Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

LavaBaron's editing restrictions

Per this AN thread, LavaBaron is given editing restrictions on DYK. Any hook nominated or reviewed by LavaBaron must be reviewed by a second editor before it may be promoted to the main page. The restrictions are reproduced below as follows:

1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
4. (To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.
5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

The enforcement of these rules should be the responsibility of all editors who promote DYK hooks. Any editor may undo the promotion of any hook to a prep area or a queue area (for admins) whose promotion was made in contravention to these restrictions, assuming good faith and citing this AN restriction. --Deryck C. 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this addition to the header section of T:TDYK really necessary? It feels to me like a scarlet letter. LavaBaron has agreed on his or her user talk page to note that double reviews are needed in his nominations and reviews, which is where the reminder is needed, so is a header notice necessary and appropriate? EdChem (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary given Lavabaron's commitment to add a note to his contributions, so have reverted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass - thanks, but I don't have an issue with it. It may be better for everyone involved if it was still in place. I'll defer to your judgment, though. LavaBaron (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, EdChem, I very much appreciate your comment. However, by way of explanation, I don't have any issue with the header, personally. This restriction will eventually slip off other editors radars and I don't want to risk getting blocked if another editor doesn't notice my own warning notes and accidentally promotes anyway. In the grand scheme of things, I'm fine with being publicly exhibited in the stockade for awhile if the alternative is the hangman. I'm probably wrapping things up here anyway, so it's not really a big deal. LavaBaron (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You are not going to get blocked for the actions of another editor! However, since you've made the commitment to remind other editors of your restrictions in your contributions to T:TDYK, you will need to stick to it as failing to do so might attract unwanted attention. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity, I think LavaBaron is wise to include reminders on his nominations and reviews. Just because something is objectively unreasonable doesn't mean it won't happen, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, however, I was just blocked on accident the other day - which I've just learned can't be WP:REVDEL from my log and will be part of my permanent record as long as my account exists - so I would like to be extra careful in any edit I make, or any edit anyone else makes that may in some way reference me by name. (I apologize, in advance, for publicly disagreeing and if the preceding comment seemed insolent; it was not my intent to be but rather to observe a personal experience as a possible reason for maintaining the header alert so that as many people as possible know that my DYKs require extra scrutiny. I appreciate all the work you do for WP as an admin and will defer, without further debate or objection, to you judgment on this question.) LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

EdChem you claim Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity..., could you provide an explanation for this including diffs please? As far as I could tell, most people who are pulling hooks are doing it based on the fact that they are erroneous, or ill-sourced or malignant. Of course, you could correct me if I'm wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I expressed my opinion. I am in favour of higher quality and minimising inaccuracies in articles on WP. I am not, however, comfortable with the discussions which come across as disdainful of the contributors and contributions to DYK. Examples, quotations all being from you, FYI:

• "Admins who deal with errors here are under no obligation to do anything" is the exact attitude of image patrollers who tag and notify when fixing the problem was as easy or easier, and ignoring the disruption caused. It comes with an apparent belief of superiority which is really irritating. That you can just pull a hook rather than fix does not mean that that course of action is appropriate or wise. Also, you signed as an admin who "participate at DYK but rarely move prep sets to queues and updating main page" but reserve the right to disregard the structures of DYK ("DYK rules are non-binding on admins", "I'm not arguing, I'm stating fact. Admins are not under any obligation to comply with the arcane and multifarious "rules" of DYK") - hardly helpful. Maybe things wouldn't be so oppositional if hooks were corrected rather than pulled (by all means discuss here or with the nominator / reviewers afterwards) or returned once corrected. You could build some goodwill by protecting the main page and advancing the goals of DYK within that broader goal, rather than always coming across as critical. Admins are supposed to be editors with extra buttons not rulers, and while I have no doubt you can make a case for being uninvolved, from my perspective you come with a pre-existing opinion and bias against DYK - you come across as disdainful ("DYK are no longer interested in interesting hooks it would appear, they are just too obsessed with self-preservation").
• "... not worth the grief and the disruption to the arcane processes and delicate individuals here" - good to see your healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here.
• "... the review process is up shit creek" - this is an over-broad generalisation which does not acknowledge or recognise the good work being done by many reviewers. Take me, for example... I've never had a hook pulled from the main page (nor do I recall one from the queue) and I don't recall one of my reviews being subsequently faulted. I've noted problems with paraphrasing and sourcing and I believe I am thorough (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - you can look at all my DYKs if you like). In some cases, I have posted after a tick is given to address a problematic review. Is my work "up shit creek" too? Or are there people here who could use some acknowledgement and who can serve as examples for new reviewers to follow? The QPQ system has its flaws and I favour removing QPQ credits from poor reviews so that another review is needed for their nomination to proceed, but the flaws don't make DYK worthless. There is some high quality work done here, both editing and reviewing, and that seems to go unnoticed. For example, I am proud of this case where what was brought to DYK was inaccurate and low quality and what went on to the main page was much higher quality (IMO).
• "The answer: slow the rate down" - you said this in the context of the JetBlue hook which you described as "dreadful and promotional" (an accurate assessment, IMO). You have posted repeatedly about section length and rate and built no consensus for change. I suggest that is, in part, because your approach leads to a high degree of defensiveness. I can't see why 8 hooks rather than 7 is a problem for DYK, and if that is better for balancing the main page then it is something that should be collegially achievable. Isn't it better for WP and our readers if we can work together?

All of the above are from the last two weeks or so. In that time we've also had a proposed topic ban at AN, and you are not alone in having an approach which I see as counter-productive. DYK has problems with reviewing, there is no doubt, and at times hooks need to be pulled from the queue and (sadly) sometimes from the main page - sadly because they shouldn't get that far - but what feels like a "gotcha" approach even in cases where a small edit would address the issue is IMO leading editors to feel threatened and attacked when what is needed is for them (and us) to understand how things get missed and to learn from mistakes. EdChem (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

TLDR: DYK regulars don't like the fact they're being scrutinised and that they're being unveiled as a reasonably owny bunch who are content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page. If you think the admin tools have been abused by me or anyone else in pulling detritus from the main page, then do something about it. As for "healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here", damned straight. The process consistently fails, and the individuals involved put up the shutters, heads into the sand and pretend everything's okay once these awkward people pointing out all these issues will go away. Well newsflash, we're not going away. And low quality or erroneous hooks will continue to be removed and those responsible for continually supporting them will be called out. Sorry if you misinterpreted that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Blunt version: Your strategy is frustrating your aim. Your description of MY work as "low quality" and me as being "content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page" as a consequence of my reviewing work is rejected as unsupported by evidence and obnoxious. Your attitude and behaviour convey disdain for DYK which renders your objectivity questionable. Newsflash, DYK isn't going away. You could try working with us to address problems... or is that too difficult? Sorry if this is too sensible for you. EdChem (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I work every day to improve every DYK that goes through the system. I don't have time to double check every hook but have pulled or suggested several be pulled en route to the main page. I have made multiple suggestions to improve things and yet DYK and its guardians see themselves as impervious and near-perfect, and criticism of any type is simply rejected. There's too much ownership and mollycoddling of editors in this part of the main page, it's unhealthy and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. There's not enough responsibility taken for continuous issues, this thread is the first of its kind and is probably about five years too late coming. Sorry if that's too much truth for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I made one suggestion for improving DYK, and you shot it down, in a fit of ownership, perhaps. Lay out your proposal(s), perhaps at VPP, if you don't like this page, and live with the fact that others have different opinions and views than you. Other people are not going away, either, and as you appear to think you are besieged, there must be more of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It takes more than one opposition to "shoot down" a reasonable proposal. And I'm here for the longhaul, whether the masses like it or not, so wise up. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually it got quite a bit of reasonable support, including from Fram. But your comment shows either a lack of the wisdom of self-awareness, or just plain hypocrisy, you act as if everyone who does not agree with you is suddenly a borg, when what's true is they just individually disagree with you and you can't handle it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Off topic-discussion

