hour or two of getting nominated (even more bitter when this happens after I did my required QPQ on a nominated hook whose nominator was not required to QPQ).--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - The QPQ rule was created because of contributors who appeared to be more interested in self-aggrandizement than in contributing to Wikipedia. These were people who nominated their work for DYK, didn't lift a finger to help run the DYK process, and in some cases created chronically bad nominations and/or complained bitterly if their hooks weren't approved (or weren't displayed exactly as they thought they should be displayed). The rule isn't perfect, but it ensures that self-nominators make at least a minimal contribution to the DYK process. In contrast, there's no glory in nominating other people's work. Not only is the effort of nominating another user's article similar in magnitude to the effort involved in doing a review, but the majority of people who nominate other people's work appear to do so for selfless reasons -- and voluntarily involve themselves in administering DYK (for example, by reviewing noms without taking QPQ credit, by building prep sets, or by promoting prep sets to the queues). For such users, the requirement to do QPQ reviews for non-self-noms would be an annoying bit of bureaucracy; adding bureaucracy doesn't benefit either Wikipedia or the DYK process. --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - The greatest DYK editor in my opinion is the person who has done a 1000 nominations of other people's work. As long as no one is forming a club to just nominate each others work then (AGF) we should encourage the nominations of other people's work. I would feel particularly strongly that nominating the work of a newbie should never require any addition load on the nominator and certainly not on the newbie. We need new (and returning) editors. Victuallers (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We should be encouraging people to nominate others work at DYK. It is in my experience a great way to welcome newbies and get a more diverse set of content at DYK. We should not put an additional burden on those who are nominating other people's work. Quid pro quo is itself an anomaly amongst Wikipedia processes and should not be extended to put a greater burden on those who help others to DYK. ϢereSpielChequers 20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose This is too narrow and would discourage the casual editor who sees the main page invitation to nominate an article. It would also require someone with no working knowledge of the DYK criteria to do a review, one that would almost certainly have to be double-checked by more seasoned editors. — Maile (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Gaming the system (e.g. what Victualler's talking about) is inappropriate, but as long as people are nominating others' work in good faith, there's no good reason to require that nominators review another one. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Per Orlady. Cbl62 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose The proposal only makes sense in some bizarro world where DYK is a game and a successful nomination gets you some kind of points. It's kind of sad that such a mind set has taken root such that an RfC like this one would even exist. If you want to lessen the workload at DYK, ban self-nominations. Gigs (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. Per this, you get points for nominations. See bottom section on DYK nominations list. Guess that bizarro world does exist. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose People who nominate other people's articles for DYK are a benefit to the wiki. They should be encouraged, not burdened. They not only contribute content; they bring new people into the process. Personally I first learned about DYK when someone nominated an article of mine; up to then I had no idea the process existed or how it worked. Since then I have contributed several dozen of my own new articles to DYK. I do think nominators should inform the article's author when they nominate (not to get permission, but just to engage them in the process), but I think that should be a voluntary courtesy rather than a requirement. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: Nominating DYKs is a good way for new people to be brought on board, and also a good way to encourage experienced editors to mentor new ones -- my first DYK was one someone else spontaneously nominated for me, I didn't even know how it all worked at the time. Would hate to see that discouraged. Doing a nom is WAY easier than creating a new article that's god enough for DYK, IMHO. Montanabw(talk) 20:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

#Technical oppose. I'd consider supporting but the "easy to check" claim is not elaborated on. I'd think it would be a pain to check. Ping me if an explanation of easiness is given. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Changing vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. Oppose QPQ in general. Making it mandatory even for a subset of editors is the opposite of what we should do. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

QPQ for nominations of others' work if they have more than 5 credits

Solution 2: that QPQ is required for nominations of others' work if they have more than 5 DYK credits. Again, easy to check. Matty.007 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

This proposal doesn't make much sense to me, if you want to propose QPQ for non-self nominations, then surely the five-DYK threshold should apply to the nominator rather than the creator, because the nominator is the one required to do the QPQ review. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I also need clarification. Is this for the nominator having more than 5 DYK credits or for the editor/creator of the article being nominated having more than 5 credits? As I said in my support comment for the status quo, while I have no problem restricting who qualifies for the no QPQ, I think its vital that we still encourage editors to scour the new pages list to seek out work by new editors who have previously not been involved with DYK. AgneCheese/Wine 17:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, this proposal was that QPQ was required if you nominated another editor's work, and the other editor had over 5 DYK credits. Matty.007 17:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is if you nominate the work of someone who already has DYK credits. (i.e. if you nominated an article I wrote, one of us would have to do a QPQ review)--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
As noted this is for those nominations that are of DYK regulars/veterans. There doesn't seem to be any indication that this will generate a larger burden then is already required of a self nominator when looking at article creation plus QPQ review.--Kevmin § 17:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
It is just about reasonable to expect an editor to know how many DYKs they have written. Is it reasonable to expect them to check someone else's account(s) to see how many DYKs they have before nominating an article they've written? ϢereSpielChequers 21:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The QPQ check is available from any nominated DYK template: all you need to know is person's username. It's a good indication of whether the creator has received DYK credits in the past, and takes a matter of seconds. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that this proposal has the additional benefit of actually simplifying the rules: the QPQ requirement is always based on the number of DYK credits for the article's author; no need to complicate the rules with an exception according to who nominates it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Votes

Please vote, with a comment if you want, in either support or oppose. Please number votes!

Support
  1. This prevents gaming of the system, and in any case the point of nominating someone elses work is to get them into DYK and encourage their work, which if they already have 5 DYK credits, wouldn't be the case.--Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 17:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. Matty.007 17:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per Gilderien (allthough I don't really know how you check how many DYK credits a user has) Iselilja (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    The DYK checker. Matty.007 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    Um, it's called the "QPQ check" on our DYK nomination template pages, not the "DYK checker". (The page refers to itself as "User cont[r]ibution", and searches for notifications of main-paged DYKs.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - The nomination is intended to be for new and returning editors. Lets encourage our gamers to find newbies and bring them to DYK Victuallers (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. There's no acceptable reason that an article created/expanded by an experienced, multi-DYK user should be exempt from the QPQ requirement, unfairly shifting the reviewing burden to others. A QPQ should be acceptable from either the nominator or the creator. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support — Maile (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support. Agree with Mandarax that a QPQ should be accepted if supplied by either nominator or creator (or, I suppose, even by a third party if one wishes to do the work involved). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Now that the proposal has been clarified in the "Comment" section above - support as it will prevent users gaming the rules by nominating each other's articles in order to avoid the QPQ requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support. No reason why experienced creators/expanders should be exempt. Struway2 (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support - No reason why a QPQ shouldn't be undertaken by either nominator or creator/expander when they are regular DYK participants. I fully understand and appreciate the reasoning behind encouraging new editors (that's how I was drawn to DYK myself but note that a QPQ was undertaken, although not required, by the person who nominated my first ever DYK); as five credits is the figure already used elsewhere, it will standardise/simplify any change. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support per the arguments already made.--Kevmin § 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  12. Support per Gilderien. - tucoxn\talk 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. This is a minor permutation of the proposal above. My opposition there applies equally here. --Orlady (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose As was pointed out by Orlady, this isn't much different from the first proposal. I suspect most of the opposition from above would also oppose this, so a lack of written opposition in this section should not imply consensus for the alternate proposal. Gigs (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose since it is unclear who is supposed to do the QPQ: is it the nominator, or the author who has more than five previous DYKs? If the nominator, then it imposes an undue burden on people who nominate the work of others, as per the suggestion above. If the author, then they are required to participate in the nomination process and it is no longer a third-party nomination; in effect it makes every nomination of an article written by an experienced contributor into a self nom, regardless of who is listed as the nominator. If neither or both are responsible, a nomination could languish in limbo waiting for somebody to do a QPQ, and it would be hard for a reviewer to check if QPQ was done. And how would this requirement work with the QPQ checking bot? And what if the nominator didn't realize that the author has more than five previous nominations, or didn't act on it - does that become an additional thing for the reviewer to have to check? Impractical proposal in many ways. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    Either the nominator or creator/expander could do the QPQ I should think. To me, this oppose seems to be based on theoretical queries, which could be ironed out if this became policy. For example, the idea is that you do QPQ when nominating an article, as it is at present. The QPQ credit thing gives previous successful nominations, and would probably be able to stay the same as it is at present. The more than 5 nominations thing would be as much an issue as it is now, and easy to check with the QPQ check. Matty.007 18:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    In your first sentence you say the QPQ could be done by either, but later you suggest that it is the responsibility of the nominator {"the idea is that you do QPQ when nominating an article"). In that case, the people who opposed solution #1 above should be regarded as opposing this also. In effect, this proposal says that the nominator must do a QPQ unless the author/expander of the article has fewer than five previous DYKs; is that a correct understanding? --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    In the nomination of the article, either the creator or expander can do QPQ. As such, the number of opposes here is what it is. Matty.007 21:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    THe nominator would be the logical one to do the reviews, and would alleviate the notable stress that the current status of no qpq needed places on the project. How is a qpq a significantly larger burden on the nominator then article creation/nomination/qpq for self noms?--Kevmin § 23:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Over-complicated, contrary to WP:CREEP. Andrew (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    It isn't really complicated; you check if a user has over 5 DYK credits before nominating their work, then do QPQ if they have. CREEP isn't policy, or a guideline, but an essay, and as the essay says ""WP:CREEP" is not a substitute for actual arguments. Lengthy instruction can be appropriate if it represents a broad consensus and does more good than harm". Matty.007 18:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    It's the opposite of "over-complicated" and eliminates some instruction creep. As I'd mentioned in the Comments section above, this proposal actually simplifies the rules by specifying a consistent criterion for when QPQ is required, eliminating the existing complication of an exception based on who submits the nomination. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose. Perhaps someone could help clarify this, but I don't understand the idea behind this solution. The way I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), DYKs should be nominated based on the article (rather than the author), the QPQ requirement is to help keep the backlog in check, and the 5 DYK requirement (currently for self-noms) is to help ease potential DYK reviewers into the project. How does this solution fit into all this? Doesn't this solution mean that a good new article that would make a nice DYK on the main page won't ever get on the main page simply because the author of the article isn't involved in the DYK process for whatever reason? -Well-restedTalk 07:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    The QPQ requirement is so that reviews are actually done. However, QPQ is needed after 5 credits, for all self nominations. This proposal is that if the creator has over 5 credits (i.e. enough to need to do a QPQ is it was self nominated), then the nominator has to do QPQ. Matty.007 09:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

