Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 80

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82→Archive 85

Second opinion requested

TonyTheTiger and I are requesting a second opinion at this nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? Please, somebody provide a second opinion. This hook is the oldest active hook on the nomination page, at six weeks old. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection of queues

Why are the queues protected so that only admins can update them? Why should this be an admin-only task, when other people are perfectly allowed to do the other stages? I can't see any particular judgement they might need. Rcsprinter (orate) 16:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's because all material that is, or will imminently be, transcluded on the main page is fully protected to guard against vandalism. BencherliteTalk 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
If it needs to protect against vandalism, why not just semi-protect? This is stopping willing volunteers edit the queues. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
WT:DYK is not a right venue for this discussion. It has been decided that only admins can directly edit the main page, and full protection of DYK queues merely follows this rule. Materialscientist (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Where should I take it then, because I want to enforce my point. (Although of course I'm not going to actually point.) WP:AN? Rcsprinter (whisper) 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
There are two possible answers to your question. If your intent is to remove the need for protection of the queues by halting the use of a bot to automatically move information to the Main page at predetermined intervals (i.e. turn the queues into prep areas and require admins to perform manual moves) then this would be the correct page. If you wish to allow open editing of the queues while maintaining existing automation then Talk:Main Page is the correct forum as the change would effectively allow non-admins to alter a portion of the Main page by timing an edit to occur just before a scheduled update. --Allen3 talk 16:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The latter. I'll take it to Talk:Main page then. Oh, and it's not a forum. Rcsprinter (articulate) 16:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

April fools questions

Are April fools nomimators who nominated after the QPQ requirement was added required to do a review? Because a lot of them have not been done, and nobody has requested one before verification. And is there a policy about DYK credits for banned users? Mbz1 has a few April fools nominations. 159.83.4.148 (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ill Manors (song) on Prep 3

Can the orange {disputed title} tag on this DYK candidate article be removed and the issue resolved before this article reaches MainPage, please? Help from experts familiar with the naming policies would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. --PFHLai (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Davis (basketball)

I need someone to review Anthony Davis (basketball). If Kentucky wins today, it should go on the main page during the championship game.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

THIS IS NOW AN URGENT REQUEST By my calculations this needs to be reviewed in time to get into Queue 4 for the 20:00 April 2 (New York Time) slot. The prep are aimed at Queue 6 is almost full. I approximate that this will be a 20,000 pageview hook if we use the picture. This guy is the basketball player everyone is talking about this week. Given his performance today to secure a spot in the championship game, he has a good chance to be the NCAA Basketball Tournament Most Outstanding Player.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In the fact about Orwell (horse) today, it would be useful to link the word "lame" to Lameness (equine). LukeSurl t c 12:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no that there

The fifth hook of Queue 4 is missing its "that". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 talk 23:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Could we capitalise "Fish" and "Anal"? Somehow my pedantry is preventing me from seeing the humour in the hooks. ;) FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disregarding the usual capitalization standards is allowed by the April Fools' Day rules, and the lower case works much better for those hooks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

April Fools prep loading — over half the spots already taken by non-AF hooks

It looks to me that that there are non-AF hooks already loaded into prep areas that will be hitting the main page on Sunday, April 1. If the Wikipedia "day" is based on UTC, then we have eleven non-AF hooks already in place, and normal prep-area loading needs to stop.

As of March 30 at about 13:45 UTC, Prep 3 should be fine, since it will become Queue 3 and hit the front page on March 31, 16:00 UTC. Assuming the April Fools front page is indeed based on UTC, the next three prep areas would then be our three AF queues:

  • Prep 4 loads at 00:00 UTC on April 1, but has four non-AF hooks listed
  • Prep 1 loads at 08:00 UTC on April 1, but has four non-AF hooks listed
  • Prep 2 loads at 16:00 UTC on April 1, but has three non-AF hooks listed

One suggestion: promoted Prep 3 to Queue 3 as soon as possible, and then start moving non-AF hooks to the newly vacant Prep 3 as the April Fools hooks get loaded into the other four. A few hooks may need to be temporarily unpromoted to make room. I've just notified the current loader of non-AF hooks, so the numbers don't increase further. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Orno for April Fools

  • Peter Orno's hook was approved for April Fools 2012 in April 2011. Orlady suggested this revision, which has enjoyed consensus:
    • ... that Peter Orno, author of several published papers in mathematics, is a pseudonym that was inspired by "pornography"?
    Please move it onto the April Fools page, so delaying a non-April-Fools item.
    Thanks.
    Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Prostitution among animals

Someone please close the discussion. It was originally saved for April Fools, but now it seems it will not be featured today. In that case, please move the original hook (the first hook) to appropriate queue. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 10:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe keep it until next year? Then again, probably won't be valid for it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I can't wait for another year. Move it to a queue so that it can be featured tomorrow or day after tomorrow. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 10:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6's empty slot: Peter Orno

Queue 6 has an empty slot. A DYK for Peter Orno has been approved for April Fools since April 2011:

  • ... that Peter Orno, author of several published papers in mathematics, is a pseudonym that was inspired by "pornography"?

(The revised wording is Orlady's.)

Replace "pornography" by "erotic publications" and strike the quotes on the latter, to avoid insulting the intelligence of readers and give their brains a little work.

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6 already features a pornographic film, apparently one of the worst ever made. So we must choose between promoting pornography or mathematics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: that "empty slot" is not an empty slot. It's a hook for ? (film). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Please replace the hook about only John Rainwater with the following hook:
Thanks for your quick answer.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note that Prostitution in animals was pulled for close paraphrasing, and I noted at the talk page that the currently agreed upon hooks for Peter Orno were not exactly April-Fools worthy in my opinion. Kevin brought up a fairly good point for the Yama-Yama Man, so I didn't promote that. Zhirinovsky's ass is not stable... (no pun intended) so I didn't move it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know

There are still four verified articles at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know that were skipped over for non-April Fool's articles. I suggest these be quickly put into the next queue while there is time left. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There were reasons why all four were omitted; see above. Even if not, unfortunately, time has run out. The last April Fools DYK hooks have now hit the front page. (April Fools goes by UTC, so the next prep area, even though it will be posted while there are a few more hours of April Fools in the U.S., goes back to regular articles.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
First Peter Orno & John Rainwater were suggested for April Fools last April (2011) by EdJohnston (I think), so we pulled them. Now that in the last day(s) Peter Orno has been passed over for April Fools as being better suited for normal days, Peter Orno should be put into a queue with all deliberate speed.
Thanks!
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Congradulations! on putting together the Did You Know section of such an interesting April Fool's Main Page. It was enjoyable to read. Keep up the good work! -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Yama Yama Man