Then I wasn't the only to object by a long chalk. I can handle all of this, unlike the whinging DYK owners. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Your whingeing ('to complain persistently in a peevish way') shows otherwise. Sure, the borg is the boogeyman. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Not at all, I've offered several ways the process can improve, and indeed I actively engage in improving each and every DYK myself, including preventing copyvios being posted, including removing non-fair use images, including actually reading beyond the hook, checking for grammar and other minor improvements. I have no idea what you're talking about, but that doesn't surprise me. Now either focus on the discussion at hand, or chase me to my talk page to continue in your lame attempt at berating me, but either way, stop wasting time here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Of course, you argue you don't know what people are talking about and then continue with extended arguments that are oddly excited and bizarrely preachy, wise up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I asked you nicely to stop wasting time here. Please continue the attempt to berate me elsewhere. Otherwise stick to the program, improving DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I'm not wasting, anytime. Your way of asking things is decidedly not nice, don't fool yourself. Regardless, this is about improving DYK, as we are discussing the matter of proposing, discussing, and making changes in DYK. As your complaints persist about a borg in charge, here, you've been pointed to how to handle that complaint appropriately. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I've really got no idea what you are continually going on about. I have suggested solutions and actively work on problematic issues here. You? Nothing but odd and meaningless analogies. Try to be part of the solution, and stop eating time here failing in beating me up for telling the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Could someone uninvolved hat this worthless diatribe? We can return to trying to fix the many problems, rather than bizarre Star Trek comparisons. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC) It just cannot be true that you don't understand you whine and complain the "DYK guardianship" or "regulars" "ownership" obstruct your proposals for reform. Just stop and handle it the appropriate way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Alan, you've missed the point entirely. Unlike you I make positive contributions to every single DYK that passes to the main page, sometimes I have to stop them because they're junk for one reason or another. Sometimes other diligent editors have to pull them because they're junk. Those of us concerned with quality will take whatever steps necessary. Now, I urge you, please stop beating yourself up and saying the same meaningless things over and over again, and let some capable people try to handle the problem, and that includes stopping this meaningless guff. Now, over to you for the final word (and then a (ce)) and we're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK, here's my take, speaking as an on-again, off-again DYK participant: First, EdChem is right that there is a sense of a "gotcha" approach that does discourage people from reviewing and promoting DYK hooks. We fear being slamblasted for a good faith error and fear reprisals. On the other hand, if The Rambling Man spots a problem and removes a hook, groovy, so long as I'm not slamblasted for a good-faith error, I can live with that, he does a good job of spotting problems others miss and so long as he wants to do that job, I'm good with it. Similarly, when Moonriddengirl sends an approved hook bac for another round, she does what she does best. At the end of the day, I am fine if I make a mistake and others have to fix it, as long as it is acknowledged that I did the best I could at the time and intended to do a good job -- we all are human. But finally, having created about 200+ articles for WP, and about 50 of them have been DYK, I do hope that everyone here who criticizes content also creates it from time to time and so understands the challenges we face. (I know that TRM does...which is one reason why I'm not too upset if he has a high standard; I've done GAN reviews for his articles, and he DOES create content) Montanabw^(talk) 01:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Obviously, as my sometimes contributions on this page attest, there is no objection to re-running a review, where others take a look and find an issue that needs more discussion or reversal. Such additional review rarely need to be an accusation (or a gotcha) and in extreme cases where it does need to be an accusation, those should go to AN/ANI. And policy reform proposals should either be accepted or rejected here or at VPP, and then move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Query on editing restrictions

Deryck C., I was wondering about the fourth restriction, which starts with "(To balance the maths)". I initially thought this explanation meant the second QPQ would be requested to make up for having two QPQs used to review a single LavaBaron nomination, but the way this reads, LavaBaron's second QPQ can be of a nomination already approved by another reviewer. Is this what you meant? While sometimes this means simple duplication of results (as here, which would not normally be eligible for QPQ credit), it can mean LavaBaron finding issues with an approved review, which does help the process. Also, so far as I can tell, the first review doesn't actually need to start from scratch, but simply that the DYK review has not yet been approved/accepted, unless by "accepted" you mean "accepted for review (but not necessarily approved)". Please clarify. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Your interpretation is correct. One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because...". Rule #2 has essentially side-stepped LavaBaron from the review chain, so I tried to find a way to balance out the reviewer effort while allowing LavaBaron to participate meaningfully and receive oversight at the same time. From the reviews linked above, I think LavaBaron has been using the requirements of his restriction to participate constructively, which is encouraging. Deryck C. 23:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Deryck C. That's very clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

#4 is struck per discussion. Deryck C. 13:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

I didn't expect Template:Did you know nominations/Grace's Little Belmont to be approved and promoted within 2 days of nomination! We hope and I have been working on expanding the History section – it wasn't incorrect, but it was missing a lot of facts. I just posted the corrected version now, along with a great new image of Wild Bill Davis, and would like to request that the hook be returned to the noms area so (1) an editor can review the new material and confirm it meets DYK criteria, (2) We hope can be added to the creation credits, and (3) the image can be added to the nomination. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I've undone the nom closure, removed the credits and hook from the prep, is that it, or have I missed something in this wonky process? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, The Rambling Man. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries, you won't have to worry about me pestering you much longer about these kinds of things, but do try to work to make it easier for people, especially newbies, to understand this giant heap of messy templates and queues and preps and arcane rules. It's lost sight of what it should be, an easy and gratifying route for new users to get a half-decent quality article onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Would it really be a crime to nuke the 16 trillion guideline pages and consolidate them into one? Montanabw^(talk) 07:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia has a habit of spawning insane bureaucracies, I'd recommend to pare down that significantly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

See latest section below, a proposal to add yet more bureaucracy to this stymied process. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Modest proposals

It's worthwhile trying to simplify things, if anyone wants to have a crack at it and post a draught page and what page or pages it'd replace. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be condensed into about eight bullet points. I know there are caveats where articles become invalid because of other posts elsewhere, but beyond that it should be really easy. But at the same time, it's worth upping the ante and increasing the quality conditions. Make it 2,000 characters, referenced (not just movie plots), reject the fivefold increase nonsense (how arbitrary is that?), pretty much reject the "new" concept, include it but don't make it the focus, after all it's not the focus of most DYKs these days. A few ideas to streamline... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'd go further, and simpler, than that. DYK should simply be for GAs, period -- kind of "Today's Featured Article, Junior". Imagine if all this time and effort was redirected at bringing 1/3 as many articles to GA! [Later clarification: That doesn't mean every GA can go straight to main page -- being a GA is just the threshold requirement. We'd still have some kind of review here at DYK, at the very least for the hook specifically, but likely more.]

and/or

• No matter what, any effective solution to the quality problem has to involve reducing the throughput. There are simply too many hooks per day. The best way to fix that, IMO, is to start enforcing the requirement that hooks actually be interesting. In all my years I can't ever recall a nom being rejected because there was nothing to say about the subject worth saying, and there were plenty of times that was in fact the case. So how do we figure out what's interesting? Easy: straight voting. No discussion. No consensus. Raw vote counts based on gut reaction, like this:

• Every day, 21 hooks are randomly chosen to be gathered in a set to be voted on.
• Everyone gets to vote for up to 7 of these. When the day's votes are in...
• The bottom 7 are struck permanently -- too unpopular.
• The middle 7 are marginal -- unclear if they're interesting enough. These are returned to the main pool so that sooner or later they end up in a new set of 21 to be voted on. (These 7 don't move as a block, they just all go back into the pool to swim around again until one by one each ends up in a new voting-set-of-21 selected from the whole pool.) This might happen to a given hook two or three times, but every hook eventually ends up either in the top 7 or the bottom 7, deciding its final fate.
• The top 7 hooks are "interesting", and pass on to the usual stages of review etc.

This produces 7 interesting hooks per day to go on to the review stage. Assuming about 1 in 7 doesn't actually pass review, that gives us 6 per day to go on the main page. (Yes, 6. We're only going to run 6 DYKs per day.) The beauty of this is that we eliminate 1/2 of the noms right at the door, before any significant brainpower at all is spent on them -- nothing more than the gut, "Wow! That's interesting!"

Obviously the specific numbers are adjusted according to the rate at which noms are coming in and the actual # we want to run each day.

EEng 21:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The beauty of this is that we eliminate 1/2 of the noms right at the door - while arithmetic is not my strong suit, 7 is a third of 21, not a half. I doubt this process would cut the workload at all given that a bunch of people have to go through all those hooks every day and try to decide whether or not to !vote for them.