#Technical oppose. I'd consider supporting but the "easy to check" claim is not elaborated on. I'd think it would be a pain to check. Ping me if an explanation of easiness is given. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Changing vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  2. Oppose - I support QPQ's across the board, but I don't think a user should be snagging DYK credits by nominating other people's work. DYK shouldn't allow that kind of star-chasing. A nominator should only nominate his/her own work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - QPQ on self-nominations is enough requirement. Must I add QPQs on other people's works, even when I often do? --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose QPQ in general. Making it mandatory even for a subset of editors is the opposite of what we should do. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose making nominators do qpq if not creators. My reasoning outlined above per other proposal. I support qpq for creators, though. Montanabw(talk) 20:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Non self nominations require no QPQ

Solution 3: this is how it is at present, if you nominate any other editor's work, with or without their permission, no QPQ is required. Matty.007 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

In response to Tentinator, Orlady's comment of "Hunting down other users' good-quality new articles, reviewing them, and nominating them here is a fairly selfless contribution to DYK that should not require quid pro quo" doesn't really stand with Wikipedia's development. It takes all of a few minutes to find an article in this list, and nominate it. Matty.007 15:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think New pages is another place people search for new articles. — Maile (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
If it takes you only a few minutes to find an article on that list and nominate it, you probably are creating bad nominations. In my experience, nominating other users' articles that appear on that list means that I have to check for eligibility (a lot of articles on that list aren't long enough), read the article carefully, check the sources cited to make sure the source information is properly represented in the article, check for BLP and POV issues, check for copyvio and close paraphrasing, and look at the other Wikipedia articles that are linked in the article. It's also helpful to look at the article creator's history to see if they have a history of problems with copyvios, POV, or other issues. I often do a bit of rewriting before I get to the point of drafting a hook (and sometimes I do some rewriting even though I've decided the article isn't suitable for DYK). In spite of all that effort (which generally exceeds the effort required to do a typical DYK review), sometimes a DYK reviewer will find serious issues that I failed to identify because I wasn't sufficiently familiar with the article topic. People who habitually nominate other people's work without doing the appropriate homework are likely to find themselves under attack from other DYK regulars. --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like the effort that most DYK regulars put into the creation of an entirely new article they write, (try finding fossil ant taxonomy articles) which is the self nominated and then having to do a QPQ. The suggestion that there is a significant work load difference between a self nomination and a 2nd partly nomination seems to ignore the effort of writing a balanced article. And if the article is written by a trusted user then the back ground checking that is done would already have been taken care of in prior nominations. It also places a large burden on the rest of the project when others have to step in to take care of the QPQ less nominations which create large backlogs while not providing any reviewed hooks to run.--Kevmin § 07:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentinator, can you expand on the comments you have linked to from 3 years ago in light of the current situation. How is there a distinct work load increase over the creation of an entirely new article plus review of an article?--Kevmin § 16:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This option (status quo) seems to have several benefits and one big drawback. The big drawback is a greater number of hooks than obligatory reviews for them. The "backlog" this creates doesn't seem to be forever-expanding. Is the burden of reviewing extra hooks falling on just a few dedicated users who work at DYK all the time? As an occasional DYK contributor, I would like to hear a breakdown of how this is happening now from someone who is intimately familiar with the process. Happy new year, and thanks everybody... I feel DYK is a valuable part of Wikipedia for several reasons. groupuscule (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that a major problem that is not being addressed by this RfC is the giving of QPQ credit for inadequate reviews. Why do we do this? If the review doesn't cover the DYK requirements—which includes explaining what aspects were checked—then credit should be withheld, plain and simple. The arguments below that we don't want to make nominators who don't do a good job vetting their nominations also do reviews doesn't make sense to me as a long term strategy: if they are also required to do good reviews and don't get credit for bad ones, eventually they'll either learn to do a better job or see their nominations end in rejection, in a less violent aspect of Orlady's "likely to find themselves under attack from other DYK regulars". Nyttend's argument against having nominators do QPQs is really an argument against QPQs altogether: his example of a slipshod review was a QPQ done by the creator of a self-nominated article. I am also not convinced by Tentinator's simply citing arguments from early 2011, when QPQ was first set up: one of the reasons to have an RfC like this is to reassess, three years later, to see how things are working out on the ground. The fact that we have 233 unapproved hooks at the moment is a good indication that something significant is broken, as is the all too frequent review that consists solely of "good to go", or perhaps that the nomination is new enough and long enough (and maybe that the hook fact is cited). BlueMoonset (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with BlueMoonset - the thoroughness of reviews undertaken needs to be looked at, as well as the claiming of QPQ for 'fly-by' reviews. I initially expressed concern on this page about the volume of "not a self nom, no QPQ required" when, over the festive period, it was down to around ten approved hooks with a backlog of well over 200 nominations (these figures are just recalled from memory as ball park figures), no queues/prep areas were filled, which must have been a nightmare for those trying to keep everything running and these were at 12 hour rotations. Added to that there were days when as many as a dozen "not a self nom, no QPQ required" were being nominated. I am not a particularly long standing DYK participant - probably around 15 months? - so was not involved around 2010/11 so cannot comment about decisions then. I do wonder if the "copyvio" check tool should be removed from the toolbox, just leaving the duplication detector as I've only ever managed to get a result from it once and (cringes with embarrassment at the memory) what it detected was a mirror site that had copied from the WP article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think 12 approved was right. Matty.007 17:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A common opposing reason here is that people will do sloppy QPQ reviews. Is this not already occurring? Is it relatively easy to fix with a quick note on the editor's talk page? The reasoning that they would make poor QPQ reviews is, to me, not one that is an issue in this case, if we can help editors making slapdash QPQs into the habit of good reviewing, we have gained a good reviewer. Matty.007 17:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The backlog issue will always be with us. One major factor in the backlog, as I see it, is that only a few reviewers are brave enough to deal with the old nominations that have been previously reviewed and require re-examination. I have long suspected that people mistakenly think they won't get QPQ credit unless they do the first review of a new hook nomination, so they don't touch old noms like the oldest one currently on the noms page -- one that I believe actually should be pretty easy to approve at this point. --Orlady (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Votes

Please vote, with a comment if you want, in either support or oppose. Please number votes!

Support
  1. Support per The Bushranger and Orlady's comments here.   Tentinator   15:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - If you think that's a simple one minute nomination thing, you're mistaken. The results include articles which are too short, or don't have enough references, or aren't neutral, etc. Personal experience suggests that maybe 10–20% of the articles on that list are readily DYKable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - the nomination requires sort of a review. If someone wants to do a voluntary extra review, even better. I recommend to place the link to the nomination on the article talk page, - that should notify everybody interested including the author(s). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - One of the last vestigial remnants of DYK's original raison d'être in encouraging new articles and new editors. While I have no problem with limiting DYK nom/no QPQ to nominators of work by editors who have not been previously involved in the DYK process, I think it is vital to the life blood of DYK to encourage veteran editors to review the new pages list and nominate work from new editors or those previously uninvolved with DYK. AgneCheese/Wine 17:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    Well that is the problem, Agne, many nominations are simply being plucked from this list, no article reviewing done, and nominated. Matty.007 17:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - Mostly for reasons already stated above. Additionally, I submit that people who mindlessly crank out quickie nominations of articles plucked from the new-article lists shouldn't be asked to do additional QPQ reviews, since their QPQ reviews probably won't be any better in quality than their nominations. Honest reviews of their nominations should be a much more effective way to discourage that behavior. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support at New page patrol I look at, categorise, delete, tag for deletion, or simply say meh and leave for others well over a thousand articles for every one which I nominate for DYK. I can just about understand putting a QPQ obligation on those who nominate their own work at DYK, though I note that FAC does not work that way. But I do not accept that we should put an additional burden on those who nominate others work? ϢereSpielChequers 21:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support See my comments up above. Orlady makes a very good point: if you're nominating junk from Special:Newpages without checking to see that it's likely to pass, you really really shouldn't be reviewing other nominations. It's much better to have to throw out a few junk nominations than to have to pull junk articles from the Main Page. We shouldn't encourage pro forma reviews that don't review anything. Let's look at a pro forma review of an article I wrote, here: I made a basic factual error in writing the hook, as detailed at the article's talk page (the article said something correct, and the hook said something different), but the "review" was so cursory that my mistake wasn't caught. This is the kind of review that will become more common if we adopt any of the proposed changes. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support per Orlady's comments referenced above. Cbl62 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support If you're scouring the potentially eligible lists (New Pages Feed, AfC promotions, etc.) and nominating only quality articles, then there's no reason to require a Quid Pro Quo but... (see paralell oppose) Hasteur (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support per Orlady. Not that I ever have, or ever will, nominate someone else's work, but I do think that others should be able to, without being detailed to do QPQs. Manxruler (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support the status quo, per Orlady. People who conscientiously nominate the work of others are helping the wiki and should not be additionally burdened. People who (for whatever reason) do sloppy nominations will do equally sloppy QPQ reviews, which is no help to the project. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  12. Support If it works, don't fix it. Andrew (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  13. support per all of the above. It ain't broke. Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  14. Support – QPQ is a good idea only with selfnoms. APerson (talk!) 02:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: this isn't working, there are lots of nominations, not doing QPQ isn't going to make them any smaller. Matty.007 14:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: The number of noms of others work has at times in the last few months overwhelmed the number of self noms, creating large backlogs with very few reviewed hooks. This should not be the case, and i dont feel that the effort of finding another's nomination in anyway outweighs the effort of creating an entirely new article. They are a similar amount of work and should be treated the same.--Kevmin § 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. There isn't a huge difference between an article you wrote and nominated and an article you simply nominated. There's no reason to be QPQ exempt; the main purpose of QPQ is to avoid backlog, so there's no reason to say "oh, you don't need to do it for THAT." Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: — Maile (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose because at minimum I think QPQ should be expanded to prevent users from gaming the system by nominating each other's articles to avoid the QPQ requirement, per the proposal above. Gatoclass (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. My support of an alternate proposal above is implicit opposition to the quid pro quo status quo, but I'm making it explicit. The large number of unreviewed noms that we're frequently burdened with is an indication that the current system is broken. It's not fair that some users may be able to sit back and let someone else nominate for them while neither has an obligation to do any reviews. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose: per my comment above, because people do game the system, and per Mandarax. I also think we need to be more strict with QPQs in general: that they need to cover the DYK criteria and be properly written up per the DYK guidelines in order to receive QPQ credit. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: (see paralell support) If all nominators pick other editors work, the entire QPQ system will break down and we'll be left with a mass of DYK nominations and some volunteer having to sort through the nominations. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per my support above for the proposal above that QPQ should be required if the article is written by someone who has/have more than 5 DYK credits, even if it is nominated by others. Iselilja (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. The current system isn't working. Not sure what the solution is, but proposal 2 above should be a start. Struway2 (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - as per the comments above. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Makes it more complicated and we need reviewing to keep up with writing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  13. Oppose: there already aren't enough editors reviewing DYK nominations. Also, adding this will make things unnecessarily more complicated. - tucoxn\talk 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    Um, there seems to be a misunderstanding. This "proposal" is actually the status quo. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Non self nominations require no QPQ, but creator/expander needs notifying