The article linked above seems to still be valid, although the nominator chose to withdraw it after it wasn't featured in April Fools. My read of the conversation was that the issue hadn't been settled, but perhaps someone else has a different read and this could still be used somewhere in a regular set. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

My read of the fact that the nominator not only deleted the transclusion from the April Fools Day page but also formally withdrew the nomination on the template page itself was that there was no desire to have it on the regular DYK page. I therefore closed the template. If Green Cardamom wishes otherwise, it can of course be reopened, but I thought it best to follow GC's wishes in the matter, given those two definitive steps. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering how much the editor berated me on my talk page and said s/he originally didn't want it for 1 April, I'm thinking it was done for emotional reasons Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea of this past history. If GC wants it back for regular DYK, then by all means reverse my closure of the template. (I also had no idea that DYK noms could be forcibly abducted for the purposes of April Fools. Live and learn.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Promoting own article

I have added Template:Did you know nominations/Prostitution among animals DYK to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3. I know promoting one's own article is discouraged, but as it was waiting for a long time and previously promoted by another editor, I think it will be safe to self-promote it to clear the backlog. Hope I've not committed a major crime. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 03:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Promoting one's own article is frowned upon. Promoting one's own article, as was done here, to the highly desirable lead spot is particularly inappropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Cbl62's sentiment on appropriateness, yet since this nomination had been in that desirable lead spot already for April Fools before being pulled late in the game and not acted on in time to restore it later, I think it behooves us to try to get it back into a lead spot. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

April's Fool Day artices

I loved the articles this year. They were funny, educational, and well-written. Great job to all! Bearian (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tricana poveira

This "template" appears to have been created by hand rather than set up through the normal template creation process, and only has a hook in it, with none of the normal DYK template boilerplate. It has been transcluded, which means that it appears at the end of March 27, and appears to be part of the previous transcluded template, Jade Wall. The creator of Tricana poveira and its very incomplete template is User:PedroPVZ.

Is there anyone around here with experience at untangling this sort of thing? It's beyond my capabilities to do so. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lost cantata, speedy review please, strange template

The "late" Bach cantata BWV 80a (see above) is now approved, please get it in prep.
I noticed only last night that Schiersteiner Kantorei has an anniversary in 2012 and a concert on 31 March, if possible process the nom fast.
The template I reviewed for it looks strange. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The Marion template you reviewed is fixed now. The first two items still need to be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
All set, but please see new request to come, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

?

... ? ... what an excellent blurb. Kudos! —howcheng {chat} 23:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Readers were intrigued too, according to the page view stats. Nice one! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for switching the position of Article and Hook criteria within editnotice template

Solved: The proposal is proven to be bad.

Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations contains criteria when reviewing the nomination.

  • Proposal: I propose to switch position of Article and Hook criteria.
  • Rationale: It usually takes much more time to review the whole article and to deal with all its issues then to review the hook. There are cases when you lose a lot of time to review the article and then when you start reviewing the hook you notice serious problems which disqualify the nomination. Switching the position of the Article and Hook criteria could save time in such cases.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The order the criteria are listed in the template isn't a requirement that reviews be conducted in that order; reviewers can review the criteria in whatever order they want. And I can't really imagine many cases (other than perhaps articles that are too boring, although rejecting those is controversial anyway) when an article could qualify and yet be impossible to nominate because of the hook; when an article is acceptable and the hook is not, usually we just propose an alternate hook. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I was not clear enough. I was referring to cases when both article and hook do not qualify. Taking in consideration that reviewers can review the criteria in whatever order they want can I conclude that you would not oppose to switch the position of Article and Hook criteria?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't think the rationale is compelling. The first two items under Article—the newness/expansion criteria and the 1500 character minimum—are more likely to trip up an article than hook issues. No need to get into the hook at all, not to mention article contents, if the article is too short or hasn't had a 5x expansion. (These are the two most fundamental rules of the process; third is keeping the hook under 200 displayed characters.) I have noticed that people not doing a review are most likely to chime in on hook wording or length, but as Rjanag notes, the hook is usually fixable if the article is okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Thank you for your explanation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wanted: reviews for Special occasions

Please consider to review two nominations for Good Friday and one for Easter, St Matthew Passion structure (hook suggestion yes, review no), Schiersteiner Kantorei and BWV 145, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nominating an article one week before it's special occasion seems like not enough notice IMHO, I don't know how others feel. To me, it feels like an attempt to jump the queue. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that that's in my opinion, more of a guideline rather than a policy (and even if it was WP:IAR should cover it.) I think that if a nomination has a particular relevence to a particular day, you may as well put it there. The St Matthew Passion structure one was clearly passed over (so to speak) because no-one could be bothered to review it and I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed in, even if it is just a few days before the day in question. And besides, the queue and prep areas are hardly swamped with nominations at the moment so it's not stopping any others. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) The rules say five days. I say please consider. Nobody has to. Schiersteiner Kantorei was nominated 28 March. St. Matthew Passion was nominated 31 March, commented the next day, but the comment will not result in a review, that's why I ask here - the Passion doesn't make sense any other day, it's the one I care about most. The cantata is also good 10 April (3rd day of Easter for which it was composed) or 19 April (likely day of premiere), but I mention it here in case something was wanted for Easter. I changed the heading to be more specific, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying they shouldn't be reviewed, they should be. I'm just saying that it's easier if it can be nominated further in advance, which would take more planning. And I understand that sometimes an idea for a DYK just comes along, so there might not always be time to spare. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand, but visit my talk to see that unfortunately I have priorities other than writing articles, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for my top one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Applications for free, full access, 1-year accounts from HighBeam Research officially open

Just a reminder that 1000 free accounts are available from the internet research database HighBeam Research. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Here's the link to the project page: WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Sign-up! And, please tell your Wikipedia-friends about the opportunity! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Civil Police Force

Template:Did you know nominations/Palestinian Civil Police Force was archived because the nominator had not responded for several days to the review process. The nominator has contacted me and asked if it is possible to restore it to the nomination page because he/she was not able to access Wikipedia in the time it took to archive it. If it is restored could either I or the nominator be notified to let one of us know that it is back? Thanks, --Ishtar456 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Tinirau clackae, Queue 4

The current wording of this hook is misleading. The genus, not the species Tinirau clackae, was "named after the half-human half-fish character Tinirau in Polynesian legend". The specific name of this species honors Jennifer A. Clack. --142.1.32.35 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Did DYK rules change about the hook?