And while I sympathize with your vision of more interesting hook sets, I don't believe a process like this would significantly improve them. If you look through the DYK archives, you will occasionally see a standout hook but most are pretty run of the mill no matter how you cut it. A very small number of hooks are genuine dogs, but far less than a third, so under a process like this, you would be penalizing a third of nominators quite arbitrarily in order to get rid of the occasional dog. Not a very fair or efficient process IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

EEng Happy Reading. GAs are passed with one lone reviewer and no oversight. Also, at GA, there is no requirement of "notability". — Maile (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a strange argument - GAs don't have to be notable. Yes, people have made it in the past and what it seems to boil down to is "please don't take my green blob away waaaaaah". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There would still be a DYK-specific review; see new clarifying text above. I don't understand what you two are arguing about re notability -- all articles have to be on notable topics. EEng 21:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd be more than content to limit DYK to GAs; after all there are hundreds of GANs and DYK could use a quality hike. While Maile66 makes a fair point, i.e. that GAs are promoted by an individual, it would be instructive to see the rate of failure of that process. There's no QPQ, there's no main page badge for a GA (I should know, I have about 163 of them), so the reason for doing it is somewhat different from the lightweight, happy snack DYK approach. I would expect to see the rate of failure of DYK plummet if we stuck to GAs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I wasn't making an argument on the notability factor. Just a passing comment. I don't actually understand what you meant about GA, and guess I don't need to. But I've dipped my review/nominator toes into both processes. DYK is more thorough, if only that we allow all criticism to be heard on a nomination. — Maile (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is more thorough is almost the funniest thing I've ever read on Wikipedia. At GAN, people are expected to review the whole article, DYK reviews usually focus on the arcane rule set (expansion factors, days since creation etc) and completely ignore things like basic grammar. DYK reviews focus on the hook, GAN focuses on the article in general. GAN does not prohibit any kind of interaction with multiple reviewers. Stop pretending otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You, sir, have read your own meaning into what I wrote. I never claimed GAN prohibits anything, and under the set up of Wikipedia the project would not be able to. Nobody but ANI and Arbcom can prevent interaction with anybody. I said there is no oversight to the one reviewer situation. That is basically true, especially when you take into consideration the GA Cup that, with the best of intentions, is a contest for the most reviews in a set time frame, and there are not enough editors to check each one passed even if that were desired. I basically believe in GA, but the routine lack of a second set of eyes puts it at a disadvantage. DYK at least requires a promoter to either Prep or Queue to once again check the article and be a second and third set of eyes. Whether or not it's done that way, it is at least in the guidelines. And unlike DYK, there aren't daily complaints on the GAC talk page about a sloppy review. Because nobody usually bothers to look. When we first got GA at DYK, I was happy and started reviewing those. There were multiple issues that would never have made it past DYK. There were also blatant copyvio issues. While DYK also has that issue, you'd think something touted as superior to DYK would be better. GAC is not set up to be as thorough as DYK, if only because of the second and third set of eyes in the prep stages. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, so (at least for starters) keep the entire DYK reviewing process the same, just restrict to GAs only i.e. strike 1a-1f of WP:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria, leaving only 1g (probably dropping or modifying the 7 days requirement too). EEng 01:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly, not a big fan of the idea. I think that even if DYK is failing at the "easy achievement for relatively new editors" notion, it still provides an incentive for people to create and improve articles on marginal topics. I don't mean marginal in terms of notability, but of available information. I've created a good few articles myself on subjects that are clearly notable and obviously important, but that have no chance in hell of reaching GA status in the near future, given the paucity of information available. There's flaws with both processes, for certain; but they're not going to be solved by clubbing them in this strange way. GAN needs more scrutiny, and more thorough reviews. DYK needs (among other things) to simplify its rules, and focus more on some basics like hook accuracy and hookiness. Which is sort of where this post started, it seems to me....Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Who cares if they'll reach GA in the near future? If they reach GA in the future future, they can run as a DYK then. We can do without editors who will create articles only if they can get a DYK tick for it -- particularly if they'll only do if they can get the DYK tick for creating a start-class article. EEng 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is one of the reasons why I !voted against GAs being allowed on DYK. I knew that there would eventually be a creep towards GA trying to take over DYK's position. This is proving my point. DYK as it is currently allows for new and improved articles to be showcased on the main page while also gaining articles exposure to editors who might be able to help improve each individual article. Not to mention it gives new editors a chance to show what good work they have done and also allows for smaller articles to make it. To make it GAs only (of which most reviewers seem to just give out free passes to just because they are GAs and we have had more than our fair share of GA DYKs being pulled) would actually lower the quality as inaccurate hooks can be hidden and not to mention makes it very unwelcoming to newer editors. Also making a lottery on what runs will only benefit us regulars who will only vote to run what we have a personal interest in. As I have always said, interest is subjective, and while the regulars may vote an individual DYK as uninteresting and essentially censor it from appearing on the main page, others may well find it very interesting and want to read about it but they wouldn't be able to because us regulars would have been the self-appointed guardians of the project and censored it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Right now we only run things that "people here" at DYK think are interesting, because the people here are the ones doing the nominating. The only difference is that now, everything gets run no matter how stupid or dull the "interesting" fact is -- Did You Know, that Joan Smith's new hit single is the first by a former pastry chef who owns a pitbull? How about this: the qualification for voting each day is that you've nominated an article in the last 60 days. That's a rotating mix of DYK regulars and DYK newbies. If our goal is to run stuff that's even arguably interesting, we do have to make choices; just running everything because someone might find it interesting is an act of desperation. EEng 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not desperation, it is the truth. For example, we have a very proficient nominator here who creates several very specialist scientific DYKs, which many mainstream people may not find interesting at all, yet the scientific community might. You are neglecting to mention that there are people outside the DYK community who might also feel that what you might consider to be "dull" can be interesting. With regard to the whole voting precondition, who will police that given people won't have time to go around running background checks on peoples DYKs? Also, It is one thing to get a newbie to nominate their work, it is another to get them to start !voting for it too. In the end it will cause conflict with newbies who will still come up against regulars who will be voting all the time which could have a negative effect. Adding another layer to the process is not the way. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Where are all these newbies nominating articles? Can you give me half a dozen examples from the past two or three sets please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The C of E perhaps you missed this note? Could you give me just a couple of examples in the past and present couple of sets of "newbies" please? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The pings don't seem to be working. Tempt, Tease and Touch, Statcast and Stéphane Sparagna to name a few done by newbies. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

C of E the first was nominated by an editor with over 7,000 edits, the second by an editor with over 172,000 edits (with a courtesy co-nom with a new editor who made four trivial edits), the third by an editor with over 2,000 edits. These are not newbies. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Rambling Man Your interpretation of newbie is different to mine. My understanding of newbie in this context is one who has not contributed to DYK before or has less than 5 credits. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Then that's not a newbie. DYK was intended to encourage editors new to Wikipedia, not editors new to the process. That misses the point entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Equally editors may have made several edits but not yet created a page or made a major improvement to it. At the end of the day, if they are new to the process then they are newbies in this situation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• EEng What you are attempting is a takeover by GA of the DYK slot on the main page. At the end of the day, it's about the prize on the main page. — Maile (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, don't you think that's a tad overdramatic? I know there are people all hot under the collar about what's on MP, its format, and so on. I don't give a shit about that, but I do give a shit that when people look at DYK they don't get the idea that WP is full of slapdash articles offering frequently wrong tidbits of pseudofact. EEng 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• DYK is supposed to be about showcasing new content, confining DYK to GAs would kill that. GAs aren't that great either - a lot of the GA articles I have looked at here don't even pass the DYK criteria, let alone meeting legitimate GA standard. The GA process is a joke, it's even less rigorous than DYK because it requires only one reviewer whereas DYK nominations are generally looked at by multiple users. Also, the GAN process only produces 3 or 4 passed articles per day, which not only is not enough to fill even a single hook set, it isn't remotely enough to produce a sufficiently large pool from which to build a varied set. I just think the idea is a non-starter. Gatoclass (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm explicitly advocating junking the "new content" fetish in favor of "good content". Since (as I'm now saying for the 3rd or 4th time) the proposal is to leave all the current DYK review machinery in place, there's no reason to think quality will go down. And with the huge effort now poured into reviewing 20 half-baked articles per day refocused on reviewing 3 more GAs per day on top of the 3 to 4 you say are currently coming through anyway, there should be no problem getting 6 per days, which is all we should be running to have actually good content with interesting hooks. Varied sets won't be a problem if we allow a backlog of 50 or so approved hooks to accumulate, just as we do now. EEng 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole "new user/new content" is myth. There are virtually no new users here trying to work their way through this awkward system. It's just long-term editors accumulating credits. Quality on the mainpage must trump any other goal. This massive turnover of mediocrity is a running joke, and claiming the GA process to be a joke is a joke itself when the DYK process, which has oversight of three or four individuals per nomination routinely messes it up, and that's just focussed on one sentence in an article, not the article as a whole. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• If it works, don't fix it The original issue here was a request for Grace's Little Belmont to be given a bit more time. It appears that this was done and done correctly. As this incident was resolved expeditiously, there doesn't seem to be a problem that needs fixing. Opening up the discussion into a radical reworking of DYK seems to be quite off-topic. See also WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, this is a subsection of the original discussion. It's fine to discuss it here and is not "off-topic" or "lightbulbish". The initial problem, and its fix, is merely a symptom of a broken system, as you are well aware. Continually lawyering over it won't help anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, discussions are allowed to go in whatever direction they go. It doesn't currently work -- it's an embarrassment. I held out little hope (I've made both these proposals before) but thought I'd give it a try again and see if the ground was more fertile. EEng 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Low on approved hooks