Solution 4: if you nominate another editor's work, you must invite them to the DYK project, and request their permission (perhaps a lengthening of the 5 day nomination period would need examining as well, for slow replies). Matty.007 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

This would possibly help get more people involved in DYK. Matty.007 14:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Why don't we do this automatically - i.e. like the GA process, when a nomination template is created, a bot finds the creator of the page, and sends them a message saying "this page that you created has been nominated for WP:DYK. See the nomination and comment here."--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That would probably work, perhaps something which tells them what DYK is, and how to stop it being nominated if they don't want it to be. Matty.007 15:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
      • If we use bots, I'd rather the bots not notify self-nominators. Waste of everyone's time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I was thinking it should probably not notify if the creator had a certain amount of nominations as well, since they are probably aware it was nominated. Although maybe not, for 5-times expansions at least, since last year when I did one the original creator had more sources than I did and was able to assist in the expansion.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 17:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I have already listed an Oppose below. I believe the creator should be notified. But the way this is worded lumps that in with too much - not requiring QPQ, and asking the creator's permission to list at DYK. Those are three items - no QPQ is already in another section, and asking permission violates WP:OWN. Matty, you might get a lot more "Support" votes for a simplified option that is ONLY to have a bot created that would place a notice on the creator's talk page. Nothing more than that. The bot would say something to the effect of, "[article name] which you created or substantially expanded has been nominated for DYK under [lists date of section where it's listed]". Short and simple, does not require any action from them. They can check it out, or not. — Maile (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I did say "feel free to add solutions", as I thought that I would probably miss out something. I will add it soon. Thanks, Matty.007 18:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the doggone problem here?! Maybe I'm just a dummy, but the initial question in this RfC is hard to understand. Now I'm reading that an editor is apparently upset because someone else beat them to the punch on a DYK nom for an article they wrote? Do you intend to spread this policy over to the GA project? I would instruct the offended party to collect their thoughts and fill out a hurt feelings report and then carefully consider what type of solution they want to propose to the community. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Votes

Please vote, with a comment if you want, in either support or oppose. Please number votes!

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose When you contribute to Wikipedia, you accept that your contributions are in the public domain to be utilized by anyone as they please, so I don't see a need for permission and it would just mean more complication and instruction creep. Notification can be encouraged as a courtesy but I don't think we need to go further than that. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not quite public domain, but every page explicitly states "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." in the edit window. That is a statement which editors implicitly agree to when clicking "Save Page" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose WP:OWN. I do like Gilderien's above idea of a bot. There is no way anyone can stop their work from being nominated for anything. — Maile (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Article creators don't own their contributions. Furthermore, the main reasons for nominating other people's contributions at DYK are to enhance and diversify the quality of DYK and to encourage new contributors. Neither of those objectives is advanced by asking the article creators for "permission". --Orlady (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose this would not be a nice way to treat the rare newbie who writes a DYK worthy article. ϢereSpielChequers 21:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Notifying the other user is an optional courtesy which should not be made mandatory. The only valid reason I can think of for asking permission would be to see if they intended to nominate it themselves; again an optional courtesy. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Notification is good, and I like the bot idea, but there's no good reason to require it. We have so many rules that adding more is generally a bad idea, and this is no different. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. While I think it's rude not to notify someone that you're nominating an article they've created—among other things, there's a good chance that if issues are found they may have to take care of them because they know the topic better than you do—I don't think we should require it, and offering the creator veto power is going to far. It makes especial sense to notify if the creator is a DYK regular, however, because there may be very good reasons why the person considers the article not ready for prime time, so the courtesy of telling them you plan to nominate the article may save a problematic nomination from being started in the first place. (It may also prevent hard feelings if the person was holding off in order to get the article to a certain level before nominating it, only to be preempted.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I think notification is a courtesy to be encouraged. Seven years ago, when I was a relative newbie, someone placed a bit of boilerplate on my talk page saying an article I'd written looked good enough to appear on the main page, and here's where to go to suggest it. So I did, and it was, and I thought how great it was to have my work appreciated like that. Don't know if they'd have nominated it themselves if I hadn't, the procedures were different then. But we can't require permission to be asked. Struway2 (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. As a courtesy maybe, but don't mandate it because as Gatoclass said, you release your contributions to be freely edited and used in any way that people see fit. if anything, it should be considered a compliment that someone else has thought highly of your work and wants to share it with the world. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  11. Oppose as a requirement, Support as an expected courtesy. Not to get permission (the creator doesn't own the article), but to engage them in the process. The author might have valuable input about the hook or the article, and if there are questions or problems, the author is the best person to deal with them. And if the author is a relative newbie, it could be eye-opening for them to discover the DYK process. It certainly was for me. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. MelanieN makes the point very cogently - we should aspire to engage the article creator, but it should certainly not be mandatory. From my own experience, getting involved in the DYK process has helped me create better content, and I'm now trying to pass on my experience to others. Edwardx (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  13. Oppose worst of both worlds - comes across as narky but possibly without benefit of review. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  14. Oppose: The getting permission bit is my concern. If someone really kicks up a fuss, it would probably derail the DYK anyway. Montanabw(talk) 20:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Creator/expander requires notifying

A bot would notify an editor if an article they had created/expanded was nominated for DYK by someone else. Matty.007 18:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • IMO, a bot is the logical way to go with this. It streamlines the process, and nobody has to remember, or learn, to do it on each nomination. — Maile (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Once this whole long RFC closes, if nothing else comes of it, I hope the bot becomes a reality. I believe @Matty.007:'s original concern was notification . Chain Reaction (sculpture) is an example of why an article's creator should be given a chance for input. Not for ownership, but for perspective on whether or not the article was ready. In the case of Chain Reaction, it had been a "review in progress" since Dec 22, 2013, with no input by the nominator. The article was not finished and, in the long run, was unstable and subject to a dispute by city and county officials. It has finally been rejected as unstable. — Maile (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that would be OK, what will likely be needed is a whole new section on what the RFC did (and didn't) achieve. Thanks, Matty.007 19:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • While it would be a courtesy, I don't believe people should be nominating other editor's work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Votes

Support
  1. Support - Basic courtesy to do this, I think. — Maile (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Fine by me. Gatoclass (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. If it is done by a bot, I can Support. If not, I would oppose because if it is an "expected courtesy", what difference is there than if it is mandatory to do it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support: this is one of my pet issues; articles being nominated without the creator's knowledge. Matty.007 19:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Don't see why this isn't done already. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support: thought we did already. Easy to get a bot to do it, just like is done for GAN. Montanabw(talk) 20:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose

DYK is not a video game, but if you insist...

As I alluded to above, the entire mindset that leads to this kind of thinking is flawed. It is only in the context of "editors can get DYK 'game points' with less work by nominating other's articles" that this RfC even makes sense. Thinking of DYK as a game is mostly benign, and results in the creation and expansion of articles, but only up to the point that the game aspect of it damages the mission of DYK. When we've come to the point of having an RfC that seriously proposes punishing editors for highlighting DYK-worthy work by other editors, things have really gone off the rails.

If we insist on the "game" mindset, then just don't give same sort of "credit" to the nominator and the author. Have one sort of "author credit" and a different sort of "nominator credit". Then those who are keeping score (however inadvisable that may be) can be happy that those who merely nominator and rarely author are not getting the same sort of credit as someone who writes articles and nominates, who would get both sorts of credit on a self-nom. Gigs (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That is already happening. You get either a credit for 'creating or expanding' or for nominating. Matty.007 20:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Those "credits" are, fundamentally, nothing more than notifications that a hook has made it to the main page. It's interesting to keep a log of them, but there's something wrong if you are listing them on your CV or trying to trade the "credits" for cash or Bitcoins... --Orlady (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
So that is why I didn't get that job I applied for...... Harrias talk 22:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you can negotiate for Bitcoins...--Orlady (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I had a few more thoughts, keeping in mind my limited experience with DYK:

  1. Non self-nom basically is a review. Someone other than the author is saying that they think the article qualifies for DYK and is suggesting a hook. If editors are doing non-self-noms wrong, then they have no business being reviewers for other hooks, period. If there's a problem with bad non-self-noms en masse, then trout those editors instead of trying to contort the rules to force the sloppy editors to extend their sloppiness to even more hooks.
  2. A backlog is not necessarily a bad thing. As long as you have enough hooks to promote, does it matter that you had a larger selection of them to choose from? I know eventually it would become a wheat and chaff issue, but like in the first point, that should probably be addressed with the use of fish. Gigs (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Well the second is a problem. Over Christmas, we had 12 hooks ready for promotion. That is critically small, we really don't want prep builders to be having to do extra reviews because there are 20 nominations which haven't done any QPQ because they aren't self nominations. Also, as has been said, the effort of actually making an article, then doing QPQ for nomination is much more than simply reading an article once or twice, and nominating it. Matty.007 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If the en-masse nominator were subject to QPQ, would they actually do more reviews, or just nominate less or none? I know if you all add QPQ for non-self-noms, I'd just stop doing them. I'm not comfortable enough with DYK to consider myself qualified to do reviews. Gigs (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I would favour QPQ needed for nominations of editors' work if they had over 5 credits. The thing is, the nominator, who would likely/definitely know how DYK works, would potentially nominate less, but would review more, so the process would be slicker, rather than nominations from a month ago needing a review still. Matty.007 19:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually Gigs makes an interesting point when he describes a non-self nom as basically a review in itself. Perhaps what we could do is allow non-self nominators to review most of the DYK criteria themselves in these noms, apart from the hook? Non self nominators are after all, likely to be just as independent from the article creator as any other reviewer. The hook reviewer might then only be required to verify the hook itself, along perhaps with some other basic criteria - say length, date, and cites. An approach like this could substantially increase the review rate. Any thoughts? Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. Additional eyes are often beneficial, though. A few of my nominations of other users' work were found to have issues I had overlooked -- most significantly, by a DYK reviewer who had access to sources that I couldn't see and found copyvio issues related to the use of those sources. --Orlady (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
More eyes are always better but the fact is that a substantial proportion of nominations only have one reviewer in any case and under this system, at least two users would be reviewing in every case, though they might be responsible for reviewing different aspects. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I stopped short of suggesting this because some editors in the discussions leading up to this said they suspected collusion/borderline meatpuppetry abuse of non-self-noms. I don't know how serious that issue is. The potential benefit from partial self-certfication of non-self-noms might outweigh the hassle of dealing with a couple editors who might abuse it. Since it's all public, eventually abuse would be detected. Gigs (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I do think an approach like this would have to be contingent on proposition #2 above succeeding, which would prevent users gaming QPQ by nominating each other's articles. But assuming that proposal succeeds, I think this idea has potential. It might mean the non-self nominator may need to be a little more careful but that wouldn't be a bad thing to encourage, and accountability for this kind of review would be pretty straightforward as sloppy reviewers could be banned from making more non-self noms for a limited period, something that isn't possible for self-noms as users can keep their own articles in a sandbox waiting for any ban to expire. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Where do we go now

As voting seems to have reached an end, with little new votes being cast, it would seem to be time to discuss what the overall trends were. Where should be go from here on the subject of non-self nominations?--Kevmin § 00:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

How about we give it until around Sunday, then I post a new section with what I feel emerged, and then others chip in if I have got it wrong. Is that OK? Thanks, Matty.007 17:16, 23 January 2014 (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.

FPs on DYK

I think it's great that FPs are used on DYK. However, i do not think DYK should use recent POTDs and upcoming POTDs scheduled to appear on MainPage soon. It's better to let another pic get the exposure on MainPage. If an upcoming POTD is to be used on DYK, can the POTD be somehow delayed so that we don't use the same pic twice within a short time? The DYK pic on MainPage right now is scheduled to be POTD in 11 days (Template:POTD/2014-01-30). The two MainPage appearances are too close in my opinion. AFAIK, there is no policy on this. I don't know how much time apart would be appropriate. Current noms that may be affected include Template:Did you know nominations/Velodona (Template:POTD/2014-02-04) and Template:Did you know nominations/Black-breasted Thrush (Template:POTD/2014-02-05). --PFHLai (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And Template:Did you know nominations/Sainte-Enimie (Template:POTD/2014-02-03). If anyone is wondering, these are part of an effort started by Armbrust at the Reward board to take FPs whose articles are too stubby to appear as POTD and expand hem to be MP-worthy. This almost always means a 5× expansion, which is why these are all appearing as DYK noms. ~HueSatLum 13:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The articles have no issue, policy- or guidelines-wise, running close together. If you are worried about the images, don't select the images for DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed I have promoted one of them without the image. Then the nominator leaves a note on my usertalkpage asking for the pic to be used on DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd then point the nominator to the POTD page. The new article is bound to get more hits there than in DYK (average DYK: under 1000; average POTD: c. 5k). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I figure the nominator wants both, and there may be more hits at the top of DYK. I am not against it, just the timing is not ideal. --PFHLai (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Are we all really so cynical that we're assuming that it's being done just for hits? I personally used the FP in the DYK because I think that we should, above and beyond almost any other considerations, make an effort to highlight the project's best work as much as possible. If that means that an image appears in the main page twice, well oh darn, I guess that the image will appear in the main page twice. I doubt most people have the memory to say "oh, that was on the main page two weeks ago in another section". Either way, I swapped out my image for another illustration of the same organism, from the same artist, in the same book. Now there's no problem, right? Sven Manguard Wha? 17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I personally used the FP in the DYK because I think that we should, above and beyond almost any other considerations, make an effort to highlight the project's best work as much as possible. You hit the nail right on the head Sven – thank you! That's exactly the reason why I requested that the Black-breasted Thrush article be the lead hook. I really couldn't care about the number of hits it gets – I haven't had a DYK with 5,000+ views in over 6 months and am certainly not looking for one now. My main concern was getting quality work featured as much as possible. As I recalled, DYKAR J6 states, "Not every submitted picture can be featured in the picture slot of course, but since only one picture can be featured per update, try to leave the good picture hooks behind for another update if possible" (emphasis not mine). Since FPs are "the visual equivalent to featured articles," this qualifies them as "the best [pictures] WP has to offer." If queue preparers are already urged to "try" to leave good pics for lead hooks, shouldn't they be actively encouraged to do the same with FPs? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's great to have FPs on DYK. I want them on DYK. I am only asking if we should/can do something about the timing. Re-using the same pic within a short period to me is not good. Wikipedia indeed has more goodies to choose from and showcase on MainPage. I do not want to upstage or pre-empt already scheduled POTDs. I am trying to be a nice neighbour here with those who run POTD on MainPage. But come to think of it, it's more of a problem for POTD than for DYK, as the pics in question so far will probably appear in on DYK first, and then appear as a re-run on MainPage when POTD time comes. It would be great if POTDs can be re-scheduled without giving our neighbours extra work, but I doubt this is possible. We can certainly not care about the POTD schedule, and use the FPs whenever we like on DYK. But I don't think this is nice. --PFHLai (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As the person who has been choosing POTD recently, I should note that rescheduling the image is possible. However, the images that are being discussed here are those which have already been skipped once, some of which should have been run 3, 6, 9 months ago but were not because the article did not meet the minimum criteria I'm using. It's unfair to the photographer to have them wait another 6 months. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused if this FP ends up being rescheduled – I wasn't expecting this to get into such a deep discussion. I was just wondering – why do we have to "wait another 6 months" before this FP can run on POTD? The February queue looks empty from February 7th onwards. Since PFHLai says that 11 days between DYK and POTD is too close, why don't we have this run 3 weeks after it appears as a DYK. Provided that the DYK nom were to be promoted within this week, that would mean the week of February 16–22. Any thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @PFHLai: Sorry for the comment I made above that came off as criticizing your decision not to use the FP in DYK – it wasn't my intention to do so. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bloom6132: The issue is that a month between pictures is still likely to draw criticism on WT:DYK (and the peanut gallery hates birds enough as it is), so if I were to push this back I'd push it back quite a bit further. Maybe not 6... 4 months, perhaps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: 4 months later at POTD sounds reasonable. As far as I can see, there are two possible solutions to this problem:
  1. We run the article with the FP now at DYK and wait for 4 months before running it at POTD.
  2. We run the article without the FP now at DYK and go according to schedule with POTD on February 5.
You did bring up the concern that it would be "unfair to the photographer to have them wait," but given that the recent slew of bird pics at POTD (5 separate pics of 4 birds in the last 2 months) were taken by that photographer, don't you think he wouldn't mind if he had to wait just a tad longer for the final two FPs to feature? Not to mention the peanut gallery would probably kick up less of a fuss with just 2 separate pics of a bird after a 3 month moratorium, as opposed to 7 separate pics with 5 birds. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: Ah, I didn't expect there to be that many unused bird pics. Couldn't you pick some of those images to fill the February, March and April queue while the Black-breasted Thrush pics are rescheduled for later? Unless I'm mistaken, not all of those FP articles are stubs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The dangers of having a skilled photographer who loves birds, I must say. Good thing there aren't 100 temples that I know of with articles nearby, or FP would be swamped with Indonesian temples in two years. I'd rather this one run now as it's been quite a while since promotion. Another article which was delayed for several years is Velodona, with an image which was promoted in 2010. If something like that had to be pushed back 4 months because of DYK... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: I don't think 4 months is really going to make that big of a difference for a POTD that was passed less than 3 years ago. On the flip side, running my DYK 4 months later will definitely make a big difference – there'll be far more in the peanut gallery complaining about that situation. Not to mention that all 4 of the last DYKs with FPs in them were placed as the lead hook – I don't see why this should be the first one not to. If it means postponing it at POTD, well, so be it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@PFHLai Since a compromise/agreement doesn't look likely, it appears that we'll simply have to move my DYK into the special holding area for June 5. Occasion: 4 months after POTD. What do you think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Or, we could, you know, run the DYK without the picture. Which was put forth about 3 times already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As I already pointed out above in my reply, that's never been done for a DYK with an FP (at least for the last 4). I don't see why it should be done now. And I'm not the only one advocating this position of having FPs at DYK – PFHLai and Sven Manguard appear to be saying the same thing above. In that case, the simplest and most logical solution would be to postpone the pic's POTD until 4 months later… —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that this should never be done. I'm saying that in this case, in which the article was brought to the reward board specifically to take it off WP:POTD/Unused so that the image could appear on the main page at POTD, it would have been best to run the DYK without an image iff people have concerns about the image running twice so close together. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, this is honestly getting me stuck in a pickle (and I'm sorry that you got dragged into it as well). On one side, you want to keep the February 5 POTD slot but you're also fine with running the DYK with FP closely afterwards as long as there are no concerns. On the other side, PFHLai likes having DYK with FPs but has concerns with running the DYK so close to POTD. On my side, I'd really like to have the DYK with FP and am willing to compromise and postpone it to June 5 to accommodate your Feb. 5 POTD. Is there any alternative fourth solution (other than running the DYK without FP, which has been flatly rejected)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't think of any, but then I may not be fully awake yet. What about ... another image in DYK? Do we have a different image of the bird? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, several here in Commons. But that'll completely defeat the purpose of this discussion. The only reason why I continue to negotiate here is to get that specific FP to be featured at DYK due to its superior quality. I would've given up long ago and let this DYK run without the picture if it wasn't featured. I don't care about getting the lead hook – I care about having "the best [pictures] WP has to offer" featured on the MP as much as possible. Just to set the record straight, this is the first time I've actively requested for the image to be used in the DYK hook – in previous DYK noms I've had 13 proposed pics turned down and not once did I make a fuss. But it's 3-for-3 when nominating DYKs with FPs in them (here, here and here). If any other pic is selected in it's place, the nom promoter might as well just promote it w/o the replacement pic. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Bloom6132, I'm afraid June 5th would be too far ahead. The long delay will not sit well with many DYK regulars, who may simply ignore the date request and use the nom whenever. The current max. delay is 6 weeks, with April Fools' Day being an exception. Is there a fun hook for April Fools' Day? ... that the breasts of female black-breasted thrushes are not actually black? Maybe too low brow?.... --PFHLai (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492, may I ask what you are going to do with Mangrove Robin, please? The same pic that was DYK'ed last week is scheduled for POTD next week. (See Talk:Mangrove Robin.) So, if 11 days is long enough a time gap for the two identical pics to appear on MainPage, then perhaps we should promote Black-breasted Thrush to queue with the FP right now and not worry about Feb. 5th? If you plan to postpone the robin, would you be postponing the thrush as well? Please advise. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As I've stated previously, I'd rather this run as scheduled. It's been delayed long enough. I can, at most, push the Robin back to February... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @PFHLai: OK, I'm willing to delay the DYK nom for 6 weeks from approval (Jan. 16, meaning Feb. 27 latest) or 11 days before/after POTD on Feb. 5, whichever one receives fewer objections. If it's going to be 11 days before, could you please re-promote the nom soon? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bloom6132, 11 days before? Fine. It's promoted to Prep 2 with the pic now, meant for MainPage later today, 11 days before Feb. 5th. Hope this is okay. The Robin has not moved yet. Maybe the Thrush doesn't have to move, either. Crisco 1492, please move it, or not, as you see fit. --PFHLai (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Moved to 15 March, because why not. Time to go birding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's alright, Bloom6132. No offence taken. No harm done. I assume POTD already has some exclusion policies for pics that have appeared on MainPage as part of TFA or SelAnn, etc. so as to avoid re-runs. I would like to propose the following:

  1. The use of FPs that have yet to be POTDs should be encouraged on DYK.
  2. To avoid re-runs, DYK should not use any FPs that have been recent POTDs or appeared elsewhere on MainPage within a month of the previous appearance.
  3. DYK should avoid using any upcoming POTDs scheduled to appear on MainPage within 10 days. (This should give POTD admins enough time to respond, I hope?)
  4. For upcoming POTDs scheduled to appear on MainPage in more than 10 days, it's the nominator's responsibility to notify POTD admins, discuss and come up with a plan of action, such as not using the pic on DYK, crop and use only part of the pic on DYK, POTD rescheduled to a later date, or the POTD appearing as scheduled with the blurb rewritten in DYK format, etc. (I see ongoing discussion between Bloom6132 & Crisco 1492 already.)

Comments, anyone? --PFHLai (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I like the proposal – it'll certainly help DYK and POTD coordinate the Main Page appearances of FPs better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

The selected pic meant for use on MainPage on February 2nd is the same pic scheduled to be POTD on the following day, February 3rd. Too close? I have no solution in mind. But is this really a problem? Does anyone care? --PFHLai (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC), 11:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  • You're very lucky I happened to see this in my Watchlist, and that the talk page has been so inactive that no posts have been made in the intervening 14 hours; anything this far up the talk page is effectively invisible. I have used a different lead hook for this DYK set—there was an empty prep slot because another hook was removed, so the original lead hook has been moved down one slot and the set is filled. Assuming it is promoted to the queue on time, the set will hit the main page in three hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking care of things, BlueMoonset. Me lucky? It's more like Crisco 1492 being lucky. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I do hope that nobody is considering saying that I am deliberately running these images close to the DYKs. Check when that image was scheduled for POTD. Thanks for removing it, Blue (though who would include such an image at 100px? It's very difficult to discern at that size and should not be run in DYK). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course, it's not you, Crisco. The nominator mentioned above on January 19th that it's POTD on February 3rd, but we never get to discuss it before the nom was promoted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay. Considering the tone of the T:MP discussion, I wouldn't have been surprised if such things had come up... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Back to 8-hour update cycle

I have restored the 8-hour update cycle. Nikkimaria changed the cycle from 8 hours to 12 hours a few days ago, without discussion, apparently because of the high frequency of "Update is almost late" warnings that were appearing on this page. With a good supply of reviewed hooks, plenty more nominations, and the Olympics coming up soon, we shouldn't have difficulty running 21 hooks per day (i.e., the 8-hour cycle) instead of just 14. --Orlady (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What about 18 per day (six per set)? --George Ho (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The length of DYK needs to be balanced with the length of other main-page features. When DYK has just 6 items per set, it means that there's less space for WP:ITN and WP:OTD -- and when the length of the DYK feature fluctuates (as occasionally has happened when users "warred" over the number of hooks per set), it makes life harder for everybody involved with those other features. --Orlady (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The 21-hook setup would require more approvals. Also, ITN may have some less important news, and OTD... I only am interested in 20th century moments. George Ho (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
JMO, but to me, stuff prior to the 20th century is also very interesting for OTD. Maybe more interesting, in fact, particularly as the first 40 or so years of my life were in the 20th century, so.... yawn to those! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As one of the ITN's maintainers, I'll note that the situation you described has led us to pad the section beyond its optimal length (thereby retaining some rather stale items). So reducing DYK to six hooks actually would be helpful. —David Levy 04:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, given my post above, I had trouble enough finding seven hooks for a single prep set the other day. I like the 12-hour cycle, and I also like six hooks. I would suggest keeping the option to run with six hooks and waiting to go back to 8 until there is an obvious pileup with all four prep areas being consistently packed. Montanabw(talk) 18:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Whatever number of hooks is used, please try to keep it consistent from set to set. As Orlady noted, varying the quantity makes the right-hand sections' maintenance more difficult. —David Levy 19:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
6-hook sets are okay if the hooks are long and wordy. It's not really the number of hooks. It's the amount of space the hooks occupy on MainPage. We need to be consistent from set to set. --PFHLai (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

All right, if you want seven-hook set to stay, shall we stick to eight-hour cycle, or switch back to 12-hour? Aside from anti-gay politics in Russia, I don't think Winter Olympics are biggie as Summer Olympics. --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I watch the winter olympics far more than the summer ones; summer is just endless heats of track & field and swimming, bor-ing! Also, am outside a lot int he summer, watch less TV. Montanabw(talk) 21:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Right now the amount of nominations is 200, including 30 verified. --George Ho (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The math is scary: 30 hooks verified and 21 a day, 18 way better wiggle room. Montanabw(talk) 21:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Quotefarm in accessory article

DYK currently in prep area 4:

Did you know that Robert Wolfall the vicar of the Church of St Mary, West Harptree in England (pictured) was the first person to celebrate Holy Communion in North America?

One of the secondary links is a stub article but for a substantial chunk of quote. It's out of copyright, but just looks ugly to me. Any comments? -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I edited the Robert Wolfall article to eliminate much (but by no means all) of the long quotations. --Orlady (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In Queue for the next main page set

Template:Did you know nominations/Third attack on Anzac Cove. This might be a perfect hook and article, but the review seems lacking details. Should the reviewer be able to count it as a QPQ?— Maile (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd count it as a QPQ, but give Hector some pointers as to what to look for (remind him to read the note above the edit box). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

The hook for Émile Coulaudon currently in Prep 3 has a DAB link for Auvergne (sorry, I don't know which one it is supposed to be or I would just fix it). The article also has a 'single source' template on it and a couple of DABs within the article. I've just run Reflinks on it to get rid of the bare urls as well. Could someone have a look at it, please? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the article author to confirm the intended target of the dab link, and I've changed the link to Auvergne (region) for now (on the basis that that article's history section mentions WWII, while the history of Auvergne (province) stops at 1790). The DYK reviewer, User:Piotrus, stated that the "one source" tag wasn't a problem (see nom page); I had the impression that DYK articles aren't supposed to have orange-level maintenance tags, but I can't find this written down anywhere. Is there a rule about this, or is it left to the reviewer's discretion? DoctorKubla (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, DoctorKubla. Sorry, I hadn't noticed the comment about the one source tag on the nomination template - (Piotrus has far more experience than me so I'm happy to bow to their opinion) - but does supplementary Rule D12 apply? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed until now that that rule had been changed, apparently without discussion or consensus. Originally it said "Multiple sources are generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topics." That seems perfectly reasonable, and I think that wording (or similar) should be restored. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree Mandarax. Wikipedia doesn't require multiple sources for some topics (villages, for instance) and any changes to the rules should be discussed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Third this, [1] should be reverted. DYKs are start class, and start class does not require multiple refs; the old wording was fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

LibrariesSearchResult

User:AlexNewArtBot/LibrariesSearchResult - Tedder's bot was taken over by Inceptionbot a while back, but I don't think this is because of the bot. The Libraries Search Result is listing all new DYK nomination templates. Maybe it always has been. Just struck me as odd. I'm not a programmer, but I know User:AlexNewArtBot/Libraries is what tells the bot to look for. — Maile (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the line /\W(is|are|was|were)\s(an?\s|the\s)?(\S*\s){0,6}(librar|archive)/. The bot is picking up on the phrase "is an archive" within "The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below". You can fix this easily by adding ##SuppressNS=Template## to the rules page; however, this will prevent the bot from listing any Template pages, which might not be ideal. A more focused solution would be to add an inhibitor to the rule mentioned above; I'm getting out of my comfort zone here, but I think amending it to read /\W(is|are|was|were)\s(an?\s|the\s)?(\S*\s){0,6}(librar|archive)/ , /DYK\Wnomination\W/ would work. Hope this helps. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I added it. My edit can always be reverted. — Maile (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Prunus mandshurica