Did DYK change? I thought the hook was supposed to be somewhere in the lead. I'm kind of confused about this, especially with the LBJ hook, because there doesn't seem to be anything that fits the hook in those articles.Maile66 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Whichever Queue just loaded with the below, when I click the link for either LBJ or the executive order, I see nothing at all that resembles that hook. Even on a Search, I don't find those statistics. I thought this was a particular interesting hook, but I didn't find anything to back up the hook. It should be easier to find, or at least should actually have matching statistics within the articles mentioned.

... that when U.S. President Johnson signed Executive Order 11375 in 1967 banning sex bias in federal government hiring, women held just 809 of more than 40,000 federal civil service jobs?

In regards to this, I don't find the hook until about half way down in the article:

... that there were so many pubs in Monmouth's market place that they said "A gin court here, a gin court there, No wonder they call it Agincourt Square" (sign pictured)?

Ditto for this one:

... that Henry Knighton' was the first historian of Lollardy?

On this one, the hook words are not actually until the first section below the lead:

... that "Zou Bisou Bisou" sung by Jessica Paré as Megan Draper on the March 25 season 5 premiere of Mad Men, was a 1960s yé-yé song that can be translated as "Oh! Kiss Kiss"?

I've never seen anything necessitating that the hook is contained in the article's lead. Given the small size of a lot of these articles I'm not really sure how constructive such a rule would actually be, either. GRAPPLE X 00:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, on where the hook is. But I do think the LBJ and executive order hook is a mis-fire. Readers should be able to find that.Maile66 (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you please give links to the specific hooks you are talking about?--Kevmin § 00:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You mean the LBJ one? Well, it's Lyndon B. Johnson and Executive Order 11375. I assume the qualifier was the Executive Order 11375 , because the LBJ article has been around a long time and wasn't expanded significantly enough to qualify. You can come up with the 809 figure if you add up several figures. And it's a bit misleading on the 40,000 federal civil service jobs, because the article is talking about specific pay scales for $18,000 or higher - top executive pay in that era. The aggregate of jobs totals in those categories are 47,300 - not the exact 40,000 in the hook. 1967 being the height of the Vietnam War, the military bases alone in 50 states would have employed more civil servants than that. Just maybe not in specific pay scales. Women had been employed in federal civil service for a long time. I don't mean to pick this apart. But this is one article where maybe the hook should have been eyeballed a little closer. Maile66 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I was meaning more along the lines of Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Executive_Order_11375 links to the nominations themselves so they can be more easily discussed.--Kevmin § 01:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Then the second number should be changed to 47,300, easy as that. I don't see an issue with the simple addition of the jobs. Furthermore, do you know that the paywalled source doesn't list the totals of these? For all we know, it could say 40,000 total, having dropped off 7,300 for any number of reasons. SilverserenC 01:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, that Queue has come and gone, so it's all a moot point now. Maile66 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP

Does a BLP with no inline reference, but with external link, considered as unsourced? — Bill william comptonTalk 03:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a generic external link such as pointing an actor's article to their IMDB page isn't actually a source. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
To be more specific, does this article qualify for DYK? — Bill william comptonTalk 03:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd say so, yeah. GRAPPLE X 03:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for a prompt response. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Variations in DYK lead picture

Hey, just wanting to confirm that DYK leads should aim to have a heady mix of picture and not say...three people in a row, or three fish, or three trees. Seems to me as though that's still a good idea but want to make sure it hasn't changed. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK update late

T:DYK has not been updated for over 12 hours. I don't know if the bot is down or if there is something wrong with the next queue. —Bruce1eetalk 12:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bump. 13 hours now. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I've restarted the bot; looks like Toolserver connectivity issues again. For future reference, it's fastest to reach me by my talk page. Shubinator (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Shubinator, I'll remember your talk page in future. —Bruce1eetalk 15:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to pick up the pace!

Good grief! There are 7 queues filled and 276 hooks on the noms page, including 40 approved hooks, and we are continuing to run only three sets of 6 hooks each day -- a slow, slow pace that was adopted due to an unprecedented drought in nominations. It's time to pick up the pace! I am unilaterally adding one hook to the next prep areas to take this up to three sets of 7 per day. That's not really enough, but I think the DYK community may not be able to adjust to more radical change than that... --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We tried going to seven a month or two ago. It failed because we didn't have enough reviewed noms. Same problem might come about this time, once the initial backlog is resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Orlady, I already added a seventh to the template a day or two ago. I completely concur. Until we get a drop in nominations, as Muboshgu correctly states, we should have the higher volume of hooks to lower the crazy backlog we have. Lord Roem (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal on new queue rate

Per Orlady's suggestion above, and in response to the HUGE backlog we have in nominations (even those that are approved), I propose changing the 3/day DYK change rate to 4/day for the time being. This would be a change every 6 hours instead of every 8 hours. We could then revert back to 3/day once we clean up the big backlog we have. Thoughts? Lord Roem (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's too much too soon. Let's try 21 a day; if it doesn't seem to be working then go to 24 a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, just so I'm clear what you mean, you're saying a change to 8-hooks if 7 doesn't suffice? I'm cool with that. :-) Lord Roem (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
We have lately had a great deal of trouble keeping more than four or five of the ten queue+prep areas filled. Having seven right now is unusual. I certainly wouldn't want to go to four updates/day until there's a demonstrated ability for filling prep areas and seeing them promoted to the queues. It's important that there isn't a rush to move prep areas to queues too quickly, because otherwise we lose many non-admin editors being able to fix up rough hooks, and there have been a lot of hooks that need some sort of editing of late. So, if we're going to go to 24 per day, I'd far rather have three sets of eight than four sets of six. But let's stick with 21 for a couple of days first. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good! Lord Roem (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with that too. I'd just also like to add that with bot hiccups and times when all queues are empty, going from three updates to four would only amplify those problems. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Review syntax help needed

Per the instructions in the review template, I entered "yes" for the value in the DYK subst template at the top, but am now just getting a broken template at the top of the review - see Template:Did you know nominations/Noel Agazarian. What am I doing wrong? Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you forgot to also add the "subst:" to the top line before "DYKsubpage" to invoke the template; after the open double braces, you'll have "subst:DYKsubpage". Once you add that, the preview should show the entire template as promoted. Give it a try! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Got it, thank you! Prioryman (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Oops. Misunderstood you entirely. You wanted to pass it (which involves the tick), not promote it to a prep area (which involves what I just mentioned). Glad you figured it out anyway. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Good Friday hooks are scheduled for Saturday now – admin help, please?