Putting together Prep 5 this morning I found that we're a little low on approved hooks, especially approved hooks where there are no issues. The "Approved" number on the page looks higher than it is since the bot cannot tell when anything LavaBaron is involved in needs a second approval so the numbers are off. I am going to go through and pull in approved hooks to get as much in the preps and then I am going to do a round of reviews, but that means I cannot move those hooks to prep areas.  MPJ-DK  10:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with MPJ-DK. The greatest need that DYK has at the moment is for some extra voluntary reviews to be done. There are currently 26 approved hooks out of a total of 165 hooks, and the balance of 140 or so represents a permanent backlog that needs reducing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

Poonia murders, as well as containing a good amount of poor English and grammar, also contains a large of amount of unsourced statements including some that cast aspersions on people (admittedly dead, so no BLP issues, but that's not the point). "Relu Ram Poonia ... was elected ... winning majority [sic] on sympathy votes". "He was born in an economically poor family but earned wealth through marketing of bitumen and oil in black markets". This isn't an article that is in any state to be linked on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Might help to link Template:Did you know nominations/Poonia murders here. — Maile (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just pulled Poonia murders from Prep 1 after looking over the article and agreeing with Black Kite's analysis. The article needs a thorough copyedit. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Harrild & Sons wasn't much better, I made a few adjustments mainly to make it readable in English and grammatically more up to scratch, and some technical changes like reducing overlinking substantially. I don't think articles are being read properly before they're being promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Stubs in general, Prep 5 specifically

If there is one andtiquated rule/guideline we could remove, I vote for this one:

Supplementary guidelines D11: If there is a stub tag, it should normally be removed if the article is long enough for DYK.

Reviewing guide In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the Croughton-London rule). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher.

This is not mentioned in the main rules, and it puts the burden on the reviewer. To do what? To remove the stub rating. It is totally not relevant to DYK, and put there by whatever Wikiproject that topic belongs to.

And everybody pretty much misses this in reviews and promotions. Why do we even have it? DYK should not be messing with classes put there by other Wikiprojects. That's not our job.

The lead hook in Prep 5 is a stub. Obviously, it's not really. "Stub" is put on there by a given project at the time an article created, and has absolutely nothing to do with DYK. If it makes it through DYK, it's obviously not a stub.

Let's get rid of this minutia that most people don't know about or care about. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Put simply, stubs should not be promoted to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree, length requirement covers this so it is not needed nor really enforced.  MPJ-DK  14:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with TRM, stubs do not belong on the main page. I have always taken this requiring the assessor to consider whether the stub tag is still justified. If it is, raise the issue in the nomination and don't tick. If it is not, change the rating (I usually just change to Start class unless it is clearly better than that) but understand that in doing so you are stating your view that the article is not a stub. I suspect that I may not be typical in this view, unfortunately. A while back, I raised a question here about an unassessed article because I think the assessor needs to ensure that the article is not a stub, but was told that leaving an article unassessed is fine. I thought then and think now that assessing that the article is not a stub should be part of any proper review. Stubs do not belong on the main page, and leaving articles unassessed is a way that allows stubs to slip through. I am all for simplifying rules but the expectation should be that nothing that is a stub makes the main page, and I mean articles that are actually stubs (irrespective of rating) do not belong. Changing a class stub to start to check off this rule is not ok unless the article is actually not a stub. EdChem (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think D11 was referring more to the stub templates that are sometimes placed on article pages, such as Template:Bulgaria-stub, not the WikiProject assessments (though DYKcheck will look for both). A DYK-promoted article should never have a stub template on the article page. As for assessing the article, I go with D7: There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. If the article is a stub, then it will fail these points and shouldn't be approved or promoted. I don't see that it's DYK's responsibility, if the article has no prior assessment, to do a formal assessment for the WikiProjects and post it on the article's talk page. I do disagree that DYK's length requirement is all we need: 1500 characters is not a magic number that precludes an article from still being a stub; I've seen articles that I felt were stubs even up around 1800 or more. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think no matter what, the idea of simply removing the stub tag is a bad thing. This instruction should be removed. If anything it should go along the lines of "seek review from an uninvolved editor to assess that the article is beyond stub class and ensure the talkpage banners are updated accordingly." The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

In particular, I think if anything is said at all about stubs, it should be in the Rules. Right now, we don't give instructions to the nominators, but the reviewers are told. Kind of backwards, maybe. — Maile (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that we should remove this rule. When I create a new article, like The Glad yesterday, I usually put a stub template on it because they are usually quite attractive and explicitly encourage other editors to join in. DYK is for new content, rather than mature work, and so it is quite appropriate that we should indicate this. We have other rules, like the minimum size, to keep out articles which are too skimpy and so we don't need this formality too. Andrew D. (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

18 verified hooks

It looks as if we only have 18 verified hooks, and only 167 hooks overall. That isn't nearly enough. We may have to slow down to one update per day for a while. Gatoclass (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with one set per day. We've been seeing fewer nominations since the beginning of the Olympics. — Maile (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the quality issues with the most recent two sets, one set per day would seem optimal right now, and hopefully the promoting admin can take time to read the whole article, not just the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Give me a day or two and I can whip up 70 articles ;-) But in all seriousness I agree there seems to be a slump, if we go to one a day for a bit it would help. And while there have been issues found in prep, I am just glad they were not found on the main page - we're actually using the prep areas as intended, keeping the main page more error free. But there have been too many "approved" hooks I was not able to move by doing a simple check before moving, that is really concerning.  MPJ-DK  18:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How about one set of eight hooks per day. That'll be six hooks fewer in a 24 hour period. While there aren't that many Paralympics hooks—at the moment we have just enough to run one per day—I expect we'll want to do two hook sets on September 8, however, given the large group of Star Trek 50th anniversary hooks in the special occasions area (seventeen at last count). If we do make the switchover to one per day, please make sure it's at midnight UTC (for bot reasons). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

18 approved Star Trek hooks now in the holding area. Two more in the nominations, as far as I can see. — Maile (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds ideal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is also a good place to remind everyone that we are only a little over a month away before we have to curtail political themed hooks. The general election in the United States is Nov. 8. So, as of October 8, this would affect articles about any U. S. candidate running on any level, in any political party. Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates. Maybe it also might be a good idea to avoid those hooks we've seen that very cleverly mention a main candidate's name in the hook, but is actually about something or someone else. That kind of hook amounts to free advertising, putting a candidate's name on the main page. — Maile (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Good point, would it make sense to have like a big bold announcement at the top of both this page and the nomination page? If your hook in anyway includes anything related to the US election I will not run between Oct 8 and Nov 8 - I assume if a hook is approved after Oct 8 it would run afterwards and be in a special holding zone?  MPJ-DK  01:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks all for the input, I have reset the clock to run one update every 24 hours. I agree that we should probably go back to eight-hook sets while this rate is in place. We can review the situation again in a week or two. Gatoclass (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Gatoclass, can I ask a favor: can you please temporarily put the clock back to 12 hours, promote Prep 6 with seven hooks rather than eight, and then set the next promotion time to midnight? Right now the bot will take the next set at 15:05, and then it's going to crawl by 15 minutes each set until it eventually gets to 00:00. That's over a month away, and in the meantime it'll make a hash of the two Star Trek sets on September 8 and running the Paralympics hooks on the right day. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I am a bit rusty on some of the technical aspects, how do I reset the time to midnight? Gatoclass (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I haven't verified the hooks in Prep 6 yet, and it might take me up to an hour to do so, will this mess up your proposed schedule? Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, no, that will be fine. It doesn't matter whether the hooks run for 16 or 17 or 15 hours; we should end up at midnight regardless. Template:Did you know/Next update/Time has the time of the next update; you just reset it as necessary for when you want that to be. It occurs to me that rather than change the ‎interval from 24 hours back to 12 and then again to 24, it might be easiest, once you've verified Prep 6 and moved it to Queue 6, to reset the Next update to occur a couple of minutes in the future instead of waiting until 15:05. Then, when the update is done, reset the Next update again to occur at 00:00. (The dates should be fine, but double check to be sure.) Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I am struggling to understand the logical steps here. Maile66, any chance you could do what BlueMoonset is requesting? I have already verified the set in Prep 6. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, since the current set has already had about 17 hours on the main page, what I could do is load prep 6 to the queue, set the time to go off in a few minutes, then alter the new timestamp to point to midnight tonight UTC. Is that what you meant? I think that should mean the hooks in Prep 6 will get about 12 hours exposure before being archived. Gatoclass (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I'm sorry; that's because I forgot that the bot adds the update interval (now 24 hours) to the "Next update/Time" to determine when next to do a promotion to the main page. Here's what needs to happen:

• Promote Prep 6 to Queue 6. (You've just done this.)
• Change the string at Template:Did you know/Next update/Time from "2016-08-24T15:05:00Z" to "2016-08-24T09:05:00Z". (The middle "15:05" to "09:05".)
• The bot will test conditions, see that an update is overdue (since "2016-08-24T09:05:00Z" plus 24 hours is "2016-08-25T09:05:00Z", or 18 minutes ago as I type this), and kick off a new update, moving Queue 6 to the main page.
• When it finishes, it will update Template:Did you know/Next update/Time to whatever the then-current time is.
• After it does that, change Template:Did you know/Next update/Time one final time to "2016-08-25T00:00:00Z". We're then all set for midnight promotions going forward, starting with midnight on the 26th. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done. Thank you for the assistance BlueMoonset. Gatoclass (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I have reverted your undiscussed change to the Tamar Bridge back to what was reviewed and put in prep. Using "boobs" trivialises breast cancer, and carrying fake breasts across the bridge does not imply they wore them. (I also preferred the non-breast related hook, but that's consensus for you...) If you were uncertain about the factual accuracy of the hook, you could have pulled it from queue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Ritchie333, why don't I spend another half an hour looking for a substitute hook when I've just spent two hours fixing other people's mistakes? The answer is because I'm an unpaid volunteer and there is a limit to the amount of time I am willing to spend picking up after other people.

On reflection, I am not going to restore my copyedit on the assumption that the current hook is correct, but it doesn't actually state anywhere in the provided source that the marchers "carried" their fake breasts over the bridge, and it's also misleading to say they carried them "to highlight breast cancer" when if they actually carried them at all, they did it to avoid distracting drivers. Gatoclass (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Would it be fair to say they took a trip down mammary lane? EEng 16:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Boom-boom! ;) Gatoclass (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I do the best I can with the material available. EEng 18:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It worked for me :)

We really must recruit you for next year's April Fools. Though I fear we may all end up getting arrested in the process. Gatoclass (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me to any nom that shows appropriate promise. Perhaps you're familiar with my greatest hits? EEng 19:42, 25 August 2016 (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 #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Why is it linking Prep 1 and then queue 6? I thought they were synced? It should be prep 6 right? That one is full.  MPJ-DK  01:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• It always links to Prep 1; it's an artifact of bygone days. I'll ask Shubinator to change the generated message. For the moment, however, we need an admin to promote Prep 6, since we're now overdue for a promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nompage links

Can we add a link just to the nompage in the nompage links (which display as "( Review or comment Article history )" under the article name on T:TDYK). The current "Review or comment" link automatically takes the user to the edit screen, which may not be desirable if a user simply wants to view the nomination without editing it. The relevant pages are Module:DYK nompage links and Template:DYK nompage links. Unfortunately I don't have experience with Lua, the wiki scripting language to do it myself (and I'm also not able to edit these pages as a non-admin/template editor). Intelligentsium 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius didn't you create the Module? — Maile (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That's right. @Intelligentsium: Do you want to change the existing edit link to a view link, or do you want to add an extra link so that there are both edit and view links available? And how would you like the resulting links to look? Maybe something like ( Nomination page · Review or comment · Article history ) ? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think the edit link is useful too so I think we could just add an extra link? Nompage/edit/history looks fine to me. Intelligentsium 16:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Error on Main Page for 12 hours, after involved admin reverted it ion the main page to the wrong version!

• ... that a group of people carried fake breasts over the Tamar Bridge to highlight breast cancer?

Template:Did you know nominations/Tamar Bridge @Ritchie333, Cwmhiraeth, MPJ-DK, and Gatoclass:

This one is really very problematic, and may ned further action. The above, incorrect hook was nominated by Ritchie333 and approved and promoted by Cwmhiraeth and MPJ-DK. It was then at the last minute, but correctly, changed by Gatoclass[1] to read:

• ... that a group of people removed their boobs pending a walk over the Tamar Bridge to highlight breast cancer?

The source [2] clearl indicates that the breasts were removed, so Gatoclass was completely correct to change this.

Ritchie333 then changed the hook back to the promoted version[3] while it was already on the fully protected Main Page, and despite being the nominator of the article and hook (making him clearly and undeniably involved). So restoring an error to the Main Page while clearly very involved, I don't think one can do much worse than this...

I wanted to note it here first, as pulled hooks get discussed here first, but I'll probably put this on WP:ANI as a very problematic admin action. Fram (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already addressed this in the thread above. Carrying, in my opinon (and not necessarily yours) does not imply wearing it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You were clearly involved, and the source doesn't say they were carrying it, no matter what your opinion is. No matter what, you should never have reverted this. Fram (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• As the chief hooker in charge of titillating (get it?) hooks, what I don't get is that "removed their boobs" is a way hookier hook anyway, in addition to literally following what the source says. EEng 20:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• The source does not say they carried them, but it does say they removed the costumes before they got on the bridge, and the point according to the source was that they were removed before the bridge so as not to distract. So, Fram appears to be right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yup I agree, did not look close enough at the source when building the prep.  MPJ-DK  20:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • And there it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Whoop there it is? There is what exactly? If that was a hook it would be yanked off the main page for being too ambiguous.  MPJ-DK  22:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • There is another example of how the quality of reviews here is a timebomb for the project. Sling it into the current Arbcom case melting pot... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• No idea of this meltingpot you are stirring somewhere else but whatever floats your boat I guess?  MPJ-DK  22:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• This is perhaps water under the bridge now but I like to get to the bottom of such mysteries. My impression from this source and that source is that the focus of the walk was the bridge rather than it being a crossing point to somewhere else. So, when they were refused permission to wear the costumes on the bridge, they will have taken them off and walked across without them. After parading on the bridge, they then will have walked back, recovered the costumes, and then gone back to their college student's union. The bridge is 34 miles from the college's main centre in St Austell so it may be that they had a coach to take them to the bridge, rather than walking there. Andrew D. (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• The other part that does not actually fit the source is that they did not "carry the boobs for charity", the walk was for charity, it was not one of those "Push a peanut with your nose" things where the act of carrying the fake boobs was the point so to say they "Carried them for charity" is actually wrong, they took them off for traffic safety is what the source said.  MPJ-DK  10:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• The image in your first source does appear to show them on the bridge not carrying anything (makes sense if one does not want the costumes on the bridge) -- sure, they could have stacked them up in a van (or do you call those lorry). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Visual oddity on the bot review

I see the same thing with both Firefox and IE. I purged the page several times. Template:Did you know nominations/Epinecrophylla shows the Review bot check all four hooks. But if you look at it Here, it looks like the Review did not much at all. @Cwmhiraeth and Intelligentsium: ? Something funky happened here, but I'm guessing it was DYK funky and not bot funky. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: This is intentional per Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 126#DYKReviewBot on the nominations page. Pppery (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't. I did not say it was using small type or collapsed boxes. I said it isn't showing. No reviewer or potential reviewer scanning the nomination page can tell what happened. It's an error.— Maile (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: It's still intentional. See Intelligentsium's last comment on the thread. Pppery (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. And there's the "noinclude" right on the template. Looks odd, though. Thanks for mentioning this. — Maile (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this, this was intentional per the above discussion (to improve page readability and load-times) but it looks like one of my noinclude tags is misplaced. I think this only affects multiple nominations. I think it's fixed now. Intelligentsium 23:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Notes on quality

Now we have a more optimal turnover rate (as I'd suggested several times) of one set of eight per 24 hours, we should be capable of reviewing each set properly before it gets promoted to the main page. Please remember to check that the hook is cited correctly (ideally with more than one citation) and please, please, please read the rest of the article to ensure that errors aren't found there too. Check for violations of the fair use of images, check that articles are categorised correctly and aren't stubs. If you have the knowledge, check the articles meet some of the basics of the WP:MOS. Yes, each hook and article will have been reviewed two or three times before the set is built, but errors still make it through, all too often. Between us, we should be able to cover those quality control items for eight hooks per day reasonably easily, as long as people genuinely care for the quality of the DYK project and its ongoing existence. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wonder if DYK reviewers should be messaged about this post. I don't think DYK reviewers by default have this talk page watchlisted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Right back at you with "please, please, please" continue your practice of looking through the top queue. No matter how diligent and well-intentioned editors are, you still notice things others don't. You have a great instinct in that regard. We need somebody with a fine eye for detail, and that's you. It might also be others, but for sure it's you.— Maile (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1

• ... "that the first public house officially visited by Queen Elizabeth II was the Bridge Inn, Topsham?"