The source given for the statement that Prunus mandshurica is an effective antithelmintic is not a scientific study, but a book about herbs. This seems problematic.--Frglz (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's too bad that this problem wasn't found earlier -- before the hook was sent to the main page. The hook for that article is no longer on the main page -- and it looks like the article got a lot of editing attention while it was on the main page. It's unfortunate that such a dubious "fact" got featured at DYK, but DYK was effective, in that the DYK appearance resulted in significant improvements to the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - this was my first promotion to the queue. Please let me know if I screwed up. P.S. The Prep-area are ready to be filled. Cheers, Mentoz (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

Just noticed that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was listed under February 4 a few hours ago, but it is also under the special occasion date holding area February 6. If anyone has time to review this. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this note, Maile. I worked hard on expanding the previous start-class article, hoping to have it listed on February 6, the 140th anniversary, under "On this day...", only to discover a few hours ago that it ought to be a centennial to qualify. Hence the request for a special consideration here. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I have reviewed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Promoted to Prep 2 to move to main page 07:35 New Delhi time. — Maile (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Cwmhiraeth and Maile, for helping out. Much obliged, and I apologize for jumping out of the blue with this nomination on such a short notice. PS: I've removed the dash from the "lion-guru" in the hook to match the source. I hope it's ok at this stage. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It looks like you changed it on the template. As this point, that has no effect on what will appear in the main page. It was promoted to a queue by Allen3, so that change would need to be done by an admin. — Maile (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Change has been made to Template:Did you know/Queue/6. --Allen3 talk 22:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. Cinosaur (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Cinosaur Just out of curiosity because I've been offline when this set was on the main page. It is now an archive minus the image. Did the image have to be removed during its run?— Maile (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
No, the image was up on the main page, and it is still there in the article. I don't know what happened to it en route to the archive. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Maile66: It was a glitch. Restored now. Cinosaur (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Good then. Everything went smoothly for this nomination.— Maile (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, surprisingly so. Must've been your good wishes that worked. Thanks. Cinosaur (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2

Prep 2 needs a new closing hook; I pulled Template:Did you know nominations/Yanaimalai because the hook isn't based on the source, and the whole article needs a thorough copyedit. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Template link update

Would anyone be able to replace the stats.grok.se link on the page with this link on WMF Labs? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, this is a really impressive tool. However, I think it is WMF that will be replacing Henrik's tool with this one, on all pages straight across Wikipedia. Have you tried posting this on the Village Pump (technical) to see when they plan on doing this? — Maile (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I just meant having it replaced in the template where we notify users about their page views, but I wasn't able to quickly figure out how everything works. I did post on the Proposals page here, so that is how I learned about it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Lower to 18 or 14 hooks per day?

Currently, we have two prep areas filled and 166 nominations, including 17 verified. --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Updates are currently being done manually, since the bot isn't working. Given the general slowdown in hook production, administrators would be justified in relaxing the update schedule -- no harm in letting the schedule slip by an hour or two, while hoping for the bot to magically reappear. --Orlady (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I see the bot updating the template twice since this post. Why are there still manual updates? --George Ho (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Redacting my comments, bot is totally working. But there are 150+ nominations, including 13 verified hooks; can I eliminate seventh blank hooks immediately? George Ho (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the bots are functioning again. Please don't eliminate the 7th slot. We have enough hooks backlogged to last a week, not counting the approved hooks in the special occasions area. --Orlady (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
For now there are eleven reserved hooks for February, including Olympics ones. --George Ho (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Special holding areas

  • Surveillance awareness day was a failed proposal, as of January 27. Oleg Syromolotov is an approved hook for that proposal and is being held for Feb 11, but could go right now.
  • Eva Ganster is an unapproved hook moved to the Feb 11 holding area on Feb 4.
  • The Olympics holding area only has 7 approved articles. An 8th hook, Emery Lehman is in the area as approved, but has an unapproved ALT hook that seems to have been added later.

— Maile (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I thought that we had decided against a special anti-surveillance day? Matty.007 19:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify my thoughts, I feel that we should not hold these hooks until February 11. Matty.007 19:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We definitely did not agree to an anti-surveillance day thing. Holding hooks on that basis is going against consensus in my view. I say put them in the next available lot of prep areas but making sure they don't run on 11 February. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't run them together, perhaps a Prep in between? Matty.007 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Eva Ganster is for the women's ski jump at the Olympics. And just to clarify what I said, the surveillance day died as unsuccessful. The protest isn't happening on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I was talking more about Syromolotov, but if that's the only one... Thanks, Matty.007 19:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • As I've commented at the discussion on the first hook, how can you possibly justify having a special holding area for one kind of special event (the Olympics) but not another (protests against surveillance)? Who decides which editors have a worthy cause for advocacy and which do not? I should emphasize that the proposal that was rejected[2] was one for a different kind of DYK using hooks from articles that were not recently created, which I also opposed. Wnt (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be quite a difference in media attention to the Winter Olympics and to the "The day we fight back" campaign. The Winter Olympics of course is everywhere, The Day We Fight Back not so much. I couldn't for instance find anything about the latter in New York Times or CNN. So, apart from the fundamental problem of using DYK for a protest campaign, the campaign may also be to obscure to deserve a special day on DYK. Iselilja (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I can name one neutral way to ensure that timely DYKs are run without prejudice: allow the editor proposing the DYK to request a hold until a specified date within the next six weeks. Can you name another? Because the argument that events are "obscure" is certainly not one of them. It would mean, for example, that Wikipedia features and coordinates with events in large English-speaking countries only, with popular causes but not unpopular ones, etc. The entire purpose of DYK is to consciously defer some initiative to the editors who create the articles. Wnt (talk) 11:28, o6 February 2014 (UTC)
I think there is some difference between asking for one particular article (and maybe more than one) to be scheduled for a particular day (for instance an anniversary) and to ask for having a whole DYK set devoted to a particular theme (special holding area); sidelining the principle of having varied topics in every set. Otherwise, yeah, we have a 200 constitution jubilee in Norway this year on 17 May, so I intend to ask for several articles to be scheduled that day and hope that won't be seen as to obscure ;). Iselilja (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the jubilee -- congratulations! But certainly if you get some articles passed in DYK I don't see why you can't have them run on that day to commemorate the occasion. If I accept your right to schedule any DYK you get promoted on the day of your choice, that is an easy decision that involves no rancorous political debate. The natural limit on it is your willingness and ability to start new articles. The only potential downside would be if so many editors request specific days that we have too many to fit in a day, which would require some kind of secondary winnowing. Because there's a big pool of DYKs and you can't delay DYKs from running indefinitely, there's no real worry that we'll run out by allowing you the discretion to schedule as you like, though we might see the number needed in the pipeline gradually increase a bit. Now by comparison, imagine the alternative -- people arguing over which events can be featured and which can't. You replace the meaningful filter -- who puts in the work to create DYKs -- with the power struggle -- who commands T:TDYK and can push their POV and only their POV on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
We have already had a vote, and there was at the least no consensus to keep hooks for any special protest day, so they should be run as normal. Matty.007 17:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

Most of the nominations on the last list have been reviewed, so I've compiled a new set of 33 nominations that need reviewing. Three are from December, so please take one of them on if you can. We currently have 152 total nominations, of which only 7 are approved, and we need 21 per day for the main page. Thanks as always for your reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

J. L. Carpenter

Is there any way this can be pulled and re-run on April Fools, which I specified twice in my nom? – Connormah (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for missing that when I promoted it. It would have been helpful it had been moved to the special holding area after the review. Pulling it takes an admin, so I personally cannot correct this. — Maile (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It's already on the MP, so I doubt most admins would pull it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I figured as such. I theoretically could have done it myself but I would have unquestionably messed something up along the way. Oh well... – Connormah (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Main page spelling error, Louis Leakey, not Lewis

Can an admin who watches DYK correct the spelling error on the main age? --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC))

thai is incredibly sloppy. Doesn't anyone check DYKs? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
No one clicks on what they link to. Especially in a hook, just click on it! Someone fixed it, after thousands of hits. --(AfadsBad (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC))

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Review request of hook placement

The hook for the DYK nomination of Josh Hutcherson was added to a queue earlier [3] without the image it was nominated with. I understand that not every image can make it to the top spot but I have a hard time understanding why any one editor get's to decide which image gets that spot and which nominations don't get to utilize the picture they were brought in with. I get the feeling that's a part of the process that just "is the way it is." But I do believe that adding the image to this particular nomination would be beneficial to the hook. Hutcherson's article receives a decent amount of traffic, (see here) so once on the main page, the image of him will likely help with the face to name recognition and give the article additional traffic. Gloss • talk 05:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are far more images suggested with hook nominations than we can possibly use (we run only one image in every set of 7 hooks, and I estimate that roughly 3 out of every 7 nominations includes an image, so it's clear that we can't run every image). Volunteers need to make choices. Criteria for selection include how eye-catching the image is at small size, whether the image illustrates the hook fact (i.e., adds information value), and a desire to vary the types of images we display in DYK. The Josh Hutcherson image isn't particularly striking, it doesn't illustrate the hook fact, and because it's an image of a white man it wouldn't inject much variety here. That's the way it goes. Maybe you'll have better luck next time. For what it's worth, only one of my last three image suggestions made it to the main page. --Orlady (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I find it really strange that a picture of a sponge is somehow better to put on the main page than a picture of a well known American actor. But life goes on. Gloss • talk 06:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There's already a "well known American actor" pictured on the MP, right now. How many sponges have been on the MP recently? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Not enough, it seems :) Gloss • talk 07:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion of DYK

I don't recall a notice being placed here, but an ANI discussion that directly relates to the DYK holding area was started a few hours ago. — Maile (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3 link disruption