There were two hooks originally in the holding area for Good Friday: St Matthew Passion structure, currently the lead hook in Queue 3, and Agnus Dei (Barber), currently the second hook in Prep 3. The bot had a bad hiccup recently, and everything is significantly delayed.

As currently scheduled, Queue 3 will not reach the main page until Friday, April 6, at 23:31 (UTC), though it'll really be midnight UTC with the bot stretching time to get back on schedule. It's even worse for Prep 3, which is destined for Queue 5 assuming it's promoted on schedule, and won't reach the main page until 16:00 (UTC) that day. The bot was having troubles last night, and managed to delay things quite a bit.

My suggestion:

  1. move St Matthew Passion structure from Queue 3 to Queue 1, and swap the lead hook there (Henry's crib) into Queue 3 in its place. St Matthew will then run on Friday the 6th at 03:31 New York time, and 08:31 London time and 09:31 in Europe for eight hours, hitting the morning in the states and the entire day in Europe.
  2. move Agnus Dei (Barber) from Prep 3 to Queue 2, where it runs during the evening in Europe and during the afternoon and early evening in the US, where Barber lived. It could be a seventh hook, rather than displace another hook, but there could be a swap if the admin wants to. (If not a swap, a seventh hook should be found for Prep 3.)

If no one has a better idea, can an admin please take care of this? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Orlady (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks to both of you, precious support again, - while I slept. For a preview see my user. We will sing Agnus Dei today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Queues 3 and 4

  • In the second hook of Queue 3, 's should be replaced with {{`s}}
  • Queue 4 is missing a credit: *{{DYKmake|King Kang of Chu|Zanhe|subpage=King Gong of Chu and King Kang of Chu}}

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Done Q3, the above credit is present, maybe you meant some other? Materialscientist (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a double hook. There's a credit for King Gong of Chu but not for King Kang of Chu. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, added. Materialscientist (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem. These April Fools' Day articles are still messing with people! Thanks for taking care of everything. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Time-sensitive DYKs

I'd be grateful if someone could give a speedy review to Template:Did you know nominations/RMS Titanic in popular culture. It's going to be linked from the Featured Article box on April 15 and I'd like to see it get some exposure before then to obtain some feedback on it prior to April 15.

Three other (much shorter!) articles also need to be reviewed before the Titanic centenary weekend - Template:Did you know nominations/A Night to Remember (book)‎, Template:Did you know nominations/Titanic Belfast and Template:Did you know nominations/United States lightship LV-117. QPQ reviews have been done for all three. Thanks in advance to anyone who sorts this out! Prioryman (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Template:Did you know nominations/Shaka at Birth (Tōdai-ji) has been approved, and April 8 is Buddha's Birthday, please can this go out then as per nomination, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC) p.s. Template:Did you know nominations/Ich lebe, mein Herze, zu deinem Ergötzen, BWV 145 should go out on the 10th, thanks.

Sockpuppetry?

A number of nominations for articles on personality and cognition made for April 6th appear to be nominated and created by the same person under various aliases. Is this of any concern? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure these are students in a class project, not sockpuppets. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I had fixed almost all of those nominations in multiple ways. I'd never before seen a bunch of noms in such need of repair. I haven't looked at the articles, but if the effort put into the noms is any indication, I imagine they're pretty bad. I hope reviewers will be welcoming and encouraging, while still insisting on high quality standards. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe this is a new term's worth of the same class that submitted a lot of psych articles late last year. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh good, maybe the classes can get ideas from each other on how to do it :-) I did some checking but since we didn't use nomination templates at the time, and since the list I have buried in my talkpage archive doesn't include articles that had already been copyedited, I can't estimate how many made it to DYK. Also I think the DYK submission was an extra-credit assignment last summer (which meant we got the more confident editors, but also those who tried at the last minute in hopes of increasing their grade). Time was a real problem last year, with it being a summer course; I seem to remember there being 3 eventual DYKs from the group, 2 of them well after the course ended (I really hope those students got their grades adjusted). But ... my memory for numbers is not very good. I think these nominations are going to require some special attention, especially since psychology is not a field many people here write on (I couldn't help with several because I didn't have the knowledge; I asked for help at the Wikiproject but I'm not sure anything came of it). Maybe we should keep a list of them on this page to encourage people to consider reviewing one, copyediting the article, or offering advice on hooks and other DYK rules? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead hook in Prep 4

The lead hook in Prep 4 needs a few minor changes - it shouldn't be 'Early Oligocene' but 'Lower Oligocene' as this refers to rocks rather than time (see Geologic time scale#Terminology); the time period should be 28-34 if we're rounding to whole millions (they're actually 28.4-33.9) and 'rock strata' would be preferred to 'rock beds', a form which is less often used and can refer to bedrock, which isn't the meaning here. Mikenorton (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this is still in prep, I boldly made all 3 changes. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK date request

After well over 500 DYKs, I have a good feel for date requests. At Template:Did you know nominations/Kony 2012‎, my date request was ignored. At User_talk:Orlady#Date_request_missed_on_Kony_2012, the closer stated he felt the request was "without merit". It is my understanding that the goal of DYK is to try to increase the visibilty of fledgling articles. Although I see no relevant policy or guidance at WP:DYK, it has become customary to attempt to target hooks for the main page when they are most relevant to the readers. Last week I was able to time a hook for Anthony Davis (basketball) that became the 2nd most widely viewed DYK hook of all time. This hook has the potential to be even more widely viewed if posted on April 20, when the entire world will be engaged in an international action day for Kony 2012. I do not understand why the April 20 date request is without merit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