There's nothing wrong with this hook, but the interesting thing is that it took the Queen 46 years of her reign to officially visit a public house, given that they are such an intrinsic part of British life. I wonder if this could be added? i.e....

• ... "that Queen Elizabeth II first officially visited a public house, the Bridge Inn, Topsham, in the 46th year of her reign?"

Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Was she not a mechanic in the war, and she never visited a public house?:) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Even if the hook weren't already on the main page, since the fact that the visit was in the 46th year of Elizabeth II's reign is not in the article (nor sourced there, obviously), it cannot appear in the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I believe she was over a month into her 47th year as Queen at the time; that potential for error is one of the reasons it's better not to make this kind of late change without the usual checks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• This sounded like an unlikely "first" and quick browse soon finds coverage of the Queen visiting a new pub in Stevenage in 1959. This was reported in Parliament too and so seems reasonably "official". This indicates that the claim should be toned down. Andrew D. (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not an error as such

But the DYK about David Pountney is completely non-understandable, and going to the page doesn't explain it any further. Red Fiona (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• So the DYK is not about Pountney but the Merchants of Venice article in bold, If you look for this in Pountney's article it is possible you won't find it. In there he is quoted as stating something along the line of "I was part of the silence, now I am part of the noise" - Mercantile = Merchant.  MPJ-DK  11:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Red Fiona on this. Even following the link to the Merchant of Venice does not shed any light; you need to scroll down to "Reception" to solve the riddle. Is this how DYK is supposed to work? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well hooks are meant to be hooky, to entice you to the article. So in that sense it did work. Nom here. Although I must say the quote in the Merchant of Venice (opera) article seems rather misplaced, reception sections are usually for the reception by critics/press/public etc, not by artistic directors. Was the quote in response to staging the production? or was it in response to the reception of it? Also its unclear what involvement Pountney had with the production beyond ticking the box that said 'yes, this can be put on at the Festival'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly, the hook was a bit cryptic, but I found the relevant passage easily enough just by searching for the word "silence". Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

"that philosopher Tamara Horowitz stopped looking in mirrors in her twenties?"

The article says "During her mid-twenties, she spent a period of two years not looking in mirrors;" i.e. she didn't stop looking in mirrors period, as implied by the hook, it was a brief interlude of two years. The hook should be made more accurate or replaced with something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: — Maile (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

... that in her mid-20s, the philosopher Tamara Horowitz spent two years not looking into mirrors, testing her own dependence on her appearance? — Maile (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's much better per the sources, but as you've already pinged the nominator, let's leave it to them, or pull it and re-open the nom if nothing forthcoming. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Also @Gatoclass: as the queue's promoting admin, just so he knows this question is out there. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to the hook being changed, as it is perfectly accurate. The statement "A stopped doing x at time t" does not imply that A was not doing x at time t+1, contrary to what The Rambling Man said above. Apologies if this reply seems curt; I have no interest whatsoever in engaging with The Rambling Man, as I suspect he knows. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not with me the engagement is important with, it's our readers. I suggest the hook is changed to that suggested by Maile66 so at least it doesn't mislead our readers. I couldn't really care less what Milburn thinks I'm afraid. You could argue that she stopped looking in the mirror for five minutes would still make the same hook true. Fundamentally it's misleading to our audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(←) Could someone please close this thread? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, closing this thread is not helpful. The error was noted hours before the hook went onto the main page. Now ERRORS has complaints from two other editors. If we don't act on these clearly misleading hooks before they go to the main page, we're just delaying the issue and embarrassing Wikipedia at the same time by publicising such issues to our millions and millions of visitors. As soon as we stop thinking of the readers, we might as well pack up and close the site down. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully Stephen has addressed the issue here. This thread should be recalled when the DYK process is more closely scrutinised in the forthcoming weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

When I checked the hook statement before loading the set last night, I noted that Horowitz had only stopped using mirrors for two years, rather than permanently as the hook implies, but the hook was nonetheless factually accurate and I did not feel unduly misled by it. DYK is not obliged to add caveats to eliminate every possible ambiguity or misreading of a hook, because doing so would in many cases eliminate the hookiness factor along with it. Having said that, what constitutes an acceptable degree of "fuzziness" is often a judgement call, and in this case I thought the degree acceptable, though it seems clear in hindsight that not all users agreed. Gatoclass (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

All of that is understood, but as soon as I raised a valid issue here, way before the hook was heading to the main page, it should have been addressed, not simply dismissed by the owner of the hook. As a consequence, the misleading hook made it onto the main page for 8 hours (which, up until recently, was the time an entire set might stay on the main page). Just because the item had moved from the queue to the main page, there was no cause to close the discussion down. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

When I scanned through the queues a few days ago, I was also clearly misled by the hook. If it had been "...that philosopher Tamara Horowitz became a vegetarian in her twenties?", one wouldn't have expected to find that she started eating meat again two years later. It needed to be made explicit (as it has been now). Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Well the WikiCup people get their points, regardless of whether the hook makes sense or is corrected. It's not unusual now to see that the highest scoring participants are those piling up the DYK credits. Easy touch. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Vic Lambden

Why is the last bit of this approved nom sticking out at T:TDYK#Articles created/expanded on August 8? Something funny with that "</noinclude>" before DYKReviewBot's signature at 19:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)? --PFHLai (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably because someone wrote below the line that states "Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• The issue seems to be the bot code itself. Please see Problem with the closing "/noinclude" tag when the DYK template closes. — Maile (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I left that last bit there temporarily until bot-owner Intelligentsium has had a chance to see it in place, though I can edit the Vic Lambdem template sooner if this is likely to disturb people. I imagine we'll have a fix before too long; until then, this bit from bot sig to the end will show up when the nomination is promoted or rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I've seen this issue and am looking into it. Intelligentsium 18:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed the problem (many thanks to BlueMoonset for an exceptionally detailed issue report!). This was due to a brain fart on my part for using noincludes without realizing nested noincludes don't play nice after the DYK templates are substituted once a decision is taken. I had assumed the inner pair of noincludes would just do nothing but apparently the MW software only reads up to the first close tag and then closes both of them.

It's always OK to hand edit them to clean them up as the bot doesn't touch them again after but as this may be a lot of work, it may make more sense simply to remove or comment out affected nominations. I have applied a fix for future reviews, moving to a collapsible box rather than a noincluded bot review, per one of the other suggestions in the original discussion. However, it should be noted that while this keeps the nominations page more tidy than showing the reviews by default, unlike the noinclude solution, this does not address the issue of load time as everything in the hidden box is still part of the page HTML and thus still has to be rendered by the user's browser. Intelligentsium 04:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, Intelligentsium. While the suggestion to remove or comment out affected nominations makes some sense, the problem is that any nominations that are promoted to prep or queue and then pulled back will not show up again if they've been commented out. I'll do the extra work of editing the templates for now. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Intelligentsium & BlueMoonset. I'll remove the no-longer-needed "<noinclude>"and "</noinclude>" the next time I encounter them on T:TDYK. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Jason Spriggs, Queue 3

I have linked "All-American" in the hook to College Football All-America Team, as the term will be meaningless to most of those outside North America, and it isn't explained in his article either. Could someone more au fait with American Football just check that I have linked to the correct article, please. (I was going to link to All-America originally, but it's a terrible, mostly unsourced article). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. Problem is the assumption that all our readers are Americans and will readily consume this kind of "in-universe" hook. Thanks for being diligent enough to pick it up. Before the hawks descend, I have, on numerous occasions, expanded "football" to "association football" just to ensure everyone gets it. Comme ci comme ça. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I changed the link on the Jason Spriggs hook to 2015 College Football All-America Team, which actually has his name listed. — Maile (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, nice one. That was why I asked, in case there was a better target. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek Day: Trouble Ahead

I have just noticed on Star Trek Day (8 September), we have 20 approved hooks. Given we have just gone to 1 set a day, I can foresee a problem here. I am bringing this to the community's attention so we are aware there is a potential issue with a large number of hooks here. Will the solution be we go to 2x8 (and lose a couple) or 3x7 for that day? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I was wondering that myself too, two sets of 8 would still leave 4 out - but perhaps the rest can run on different days? MPJ-DK  16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There isn't much point trying to figure out an appropriate cycle right now as we may get more nominations yet. But we can certainly run three sets on the day if we have to. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Just run three sets of seven. Easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Negative BLP hook in next set

• ... that Mexican politician Marco Antonio García Ayala has been described as a "ghost deputy"?