Can somebody please take a look at Prep 3? I'm slightly uncomfortable with the arrangement. I find the presence of the heavily linked hook disruptive and visually too uncomfortable. Nothing we can do about the hook, but maybe rearranging them might help? -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for possible 11 February scheduling of article

Mentoz wrote an article Finn Hågen Krogh today he would like to have on the mainpage 11 February because it relates to an olympic event this day; I reviewed; so if anybody has time to see if it may be promoted and scheduled at the requested day, that would be highly appreciated. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I put it in Prep 1, which is the next one to move up to the Main page, and should be daytime hours in Europe. Does this look like a good slot to you? — Maile (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Many thanks! Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you ;) Mentoz (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Premature promotions

I'd frankly like to know why two of the hooks on that page were promoted with icons still active. Promoters should only be taking hooks with active ticks. I've removed one, since there was an active question; the other was a QPQ matter that might be allowable ... if a tick had been added first—though not by the promoter, since approver and promoter should always be different. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I already apologised for one, and I apologise again. That's three 'hail marys' and more regular attendance at mass/confession. I misread as an apparent approval, being too anxious to fill the prep area. I need to slow down. But I am glad you did not chastise me for promoting something with an omitted tick that I added myself? ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ohconfucius, since promoters are also the final check to be sure the reviewer didn't miss anything, I'm glad to read you're planning to slow down: we have a fair number of inexperienced or hasty reviewers around, so making sure the hook facts are supported in the article (and checking the actual source), making sure the ALT hook chosen was actually approved, and making other spotchecks, are a good idea when going over approved nominations. My experience is that I rarely finish a prep set without having to send at least one nomination I thought to promote back for more work. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Time to reduce run rate?

It looks like it is time to reduce DYK's current run rate. The table below shows the number of nominations received for each day over the past two weeks (dates that are currently open for additional nominations are shown with a red background):

Date # of Hooks
January 28 11
January 29 12
January 30 9
January 31 11
February 1 26
February 2 19
February 3 15
February 4 22
February 5 15
February 6 7
February 7 14
February 8 10
February 9 10
February 10 3
Total 184

Based upon these numbers, the 8 most recent days listed at Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations have a mean of 15.625 nominations/day. The last two weeks as a whole has a mean of ~13.143 nominations/day with this value expected to increase as additional noms are received for the open dates. Based upon these numbers it seems fairly obvious that we can not continue to support our current run rate of 21 hooks/day until an increase in the submission rate occurs. Such an increase may occur in the next few weeks (the 2012 Olympics produced a surge in nominations for biographies of athletes and the next Wikicup round begins on March 1), but such an increase can not be counted upon until it occurs. The big question seems to be do we switch to 3 sets of 6 hooks/day (18 hooks/day) or 2 sets of 7 (14 hooks/day)? --Allen3 talk 13:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked numerous times for a change, but I see no one else supporting the change. Orlady thinks that six per set would disrupt the flow. I would prefer seven per set and 12-hour cycle. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Orlady correctly noted that because we seek approximate balance between the two columns, a reduction from seven hooks to six would impact the right-hand column. But I pointed out that this actually would be helpful at ITN, where it would enable us to retain fewer stale items (at least for the time being).
On that basis, I support the idea of switching to three sets of six hooks (eighteen hooks total) per day. —David Levy 08:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it's now clearly time to reduce the run rate. We may need to go back up when the next Wikicup round begins in March, but 131 is quite low, especially with only two and a third sets out of ten filled, and only a handful of hooks in the special occasion area for the next week or so. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to be WP:BOLD and reduce to six hooks from seven. If we need a more drastic reduction, I think two sets of seven is the next step, and then to two sets of six. For now, however, we can't wait any longer to reduce, so we're now at three sets of six. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Preps

Could somebody please complete Prep 3, then ping me so I can queue it? We've only got a couple hours left. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed one from the main page

@LauraHale and Aymatth2: I thought this had been handled, but apparently not... I have just pulled Jose Marin Rodriguez from the main page. It's one of the User:LauraHale Spanish athletes articles, which are riddled with serious errors, and which have led to a lengthy WP:AN discussion and her abandoning the creation of further similar articles. This has been discussed at WT:DYK before, but it seems as if still these can slip through the cracks...

Back to the article at hand; apart from nearly incomprehensible sentences like "Nymburk, Czech Republic again hosted the location of Marin's next gold medal which he won the men's individual recurve event at the 2009 CTO World Championships.", we also get factual and easy to understand informaton like "He participated in the recurve W1-W2 event, finishing fourth behind Italian gold medalist Oscar Pellegrin, Malaysian silver medalist Hasihin Sanawi and Malaysian bronze medalist Lung Hui Tseng.[13]". The problem is, he didn't finish fourth, he was eliminated in the 1/8th finals by Korean Young Joo Jung (6-2 defeat) after finishing the ranking round as 11th (with 591 points) and defeating Japanese Yutaka Ajima 6-0 in the 1/16th finals. The source given for the 4th place states "Destacar que el tirador de la delegación española José Marín Rodríguez llego hasta unos meritorios octavos de final.", but this was too hard to understand: since only the three medals and Rodriguez were given, this had to mean that he finished fourth, no? Quality journalistic work, that. (Note that the same sentence from the article mentions "Malaysian bronze medalist Lung Hui Tseng.", who was actually from Taipeh, not Malaysia; why stop at one blatant error when you can cram two of them in one sentence?).

I don't know and don't care whether this page violated any of the many DYK rules; BLPs with such blatant errors in them shuold not be tolerated on the main page. Please be more careful in general, and with LauraHale's articles in particular. Fram (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone would think that one sentence isn't enough to pull the article (I hope no one does, but stranger things have happened): consider the sentence I already gave above, "Nymburk, Czech Republic again hosted the location of Marin's next gold medal which he won the men's individual recurve event at the 2009 CTO World Championships." This seems to state that he won the gold medal at the 2009 world championships for "the men's individual recurve event", right? But the source given for this fact, [4], clearly states: "CTO DEL MUNDO 2009— NYMBURK (CZE) ARCO RECURVO EQUIPO OPEN— ORO". "Equipo", sadly, is Spanish for "Team", so he didn't win the individual event at all, he won the team event. A notable achievement, don't get me wrong, but if we make an article on a living person, and certainly if we highlight it on the main page, we should make sure that it is reasonably correct. This obviously can't be said about this article, presenting at least two major events in his career incorrectly. Fram (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  • OUCH! I agree it was serious enough to warrant pulling, and thank you for doing the dirty. The article has been languishing in the noms area since before the ANI. Radioactivity declines by its own over time, but unfortunately bad articles don't improve by themselves. Thanks also for so painstakingly explaining the problems, which actually seem quite elementary. Oh, if my Spanish was any good...

    LauraHale has proven time and again she should have nothing to do with sourcing articles using Spanish citations. And judging from the grammatical errors, one should question whether she should be writing at all. The DYK team's biggest mistake seems that we did not attach a "super-maximum high risk factor" when reviewing what she writes for the DYK. Barge poles and fine tooth combs come to mind. -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

    • Oh ... my ... god. Did Laura Hale not undertake recently to ANI to have every single article creation she "translates" from the Spanish reviewed by a native Spanish-speaker, and did WMF board trustee Maria Sefaradi not agree to perform this role? Tony (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Maria may not even have been aware of this turkey. Apologies to turkies. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I was not aware of this issue, was obviously too casual in reviewing the article, and missed the factual errors in the mass of results details in the sources. I have corrected the errors and also copy-edited to make the language a bit less stilted. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)As far as I am aware, LauraHale hasn't touched any of these articles anymore since the start of the AN discussion, not even those nominated for DYK or those with the most blatant errors exposed at the discussion. It would probably be wised to decline all the ones still at DYK by default (if any are left, havent checked yet). Fram (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
          • There were two brought forward, but the other may have already gone through the MP. Allah be merciful. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2

Just an observation: There are 2 assassination hooks in Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There shouldn't have been; I've moved one of them. Yoninah, next time you see something similar, just move the hooks yourself. Two assassination-related bio hooks is clearly one too many. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yoninah, I suppose I've reaped what I sowed, but my understanding of "quirkiest" doesn't match yours: someone almost severing their foot doesn't seem quirky to me, which is why I moved the "Long" Jones into the quirky position to begin with (quirky name plus was a legislator in two states). Not that I can do anything about it now that it's in Queue 2 ... BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree it should have been at the bottom too. I had originally put the Long Jones article at the bottom upon its promotion, and someone changed the position. I'm not one to war over placements, so I didn't challenge the change. If we are all agreed, one of the resident admins can always move it. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I still think that a skater almost severing her foot is far more interesting than a politician with an odd nickname. It will probably get a ton of hits in the last position. Yoninah (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

I just attempted to complete a prep set (3 hooks were already in place). If I did it right, could someone move it to the queue, which is going live in a few hours? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot

It looks like DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs) has stopped working. --PFHLai (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We are late, and the Bot is acting strangely....