As Tony indicates, the proposed date of April 20 is the date of an "international action day" for the Stop Kony Campaign. I assumed that the request to publish the hook that day was related to an effort to promote the event. DYK is not supposed to about helping to promote causes, but rather about highlighting new content. It appears from Tony's comments that I have may misjudged his motives, but my overall opinion hasn't changed.
Not only isn't DYK about promoting causes, but it's not about promoting one's profile at WP:DYKSTATS. Because Kony has been a pretty hot topic recently, this article gets a lot of hits (daily hits for the past month range from yesterday's 5952 up to the 125585 hits on March 9). I suppose that if it gets featured on DYK on a day when the topic is being promoted in other media, it will appear to get a lot of DYK attention that day, but that attention would not be a result of its being featured in DYK. It seems to me that featuring the article in DYK on a day when the topic is not being actively promoted by advocates will be more beneficial to Wikipedia (by showcasing new content about a topic of current interest), and it will not hurt the cause of the Stop Kony Campaign. --Orlady (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
DYK does not discriminate between page views because of the relevance of the topic on that day and page views because the article is on DYK. The two most viewed DYK hooks of all time are hooks timed to be on the main page when they were most relevant to the reader. It is common convention to honor date requests to put hooks on the main page when they are most relevant. The convention at DYK is that it is more beneficial to WP to put hooks on the main page when they are most relevant rather than Orlady's argument that it is better to put it on the main page when it is irrelevant or less relevant. DYK is not viewed as taking sides on the issue. When Anthony Davis was on the main page, it was not a statement that DYK was rooting for Kentucky. It was just that Davis was relevant on that day. This is longstanding convention at DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, we do have a convention of eliminating background noise at DYK:STATS. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Statistics#Green Lantern (film), Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Statistics#Brad Stevens and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Statistics#Fishsticks (South Park) and The Ring (South Park). The point of DYK:STATS is to measure the "bump" from an article being on DYK, not to take advantage of a wave of popularity that a topic has. For this reason, the Anthony Davis hook needs to be adjusted downward. I also think it would be a bad idea for us to promote DYK hooks on a particular day when it will be in the news, especially where it is being used to inflate one's DYK stats and get to the top of DYK:STATS under artificial means. Cbl62 (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the background views per DYKSTATS rule 3. —Bruce1eetalk 15:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
There are more "stat leaders" at WP:DYKSTATS that should have a correction applied, as well. Just from glancing at the list, I see that Paul the Octopus, Leroy Petry, 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade, Saxbe fix, Todd Palin, and Disappearance of Rebecca Coriam all indicate a news or anniversary factor in their hooks, and/or were actively part of the news at the time they were promoted. I'm sure there are more that are news-related. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Looking at your list, three of them could be adjusted for background noise using DYKSTATS rule 3, with substantial reductions: Paul the Octopus (152,206 → 79,320), 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade (53,039 → 10,238) and Todd Palin (58,032 → 29,974). (BTW Todd Palin shouldn't even be in the DYK LEAD table as it wasn't a DYK lead!) Saxbe fix and Disappearance of Rebecca Coriam both benefit from the next-day's-views (rule 1), I don't know how their "newsworthyness" could be factored in. —Bruce1eetalk 05:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
We still need to go to two columns gross and net. This approach is arbitrary. Imagine we were adjusting the number 1 article at WP:TFAMOSTVIEWED. It had 621k the day it was on the main page and 2.3 million the next. I could see something like this happening for Kony 2012 given that the news stories might report the international action after it happens starting with the evening news and going into the next day.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm with what Cbl62 says above: "The point of DYK:STATS is to measure the "bump" from an article being on DYK, not to take advantage of a wave of popularity that a topic has." —Bruce1eetalk 06:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I just don't think we are measuring our "bump" consistently with WP:TFLSTATS and WP:TFAMOSTVIEWED. I don't know if ITN, SA and POTD keep track.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The Stats should use two columns (adjusted and unadjusted).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You are pointing me to policy that DYK stats are adjusted, but that the hook still goes on the main page when it is relevant. Is there precedent other than Election Day of not putting hooks on the main page when they are most relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
How much should the #1 hook of all time be adjusted if the next day it had almost the same # of hits?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think "in the news" DYKs should be included in WP:DYKSTATS, because the hits are likely driven by outside forces and not as a result of being featured on DYK. The original purpose of DYK:STATS was to recognize hooks that have been so well constructed that they attract extraordinary numbers of hits. Whether it's Paul the Octopus or Anthony Davis, the "in the news" DYKs don't measure the hits being fueled by DYK. There's no way to say with any scientific certainty, but in all likelihood the vast majority of the hits received by Anthony Davis (on the day of the championship game in which he starred) and Paul the Octopus (at the peak of the international media frenzy about the soothsaying cephalopod) were the result of intense media coverage on the day the hook hit the Main Page. IMO it's the hooks like HMS Highlander, Eternal Silence, Ivan Castro, and Fortress of Mimoyecques that are the real superstars -- having pulled in beaucoup hooks without being the subject of any external media frenzy. While I would have preferred to exclude the newsy topics from DYK:STATS altogether, there's been no consensus for that, and so MatSci developed a formula for background subtraction. That method is imperfect, but it's better than nothing. Given the imperfect ability to subtract the background noise, one way to avoid unfairly skewing DYK:STATS is to avoid promoting a hook to DYK on a day when we know it is likely to receive extraordinary attention even without the DYK process. For this reason, I support Orlady's decision to promote the Kony hook on a day other than the "international action day." Cbl62 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Credit note. The credit for the Kony hook also appears to be incomplete. The Kony article has over 51,000 bytes, and the three principal creators appear to be Hydrox (over 19,000 bytes), Silver seren (over 18,000 bytes), and Niemti (over 12,000 bytes). Yet, they are not listed as creators for DYK credit. They should be added. Cbl62 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
What tool apportions content?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Credits are supposed to be identified when the nomination is created. They can be added after that via the {{DYKmake}} template. I've added the credits for those 3 contributors to the prep template. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Figures above were not derived using a tool. They're based on reviewing the +/- figures from the page history. When the nominator was done with his additions on March 7 (the day of the nomination), it was a very sparse stub looking like this. Where the article is essentially written by others after the nomination, I think it's appropriate to credit those who have done the work. Thanks to Orlady for adding the extra credits. Cbl62 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Cbl62, I think you are making some backhanded point that I am riding the coattails of other editors and should not be harping for credit. I understand that you are an editor who probably has not taken on very many previously deleted subjects to high quality levels. You may or may not be aware of my track record of creating dozens of quality articles from previously deleted topics. In more than a dozen cases, I have created a previously deleted article or an article that endured an AFD while under creation, that became a WP:GA. This article was both previously deleted and endured an AFD while undercreation. The heavy lifting in this case was getting a previously deleted article to the point where there was consensus to keep it at a time when sources were sparse by exhausting all available sources even though it only resulted in a stub. I was the guy who did the heavy lifting even though I am barely involved in the article at this time. If I were creating it now, I could easily build a hefty article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this going to be a new policy not to accept date requests for dates when topics are newsy. A large portion of date request are made for this reason. Historically, we have seemed to feel that this was good. I have had several dozen DYKs timed in this way. Like you said, we don't even have consensus that padded DYK stats are bad let alone consensus to avoid cases where it may occur. Why single out this nomination? Is there a reason to set main page policy based on its impact on WP:DYKSTATS? Shouldn't we be assessing what is best for the reader. ITN, FA/TFA, POTD, SA (not sure about FL/TFL) all consider it a bonus to have content on the main page when it is relevant, why should DYK go against the main page philosophy?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