Template:Did you know nominations/Marco Antonio García Ayala @Raymie, Cwmhiraeth, and MPJ-DK:

Now in prep5, the next prep to hit the main page. This seems to run against our DYK rule that "[...] hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.". The source is a column in a local newspaper.[4]. Fram (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• That's an opinion piece by the looks of it as well, not a investigative story. Pull. Black Kite (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As this prep set has now been moved into the queue with only seven hooks, perhaps someone would like to add another to complete the set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Nutcracker dolls

Currently the lead hook in Prep 6. I'm thinking this could be saved over for Christmas? We didn't have enough variety in the Christmas sets last year and I'm thinking this one would make a nice addition. Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought when I promoted it to Prep. But there was no request for that on the nomination template, and Christmas is 4 months off. The guidelines on the Special Holding area limits to 6 weeks ahead of the requested date, with the exception of April Fool's Day. — Maile (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The holiday sets tend to be so sparsely populated (I remember the scramble to put something up for July 4, American Independence Day), that I think we should make an exception in this case. Perhaps seeing Christmas in the Special Occasions area will inspire other editors to come up with more hooks, too. Yoninah (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could set up a separate page for holding Christmas hooks, like we do April Fool's Day. That way, people won't have to work up their Christmas articles in a much shorter deadline and chance missing the date. We could potentially get a lot of hooks. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I moved the hook to a later prep set (Prep 4) so it won't be promoted during this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5

"that actor Nat Polen played Dr. Jim Craig on One Life to Live from 1969 until his death from pancreatic cancer in 1981?"

Sadly, this can be read as either Nat Polen or Jim Craig dying from pancreatic cancer in 1981. Please reword to avoid the ambiguity, I've already fixed two other hooks in that set, and made some obvious corrections to the target articles, as approved by a reviewer, promoter, admin etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

FrickFrack What to you say about the above hook? — Maile (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In case there is no response in the next hour or so, how about the following (which mostly moves clauses around):

• ... that Dr. Jim Craig on One Life to Live was played by Nat Polen from 1969 until the actor's death from pancreatic cancer in 1981? —BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not trim "from pancreatic cancer"? Shorter and hookier without it. Edwardx (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Let's go with the trim. FrickFrack 23:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting a variance on this, because I can almost see "this is unclear" said by somebody somewhere:

• ... that the character of Dr. Jim Craig on One Life to Live was played by actor Nat Polen from 1969 until his own death in 1981? — Maile (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man one of the changes you made was incorrect. Regarding W. Wallace Kellet, The United States Postal Service did not exist until 1971. I changed it back to United States Post Office Department with a link in the hook. The source confirms this. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, both the hook and the article were incorrect. So I'm guessing the reviewer(s) and promoter(s) all missed that too. And for the avoidance of doubt, you didn't change it "back" to United States Post Office Department because it was originally "United States Post office". Finally, of the three sources used to ref that hook, only one mentions the name of the organisation explicitly, and guess what... "the first autogyro used by the U.S. Postal Service.... Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Heber Robert McBride hook would be hookier if "ill-fated" were inserted before "Martin Handcart Company". Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not in queue 5, it's currently on the main page so you would need to register the issue at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

... that the father/son team of Pantera and El Hijo del Pantera is the only team to have participated in all three Legado Final professional wrestling shows so far?

I think that "so far" is superfluous here as "in all three" comprehensively defines the scope. Alternatively I suppose you could lose the "three"? The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that the "so far" is superfluous: the way I would understand it, that is an implicit qualifier to all "biggest," "longest," "oldest," "all" type of hooks. Vanamonde (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thus removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

New update needed

Can somebody please put a new update together? I can't verify an update to load into the queue if there are no updates. Gatoclass (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I will work on Prep 6 to get the last 5 hooks in it.  MPJ-DK  11:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have all but the quirky hook spot filled, looking for a non-bio quirky hook preferably. But I got to jet for a while, hopefully someone else can fill the last spot?  MPJ-DK  12:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 bowling hook

• ... that Moses Bensinger (pictured) was the initiator of the rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling?

Template:Did you know nominations/Moses Bensinger @Yoninah, Doug Coldwell, and Jsayre64:

As far as I can tell from the article, he was the initiator of the American Bowling Congress, which was the initiator of the rules and regulations. And even the claim that he was the initiator of that congress is debatable, it looks as if Joe Thum has at least as much claim to being the initiator of the congress and the rules and regulations. E.g. the Bowlingmuseum.com mentions the essential role of Thum, but doesn't discuss Bensinger at all. Here as well they discuss the role of Thum and also mention Thomas Curtis, but no mention of Bensinger. Looking there for Bensinger gives no results. The Historical Dictionary of Bowling doesn't mention Bensinger at all! It mentions again Thum's role in 1895, and it mentions the Brunswick company (but nothing about them for the period of the hook), but nothing about Bensinger... This book lists four crucial members at the founding of the ABC, but doesn't include Bensinger (he isn't mentioned anywhere in this book on bowling).

Other sources do indicate that Bensinger helped founding the ABC[5]("played an important role in establishing the ABC")

It seems to me that Bensinger can be described as an initiator of the ABC, which was in its turn the initiator of the rules etc. But to go from this to the hook seems quite a stretch. Fram (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying this problem while the hook is still in prep. I have pulled it, as I don't see a quick fix for this problem and the article may need closer scrutiny. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have verified the four hooks already in Prep 6, but since I had to pull the other three for various reasons, I am probably not going to have time to put this update together now, so someone else will have to complete and promote it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I finished it myself after all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I think the sources cited in the article after the sentence: "He helped found the American Bowling Congress in 1895, which set in place a legislative body that enforced these rules and regulations for all to follow as the standard for the game of bowling."
support a hook like this: … that Moses Bensinger (pictured), an initiator of the American Bowling Congress, helped establish the rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling?
or this, not as exciting:
… that Moses Bensinger (pictured) was an initiator of the American Bowling Congress, which established rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling? Jsayre64 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of a better hook should happen at the nomination template, not here, but in any case: no on the first: you shouldn't change "he helped found A which established B" into "He helped establish B" as that indicates that the had an active role in writing the rules and regulations, while the source only supports the claim that he helped bring together others who then did the writing. Fram (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Q6 Sandra Blow

I've just noticed in Q6 it says Sandra Blow made glass screens for Heathrow's departure lounge. I think that is a bit vague as Heathrow Airport has more than one departure lounge as they have more than 1 terminal. I think that the hook should be clarified as to which terminal it was or reworded to be more general. The Royal C (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The source just says "the departure lounge" so I don't see why we need to be any more specific. Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick google. The other sources available say either 'departure lounge' or 'Heathrow Airport'. I did find this which indicates Terminal 3. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the hook from "the departure lounge" to "a departure lounge" which will be make it accurate in all circumstances. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I imagine Heathrow has something like 50 to 100 departure lounges so to claim that "the departure lounge" is acceptable is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Heathrow has 125 airbridges so that's 125 departure lounges for a kick off. Then there are the others. Please, when making glib assertions that hooks are somehow fine and that an encyclopedia doesn't "need to be any more specific", think harder about it. Some people don't realise that Heathrow has more than one departure lounge, so the hook, as was written, was misleading, probably even incorrect. Try harder please, especially now we only have to verify 8 hooks per day. If we can't manage that, give it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So now it's wrong to state exactly what the source itself says? The source says: In 1995 she completed an important commission to produce large glass screens for the departure lounge of Heathrow Airport.[6] Could there be a main departure lounge at the airport that everybody thinks of as the departure lounge? Could the writer have meant multiple departure lounges, but just been referring to them generically as a familiar space, "the departure lounge", in the same way that one might say, perhaps, that "the plane is on the runway", even though airports typically have multiple runways? So one might just as well argue that substituting "a" for "the" was an example of OR. One can endlessly quibble about such minutiae, but i hardly think that castigating those working to keep the project running over trivia of this kind can be described as constructive. Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's wrong to blindly follow and parrot hooks which are clearly wrong. Heathrow has five terminals so it can't possibly have one departure lounge. There's nothing wrong with applying some common sense to these hooks, and if a reference is dubious, making some odd claim about something that couldn't possibly be correct, it shouldn't be used. I'm sure there are plenty of other hooks in that article, along with plenty of errors too. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Technically Heathrow only has 4 terminals as Terminal 1 has closed. But still agree with the intent of the statement. Just saying. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As usual TRM, in your haste to criticize you ignore alternative points of view. You may be justified in arguing that the indefinite article is more appropriate in this case, but I have no idea how many departure lounges Heathrow might have and I don't think it inappropriate of me to sound a note of caution about deviating from the source in the last post I made before logging off last night. One thing I do know is that switching to the indefinite article made an already weak hook so much the weaker, by further trivializing what was described in the source as an "important commission". There are many factors to take into account in evaluating hooks, hooks are rarely if ever perfect and there is almost always another tweak, clarification or rephrasing that can improve it, the fact that such tweaks can be identified is not actually evidence of negligence or incompetence on the part of set builders as you never seem to tire of implying. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's nothing to do with that. The hook needed to be fixed. It was misleading. End of. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Moot, now at ERRORS!! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've amended the hook to conform with the source highlighted by Andrew D. This is unfortunately one of those issues that occasionally turn up when the source for a hook turns out to be incorrect. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