Can someone review and move the hooks in Prep 2 to queue or directly to MainPage, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping Crisco 1492 and see if he's available. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Sent to queue. But I don't think we're that late. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

oops edit clash Victuallers (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Okay, what's happening here? I put Prep 2 in Queue 5 here, but the bot copied this to the MP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

ACLU v. Clapper

I just noticed that the ACLU v. Clapper hook was removed for copyvio concerns. Chris857 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, it seems that HectorMoffat, in his haste to create a bunch of articles he wanted to bet onto the Main Page on 11 February, has been borrowing liberally from other people's work, sometimes as huge block quotes, sometimes without attribution. Mass surveillance in China got pulled for the the latter reason. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Kanako Momota DYK

i've X'd this nom numerous times, in case no ones noticed, with very clear reasoning & every time i check-back its still there ignored; am i missing something in the process?? hey am i in my right to remove it from the list myself? because... now this already questionable nominator is reverting edits/deletions i made (also clearly explained) deflecting attention with skewed/misinformed explanations &/or accusations of (his) own, & ignoring other major shortcomings which ive noted even very recently (i.e. in memos listed just above his own clueless appeals)... this person has already clearly exhibited poor judgement & abuse of privelidge; (he) doesnt speak the language though he's providing only Japanese source material; he showed up from the start with an article which was in need of a full rewrite... the nominator at this point no longer deserves the "author" credit because 99% of current content is from the bits of contributions of other editors, AND i'm not even sure this nom qualifies as an "expansion" any more! must i continue wasting my time when there are clear abuses & assumptions of allowance by such a misguided selfish clueless nominator??? your swift response & assistance to this matter is highly appreciated Japanglish (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • How sad. How I do so agree with you. However, I really don't think my intervention will be helpful in bringing the drama to a smooth end. Here's hoping some wiser person watching this will help end this matter some way or another. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
by the way: the nominator-in-question is now instigating trouble with edits at the related Momoiro Clover Z article/talkpage, at which he has been ruling some kind of self-imagined fiefdom for a good deal of time. Japanglish (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't believe Momoiro Clover Z has been nominated for DYK nor would it fulfil DYK criteria even if it was nominated. To solve that one, maybe try WP:ANI? -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • i know thats not up for dyk nom; just pointing out that the editor-in-question is ruffling feathers with other contributors (viewable at the bottom of the momocloz talk page) in the same way he's trying to manipulate the Momota dyk nom (& at the same time!)... piece of work, that one. thanks for your show of support though, i plan to follow it through as long as his/her slip is showing~ let me know if i can help anytime Japanglish (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Almost all of the nominations on the last list have been reviewed, so I've compiled a new set of 29 nominations that need reviewing. Three are from December, so please take them on if you can. We currently have 141 total nominations, of which only 19 are approved, and we need 18 approved per day for the main page. Thanks as always for your reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Swiss referendum item

I feel that the item currently in Queue 2, which says "dyk that Swiss voters passed a referendum limiting immigration that could harm Switzerland's access to the EU single market?" is overly alarmist and violates WP:NPOV. The hook could equally have said "dyk that Swiss voters stood up to 'bullying' from Brussels by passing a referendum limiting immigration?" A new hook needs to be found. The comment is actually a quote from an official of the European Commission, which is obviously in crisis management mode, but the hook doesn't say who's opinion it is. Also. it is purely speculative at this point, unless the EU already intends a diplomatic tit-for-tat that they have not yet made public. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually, pull the item altogether and reject the DKY as no longer eligible. The item already made the Main Page two days ago as part of ITN. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • An admin needs to replace this ineligible hook before it hits the Main Page in two hours. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We are now one hook short of a full set in queue 2. There are now 5 hooks in that queue, and none in the prep areas. We need to do some promotions. I would do that if I'm not on a mobile device. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think it is a bit odd that ITN articles can't appear in DYK while DYK articles are not automatically excluded from ITN. I'm not arguing to have this put back since I wasn't aware it was on ITN and I accept the rules, however I do think it is a bit inconsistent that one article can't appear in one project if it has been in another yet the rules don't work vice versa. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Current events DYK

Resolved

I expanded Template:Did you know nominations/Zbigniew Bródka about a Polish winner in current Winter Olympics. Probably worth reviewing and displaying in the near future? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Goldmine of DYK subjects

If anyone is looking for something to write, then there is a goldmine of stuff with the Winter Olympics-have a look at the athletes here for example, the majority need Wikipedia pages. They also have a fair amount of info on them, especially after they have competed, so please create them. Thanks, Matty.007 12:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I know this is ridiculously short notice, but I am writing John Baines (bobsledder), who is competing this evening. Please can it go in the next queue (it would need to be reviewed near instantly). Thanks, Matty.007 13:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The nom is at Template:Did you know nominations/John Baines (bobsledder). Thanks, Matty.007 14:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

New tool

Hi all, a friend of mine has developed a tool using the WMF's Individual Engagement Grant program, meta:Grants:IEG/Replay Edits. This tool basically shows an animation of edits to an article. I believe this would provide a great insight to the articles' expansion and help both content creators as well as nominators. Please have a look at the tool here and post your feedback on the talk page. I have requested a few features similar to DYKCHECK. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Any chance?

I know this is (again) really short notice, but please can someone review Template:Did you know nominations/James Machon (skier) for tomorrow, entry into Queue 5? Thanks, Matty.007 19:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been reviewed, thanks, Matty.007 20:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act

I confirm that as reviewer I have no problems or issues with Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act being promoted and run. DES (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DES. I was concerned when I saw it had been promoted without a tick from you, and wanted to be sure there wasn't anything else you might have been concerned about when doing a final check of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

IWD holding area

There are currently 14 articles in the holding area for IWD on 8 March, and more waiting in the wings. If we are to run three sets on that day as we do at present, this will already exceed the 50% quota of biographies. Are we going to suspend the quota for that day? If not, we need to start managing the hooks. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Good question. If we have too many, the Angela Stent one I just moved down there could be moved back up. I think nominator Chris troutman would be just as happy if the nomination ran earlier. — Maile (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Can't tell if she's a Brit or American. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you asking to see if there is a good international mix? The article says she was born in London and her husband is a natural-born American. It does not say she became an American citizen. And there's really no reason for the article to say so if she didn't change citizenship. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
She worked for the State Department so she has to be a US citizen. Yes, run that hook on another day if the 8 March queue is overflowing. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Chris troutman, please respond to this. If you would like to have Angela Stent run the normal way, which mean it might run earlier, let me know here. I will move it out of the special holding area. It's your nomination, so you tell me. If you would prefer it to stay in the special holding area, say so. I prefer to accommodate your wishes on the nomination. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think that if the 8 March's DYK hooks are all about women, that would probably constitute a NPOV violation. Given that what we have and what is waiting would go over the quota, I would suggest closing the area to new submissions ensure that the iwd hooks don't account for more than 50% so that a sense of balance can be maintained. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed that we should close the IWD area, now. We then need to consider 1/bumping and 2/asking for voluntary withdrawals. Poll, maybe? -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ummm ..I see your point C of E, however we frequently have days with few women represented at all, every week and every month. I roughly estimate that 50% of the women based articles for this month are going on March 8th. ie It takes weeks to find one day of articles about women! If we tried to do this with male biographies then we would find them in less than a week. Halloween has all halloween articles and Xmas has all xmas..... I cannot see a reason why one underrepresented group shouldn't have a day to them selves. If we have too many then they can run after March 8th. What is a pity is that up to now we have only biographies - we could have "women" based articles that were not biographies. If you would like to correct the national bias then try here - there are lots that could be written. There is a risk that just one day next month we may not show male bias - that is what the day is about and the reason why it was discussed in advance. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm not convinced that we either need a special day for women, and I also am not 100% sure if we should be running 'special' days on the main page. Matty.007 17:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify my above statement, if we have a special day for women, where do we draw the line? If people want more female DYK hooks, write more female DYK articles. Matty.007 18:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Earlier I expressed some reservations about a concentration of hooks about women on IWD, mainly because I don't think that women are so unusual as to need to be a special focus for one day (and, by implication, ignored the rest of the year). Rather than freezing the IWD holding area, let's selectively pull out some hooks to run earlier, while allowing others to be added. Based on a cursory review of the holding area, four hooks currently in that area (Angela Stent, Jocelyn Hay, Cordelia E. Cook, and Emma Mashinini) appear to be of singular interest for IWD, but the rest are more commonplace notable women whose hooks could be run earlier. --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree on that approach. I think that having a few select gems would work well enough. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the archives, I'd say that we have been disregarding the quota for IWD in the past. Even that was not enough. We can start early when it's IWD in the Far East, before it's IWD by UTC. And we can have spill-overs at 0:00h, March 9th, when it's still IWD in the US West Coast. We can also run 4 shifts, instead of 3, on that day. --PFHLai (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there's definitely precedent for sets containing only IWD hooks, as this was done for at least three years. In any case, I strongly oppose closing the section to new entries. The more options we have, the greater the chances of creating sets with a balanced range of topics. For example, the section currently contains only one athlete and no scientists. If we get more than we can use for IWD, the remaining ones can be spread out during March for Women's History Month. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
With that in mind, why not change the section heading to say it's for Women's History Month.— Maile (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think the DYKs on IWD have to exclusively feature women. Since we have been hoarding for IWD, next to no pages featuring women have made any dyk set, except for the olympians. As noted below, we are not getting enough DYK nominations through and hooks are only getting filled at the last minute because we just can't keep up. I don't see that as being a good thing. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Please note that the idea of running an International Women's Day was discussed here... in advance. Now that we? have the articles required to fill the day, we seem to have a lot of interest in managing it, renaming it and otherwise working out that it was never required in the first place. Are you sure this is what people expect of this project? I admire your confidence but I suspect you may be just annoying those who felt that their? articles may appear and they are now told that someone has had another discussion and decided to re-decide. There are more people who have actively decided to take part than the number of people having a discussion here. Editors may drift away. Victuallers (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
More coming I'm suggesting that we decide on someone (or several people) to put together the hook sets for the day. If we are allowed two, three or four sets then we could have a number of people to choose which will be chosen on the day and which will run later.
  • Is it possible to run over more than 24 hours as per @PFHLai's suggestion
  • Can we run at an increased rate - we used to run every six hours...
  • Can we increase the number of hooks? Eight would seem to be reasonable.
Which of these is more acceptable? As the new template (thanks) notes this is not important as we can run out the excess over the month. Victuallers (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I think all are perfectly acceptable, time zones do allow for a bit of leeway to spill over into the days before and after. 8 hooks for 6 hours on that day would get a lot through. However, the point I made I think is still valid that we ought to not make every single hook there about women, in case we violate NPOV. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Surely if we choose just one extra hook then that is showing bias. Conversely we have days when every hook is male or male based and we don't raise this as an issue. Can you suggest how we solve this? It doesn't feel quorate that we should settle this without a wee bit wider debate. If we have 6 hooks and only five are female biographies then is that OK? I'm guessing that an average amount is around 1 (and may be less). With April fools day and Xmas Day we go for 100% but try and retain as much breadth of subject (given the theme) as is possible. I would like to argue that a day of all female hooks actually assists in resisting out usual NPOV that happens every month. So how do we find a solution? Victuallers (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_101&oldid=1142665742"