A general principle that underlies all of the DYK rules is that contributors don't have the final "say" regarding their contributions. This applies to hook wording, special date requests, image selection, etc. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Is that some sort of challenge. Tell me which of the following statements seems wrong. FA/TFA attempts to put articles on the main page when they are most relevant. ITN attempts to highlight the most relevant articles of today. SA attempts to highlight the most relevant articles of the past. POTD takes into account subject relevance in its scheduling. TFL seems to try to put lists on the main page when they are most relevant. DYKs requests to put items on the main page when they are most relevant in almost all cases. Now, suddenly Orlady and Cbl62 against all main page conventions consider it favorable to WP to begin attempting to try to keep items from being on the main page when they are most relevant because it might mess up WP:DYKSTATS or for some other hidden racist reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I think "for some other hidden racist reason" is completely out of line, and you need to apologise User:TonyTheTiger. Beyond that, I think you have some degree of a point. DYK is not about the stats and about the number of hits. But it is about trying to get interesting and relevant articles out into the public domain. In a lot of cases, the timing of a DYK is important. Now, if we have issues about the stats, then maybe these timed hooks need to be recorded in a different table to reflect that. I appreciate User:Orlady's initial concern about promotional timing, but the hook appears to adhere to our neutrality guidelines, and posting it on that day isn't endorsing it. I'm not saying I unequivocally think the request should be adhered to, and I do think that these are nothing more than requests at any time, but on the other hand, I think perhaps a conversation in this forum might be worth having if we are going to turn such a request down. Harrias talk 21:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I put up with a lot of crap at WP. I think this is some senseless attempt to temporarily change DYK to keep a hook I nominated off the main page. I don't understand the slights about my nomination of an article "essentially written by others". That is BS. When you cobble together an article with shoestrings for sources, that is as hard as adding reams of easily found stuff. It seems to me that the DYKSTAT argument is some WP:COATRACK argument about whether I deserve a well-timed DYK that is going to get a ton of hits. Every section on the main page rewards relevant articles with main page visibility when relevance is pointed out. It is for the good of WP. When all sections of the main page agree that putting content on the main page when it is relevant, why should two editors come to an agreement that we should try to keep things off the main page when it is relevant. Can someone clarify WTF I am suppose to apologize about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The apology would be for your use of the phrase "or for some other hidden racist reason"—the word in question is "racist", one hell of an accusation to be throwing about regarding DYK and on Wikipedia, and completely unwarranted. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone believe that DYKSTATS concerns is a pisspoor excuse to try to keep a relevant article off the main page. In February, all or almost all TFLs were date relevant (The first and only month I looked at). People weren't running around saying WP:TFLSTATS are going to be skewed in favor of Dog Shows, Super Bowls or Academy Awards so let's keep them off the main page. Quite the opposite. I didn't call anyone a racist. I said their reasoning is racist BS, which it is. I call a spade a spade. There is uniform concensus on the main page to try to find relevant content to put on the main page. Kony 2012 has a chance to be one of the most relevant in the history of the main page and now we are going to change the policy and try to keep relevant content off the main page? WTF? Rtothemax!!!!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Note that this is not the first time Tony has suggested racist motivations here. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think what you are pointing out is that when THE MAN don't want to give me credit for my work, I start throwing around racist accusations. Stop making up crazy reasons not to give me credit for my work and I might stop throwing the word around.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by credit? Those yellow banners on talk pages? I'll gladly put several of them on your talk page if that helps.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is trying to take any credit away from you. Cbl62 pointed out that other users should also be given credit earlier in this conversation, but unless I missed a chunk of it, they never suggested that you should not receive credit. Was there any suggestion anywhere in the conversation that you were being discriminated against racially? Because, if not, I would urge you once more to strongly consider apologising for that accusation. Harrias talk 00:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Racism takes on all forms. You don't have to call someone a N-word to be racist. Making up half-arsed reasons to deny someone an accomplishment is a very racist thing to do is it not. Pretending we should suddenly keep an article from being at or near the top of WP:DYKSTATS because you don't understand that we try to put relevant things on the main page sounds half-arsed to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S. He not only pointed out that others should be given credit, but that I was nominating an article "essentially written by others".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that racism can take on many forms, but I simply don't see how it is relevant here, and for you to accuse someone of racism without basis (and I haven't seen any evidence from you that any perceived discrimination here has been due to a racial prejudice) is itself highly offensive. So unless you are willing to back your accusations up, (and this probably isn't the best place to do so anyway) I would suggest for a third time that you apologise to those editors who, like yourself, are doing what they think helps Wikipedia the best. Harrias talk 00:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you believe that any main page veterans honestly don't understand that we seek content for the main page that is date-relevant? Do you think this is just an oversight? Do you think they just don't realize how big a deal it could be for WP to have this article on the main page on April 20? I am betting it will be a 6-figure page view day. There are only a handful of articles (almost all TFAs) that have achieved that. I don't quite know what type of perverse incentive is driving two veterans of the main page to suddenly not understand that we seek date-relevant content, but you and I can go back and forth. I can't prove it is racism? I believe it is either conscious racism or subconscious racism (they just don't want me to have too many big pages to WP:DYKSTATS). I don't believe any of this malarky that they are saying, so I am calling it as I see it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't exactly germane to the conversation, but this discussion does leave me wondering: What's the big deal about DYKStats? Why give a crap who's on top there? If it's only about measuring DYK's effect, don't we have enough empirical data by now? I do understand the concern that DYK shouldn't be used to advance political causes, but other than that this discussion seems entirely pointless to me. I thought the only point of presenting hooks on certain day was that it was kind of fun to have blurbs about Christmas on Christmas, nonsense on April Fools' Day, etc. I don't see any point it actually fighting over this.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I see no reason why Kony 2012 shouldn't be set for April 20th. It is a date that is relevant to the subject and that is often how we pick dates for DYK, such as anniversaries or things that are otherwise important to the subject. For Kony 2012, that is April 20th. Promotion is irrelevant, subject importance is relevant. SilverserenC 00:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I just came back from Easter dinner to find Tony's accusation of racism against Orlady and me. Not the first time he's spewed such disgusting nonsense. When he doesn't get his way, it's because others are racist. I certainly hope this vile behavior isn't rewarded by giving him what he wants. Cbl62 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Look Dude, you have been around WP about as long as I have, if not longer. You have been around long enough to know that we seek content that is relevant to the main page for all sections of the main page. I don't believe for one second that you believe that we are suddenly suppose to try to keep relevant content from appearing the main page at the time when it would be relevant. I don't know what your motives are. You could be motivated by racism, or some other less likely crap. Maybe you just don't want me to have too many of the top pages at WP:DYKSTATS. I am pretty sure I will have 3 of the top 25 and likely 2 of the top 5, if this goes on the main page when it should. Rather than try to make up illogical reasons why we should not put my relevant stuff on the main page, why don't you just find some of your own.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You have proved my point. Your desire to have the Kony hook placed on the requested date is so that you can lay claim to having "2 of the top 5" hooks in DYK:STATS history. This is gamesmanship. I have no objection to date requests in general, but when it's a blatant attempt to game the system, I do object. And I guess you see nothing wrong with accusing others of racism without any basis for the charge. (You don't even know what race I am or what race my kids are.) Cbl62 (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not I state that I anticipate a big day for DYK, it does not change the fact that this is a highly date-relevant date. It is not gaming the system. Gaming the system is when you use the system to do something that it is not intended to support. In this case, I am using the system to try to put highly relevant content on the main page when it is relevant. BTW, A black person can be racist against a black person by trying to help THE MAN keep another brother down.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S. The point of putting Kony 2012 on the main page on April 20 is not to reward me, but to benefit the reader. Your reasoning that WP should "punish" me by not putting it on the main page would be punishing the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Tony -- You need to come to grips with the fact that the negative reactions you sometimes receive on Wikipedia are simply not about your race. And I'm not sure who you think is "THE MAN" in the world of Wikipedia. Cbl62 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The most virulent and contemptible form of racist is the one who actually believes his reasons are deeper than race.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You are entitled to your paranoia, but your being paranoid does not give you carte blanche to engage in personal attacks. --Orlady (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Change of article name in Q5