... that there is no direct evidence that an ancient Roman bust known as the Capitoline Brutus actually depicts the Roman consul Lucius Junius Brutus (d. 509 BC)?

So what? The clearly needed link here is that it's "commonly thought to depict the Roman consul Lucius Junius Brutus". Missing that fact from the hook makes it relatively pointless unless we expect all things called "Brutus" in some form are supposed to represent all things called "Brutus". Plus, I'm not sure why we need the "(d. 509 BC)" as we've already covered that this is ancient Rome we're talking about. Please reword swiftly and succinctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass you promoted this, so I'll leave it to you to fix this issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Getting close to pulling time: PericlesofAthens can you fix this? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, added some more phrasing and removed the nugatory text. Tough if it's not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought the meaning of the original hook was clear enough, but regardless, I think the changes are an improvement, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry that I didn't see this in time to do anything about it. Looks like you guys handled it. Cheers! Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

... that the number of traffic collisions in Gaziantep, Turkey, decreased by about 40% within two months of the installation of TEDES?

The article says that it's only in areas monitored by TEDES that this reduction was observed (to whit: It was reported that the number of traffic collisions at the TEDES-monitored intersections and fast lanes in Gaziantep declined by about 40% within two months...), not in the whole city of Gaziantep. Hook needs clarification or pulling so it can be revised into something succinct. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass you promoted this, so I'll leave it to you to fix this issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Getting close to pulling time, so can CeeGee please address this? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, pulled, I'm off to bed soon, I don't want to see errors on the main page, so better safe than sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I had a lot of trouble reading the underlying source. I cannot read Turkish and Google Translate does an appalling job of translating the language into English. In the end, I pretty much gave up on it and decided to AGF that the hook was correct. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

But the hook, as written, wasn't backed up in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You are right, I overlooked that. I went immediately to the source when I opened the article to verify the hook, but got so frustrated trying to interpret the google translation, decided to AGF on the hook, forgetting to check that the article itself said the same thing. I'll try to be more careful next time. Thanks for picking up the error. Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing and promoting in the post-DYKReviewBot era

When reviewing a nomination or promoting a hook to Prep, please have a quick look at the article history for anything that significantly altered the article from what was reviewed by either the bot or the human. To be clear, I'm not laying blame on anybody, just giving an example of why it is important to glance at the article history. The Triggering had so many significant edits that it lost half its size since the bot review, and was not the same article. The bot review version, first human review version. So, please, what you are reviewing or promoting might not be the same version DYKReviewBot, or any subsequent reviewer, signed off on. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

While that's pretty important, it's a little bit surprising that you have to remind promoters to actually re-read the article and check it meets the DYK standards. Perhaps it's a symptom of the bizarre and arcane workings of the process that things can change so radically between a hook being "approved" and it being on the main page. Perhaps that needs to change. In the meantime, please work on the hooks that are promoted to the queues regardless of when they were promoted. So far, even with the slower rate, I'm seeing hooks promoted that aren't referenced, or are just incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, everyone. So I'm a newbie and I'm interested in getting a DYK done, but the whole process seems so complicated. I'm writing my draft at Draft:Devonshire White Paper and I'm looking for someone to guide me through the process. I asked Shubinator and they directed me here. If anyone would like to help me out, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, MediaKill13 (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

MediaKill13 it's always nice to see a new editor at DYK. You do seem to write well. Instructions for nominators will help guide you through it. If you make a mistake in creating the template, it can always be corrected. Your hook(s) should be 200 characters or less, have a neutral point of view, and be "hooky", something that makes the reader want to click on the article link. You can use the Character Count tool to check the length of the hook. The hook must be stated in the article and sourced at the end of the sentence in which it is stated. The article qualifies as new the date it is moved to main space, and must be nominated within 7 days. New articles need to be 1500 characters in length, but you've already exceeded that in draft space. If you need more help, please feel free to ask for it either on this page or on the nomination template itself. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: So can I remove the {{New unreviewed article}} template and move the draft into mainspace now? MediaKill13 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

MediaKill13 Yes. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

English invasion of Scotland (1400)

...that King Henry IV's English invasion of Scotland in 1400 was delayed while they waited for the king's tents to arrive? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi did you want this to be a new nomination? Just follow Instructions for nominators and create the template. Don't worry about making a mistake, because we can always correct errors. — Maile (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Maile66 I was expecting my servants to do it for me. Since they made such a pig's ear of bringing my tent. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, another glaring tents error at DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through August 15. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 46 nominations have been approved, leaving 139 of 185 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the six that are over a month old; they all need a reviewer's attention.

Over a month old:

• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/It's Not Me, It's You (game show)
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Kunwar Singh Negi
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/The Triggering
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Rogue Fitness
• July 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Mani Yadanabon
• August 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Cash Trapped (two articles)

Other old nominations:

• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern Region, Nigeria
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Mathilda Twomey
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Satoshi Mitazono
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Austin Petersen
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Bathurst Deane
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Eliza Walker Dunbar
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Political designations in Massachusetts
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Elizabeth Manning James
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Bolivia
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/List of athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics with a prior doping offence
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Rangers signing policy
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jesús Sesma Suárez
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Tmetuchl
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Ioan Kalinderu
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Captain Rex
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor Swift videography
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ağın Bridge
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Trump plant theory
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Heroes of Remix
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Gustavo Cárdenas Gutiérrez
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/José Antonio Arévalo González
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Clare Palmer
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon)
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Kentucky Avenue Renaissance Festival
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Talbieh Camp
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Black
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/La Negra Formation
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Master of Arts in Applied Legal Studies
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/T. J. Friedl
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Revival (comics)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Chapo Trap House

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) 04:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

Cwmhiraeth, AKS.9955, Antidiskriminator: The Mijo Babić article has been recently tagged since 27 August as requiring a copyedit. Despite that, it was promoted four days later with nothing in the article being addressed. I've had a cursory glance - this really isn't the quality of article even DYK should be aspiring to post on the main page. Suggest it is pulled and given the needed care and attention before it is promoted to a queue again. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've given it a copyedit and removed the tag, so it should be fine now. Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's ok, better, but why would it have been promoted in that state? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There's been some debate about whether or not DYK should withhold articles with minor copyediting issues - minor in this case meaning articles with grammatical issues that are nonetheless comprehensible. DYK articles are not required to be perfect given that they represent mostly new content, and it's been found in practice that articles needing a copyedit are quickly cleaned up after they hit the main page. Given that one of the supposed purposes of DYK is to allow articles to be seen and improved upon by a wide audience, it can be argued that this is an example of WAD. Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

... that Hamilton was first presented at Vassar College as part of the Powerhouse Theater program?

I found this confusing as when I went to the Hamilton article, it stated that it wasn't the musical per se but a "a workshop production of the show" which comprised just "the first act of the show and three songs from the second act". Maybe that's covered by "was first presented at" (which I also find odd phrasing). It also notes that it was actually called The Hamilton Mixtape when performed. And actually, part of Hamilton appears (according to its own article) was performed first at the White House... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)