The bolded article in the last hook in Queue 5 should now be the 1819 Rann of Kutch earthquake, following a recent page move - I fixed all the redirects but forgot about this link and found it had been moved from the Prep area when I did remember, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It was piped to that - I removed the piping. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Terribly boring hook

The first line on DYK hooks says "DYK consists of a series of "hooks", which are interesting facts taken from Wikipedia's newest content". We have a DYK right now, at the top with picture, that says, "that many things related to Rhodesia, both physical and immaterial (examples pictured), can be considered Rhodesiana?" Really? I did not know that. Is it also true that things made in or related to America are considered American? Similarly, things made or related to Australia are Austrailian? Was this hook really the most interesting thing in a backlog of hooks?--v/r - TP 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just one point, "Rhodesiana" is not the same as "Rhodesian" any more than "Americana" is the equivalent of "American". Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
...and that's the interesting part?--v/r - TP 19:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say it was interesting. :-) Prioryman (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
But it is more interesting than the fact that there's an Australian softball player who didn't make the Olympic team.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
No kidding. I guess in the end I'm grinding my gears about something I've not even helped out at in six months so who am I to complain, eh?--v/r - TP 20:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue (old)

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • @Miyagawa, you been around. If you feel like a tilt at adminship let me know. It is useful for content editing, and shuffling complicated pagemoves - very handy for editing the Queues. I also help out at WP:RFPP sometimes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: I've loaded up queues so prep areas now empty. I'd chip in now but have some other stuff to attend to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

prep areas loaded and empty again

just popped in....loaded up. go for it folks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What is this project actually about?

The bust-up with TonyTheTiger and other things got me thinking about what the goal of the DYK project is.

I was very active on DYK a couple of years ago, but then I did very little Wikipedia editing for a while. In the recent days and weeks I've had a little more spare time, so I've been doing a little more DYK work. I've found that what DYK is fundamentally about has changed quite a bit. I feel like that has really impacted how DYK works (for the worse, I'd say).

When I got active on DYK, I wanted to contribute because I thought it was a neat project for two reasons. It made a nice contribution to the main page, giving people something interesting to read on the first page they typically see when they come to Wikipedia. Ideally, all the hooks were interesting, funny, surprising, odd, whatever. Secondly, it led people to read articles that, though not yet polished gems, had reached a certain level of quality. Having such additional eyes go over the article often meant that a lot of little things were improved in those articles. Or, it would get additional people motivated to contribute to those articles, helping them improve even more. Barring that, they would at least read an interesting article.

Now I feel like the focus has shifted to rewarding editors for the work they've put in by showcasing their article on the main page and, above all, increasing their DYK count. I think that's odd in several ways. First of all, the notion that it's their article being showcased is just plain wrong. By contributing to Wikipedia, you're essentially donating the work you've put. It ceases to be yours. So, what we are really doing isn't (or at least, it shouldn't be) showcasing any particular editors' work, but ways in which Wikipedia has improved recently. Secondly, I find the pride people take in their DYK count, the number of yellow tags they get on their talk page, or the number of hits their get while on the main page silly at best. This manifests itself in people actually quarreling over who deserves the DYK credit (I'm not just talking about that row yesterday, there have been several similar, though lower-profile, incidents) or asking DYK volunteers to put those DYK notifications on their talk pages. Who cares whether or not you're officially acknowledged as the one who achieved that DYK? It seems strange. I thought contributing to Wikipedia was about the fun you have doing it, not about the number of yellow tags you get on your talk page in return?!

This shift in focus manifests itself in a number of ways. One, is the QPQ review requirement. I was actually pretty astonished to find out about this when I came back to DYK. It seems like everything has gotten so much more bureaucratic, precisely because it's all about making sure every gets their fair share of credit. Another is the disputes I mentioned.

I don't mean to admonish anyone for their behavior. I mostly just wanted to share my impression since coming back here and, maybe, starting a little discussion on what the whole project is all about that could lead to some rethinking on how we do things around here. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about this.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This sounds more like a problem with certain editors' behavior than with the project itself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
@Carabinieri, there is a global issue with wikipedia that as it gets more developed, people have to get better at being more thorough with formatting, referencing etc. This becomes a rather challenging balancing act - one wants to keep up folks' enthusiasm but at the same time be reminding of fixing odds and ends (which is a real chore...bit like eating yer greens). Also coming with it is a greater need for more thorough reviewing, which is also more time consuming. I think the DYK project has done a good job of walking that tightrope despite protests of leniency and poor quality from one side, and of over-bureaucracy and loss of fun on the other. I've just woken up and logged on and am not aware of the dustup mentioned but certainly individual issues can give an impression of more global import that many not be real. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. My point isn't that we should be more lenient about the kind of articles we accept. I tend to be more of a stickler on a number of things when I review nominations. What I'm trying to get at is something entirely different. My impression is that the goals of the whole project have changed over the years from just being a nice feature on the main page to being a system for rewarding editors. And I think that most people who contribute to DYK have this sort of attitude. So my question is: How do you think DYK fits into Wikipedia? What are its goals?--Carabinieri (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you Carabinieri. The trophy-collecting orientation is probably not healthy for DYK or Wikipedia. One possible way to curb that orientation would be to get rid of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. Another would be to eliminate WP:DYKSTATS. I like DYKSTATS because it serves as a fun and hopefully useful collection of good hooks. Short of getting rid of DYKSTATS, we could also get rid of the column listing the names of the "Nominators." The Nominators column wasn't originally part of DYKSTATS, and if the point is simply to provide examples of good hooks, the names of the Nominators shouldn't matter. Cbl62 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The normal DYKSTATS (unlike the exceptioal ones) don't list a name of nominator and author(s), it's fun to read, keep, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree - not listing nominators on DYKSTATS would be helpful in avoiding the trophy-collecting mentality, but deleting the whole thing is probably excessive. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Repeating: this is achieved already. Contributors are not mentioned, only for the exceptional ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of comments in the middle of a section about something else is not really a discussion on the topic, Nikkimaria. The entire purpose of DYK stats is to highlight the achievements of users who made timely articles on well-liked topics with imaginative hooks. The page is entirely about the achievements of editors. Removing the names removes the entire purpose of the page itself. SilverserenC 01:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, the purpose of the page is to highlight effective hooks, not the users who nominated them. The nominator names were added later. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Am I missing trophies in my mantle for DYKSTATS? Is there an icon I am missing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

← Some users seem to have a very fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of the Stats page. It's supposed to recognize well-crafted hooks which entice the most viewers to click from the DYK section, and to give people an idea of the kind of hook which will draw viewers to an article. It most definitely is not intended to list articles whose hooks were timed to appear on the Main Page because the article was expected to be getting tons of traffic totally unrelated to the DYK.

I think that all hooks which were timed to exploit externally generated page views should be removed from the Stats page. (For such articles, the column in the table on that page labeled "DYK views" is a lie.) This does not include hooks which were timed simply to appear on a special occasion such as a holiday or anniversary; for example, people may have come to Wikipedia to read about Halloween, but only when they saw the hook for Eternal Silence in the DYK section were they enticed to check out the article. Such hooks richly deserve having their stats celebrated. (Comment by Mandarax continues below....)

  • It sounds like you are saying Halloween would be excluded on Halloween, but Halloween-related hooks would not since people were coming to WP to look for Halloween. Then if people were on WP because they were looking for that theme, even the related hooks have quite an unfair bump from this point of view. Also, shouldn't DYKSTATS reflect the broader main page view of main page appearances like WP:TFLSTATS and WP:TFAMOSTVIEWED? Also, could you elaborate on occaision events. Seems very arbitrary and slippery slope. For some people Super Bowl, World Cup or National Championship is a special occasion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that holiday and anniversary hooks might benefit from a "bump". This is most obviously true of April Fools' Day. But I strongly disagree that there's anything "unfair" about it. It might only be considered an unfair advantage if this were a competition, which it is not. As long as readers are arriving at the article by clicking on a hook in the DYK section, the hook has done its job and its stats are relevant to the DYK project. What is unfair (to all of the legitimate hooks listed which really do "hook" readers) is to include articles for which the majority of page views were driven by outside forces such as media coverage, without ever going through DYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The main page philosophy is that date-relevant content is beneficial and given preference. Two of the six sections are exclusively date-relevant and all others have a policy of preference to date-relevant hooks. Surely, date-relevant hooks benefit from google-induced pageviews and other non-main page-related page views. Any policy that discourages producing date-relevant content or that discourages including date-relevant content on the date when it is maximally relevant should be considered carefully. If DYK concurs that we should give preferential treatment to date-relevant content (as it obviously does by separating date-relevant content in order that it be given preferential queue placement) policy related to date-relevant content should reinforce that preference. We should not establish policy that says if you put content on the main page when it is most relevant, we will value it less and excise it from our records. It seems that the policy you support would discoursge people from putting relevant content on DYK during high media coverage times. We want Super Bowl stuff on DYK during the Super Bowl, World Cup stuff on the main page during the World Cup and National Championship stuff on the main page during National Championships. We should not set policy to encourage them to put it on the main page at other times instead.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If people want hooks to appear at times expected to coincide with periods of heavy traffic unrelated to DYK, that's fine, but don't make a mockery of the DYK Stats page by including them; that page should only have the hooks which earned a place on their own merit. If someone truly cares only about presenting such timed hooks for the benefit of the readers and not about collecting a slot on the leader board, they should be fine with forgoing a place on the stats page.

Note that the adjustment for high traffic articles works fine when dealing with normal background noise, but is very ineffective when attempting to handle the situation described here. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree 100 % with Mandarax. Hooks requested for a particular date timed to take advantage of anticipated press coverage don't get included on DYKSTAtS. A great fix. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think one objective of selecting main page content, is to try to find content that is date-relevant. Now, you are invoking a movement to devalue the most valueable content. Date-relevant main page content is the most desirable content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't the heading "What is this project actually about?"? I still think it's about spreading knowledge effectively. As much as I like to "climb the ladder" in the List of Wikipedians by number of DYK, I would write exactly the same things about the same topics if the list didn't exist. I never made it to the stats, but enjoyed to place articles of friends there, such as the one on top of my talk (rescued 27 February, 12,299 hits so far), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What if?

What if Kony 2012 becomes a WP:ITN item on April 20?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If the DYK is already set to go up on the 20th, then it'll go up first (since ITN will take at least a day). So there shouldn't be an issue. But I don't think it's really going to be important enough to go up on ITN. SilverserenC 07:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's all keep our fingers crossed that the folks over at ITN don't try to depriveTony of his rightful moment of glory. If they did choose to feature Kony, one might be tempted to question their motives, right Tony? Cbl62 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about our ITN friends; it's almost certain they won't feature Kony ever. Unless some Brits and their Commonwealth cousins are involved... –HTD 14:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Suitability for DYK

I have only created one DYK before, so could someone have a look at, and comment on eligibilty/suitability for DYK (not move to mainspace - I still have some improving to do), this article I created, Grand Veymont. Thanks. --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 19:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I took a look and I'd say this could definitely be moved to mainspace and nominated now. It's long enough and has references in all the paragraphs. What you need now is a hook. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking either "that the cliffs of the Grand Veymont (possibly pictured in snow) are over 120 million years old", or "that in 2007, an aircraft carrying 3 people disappeared in a snowstorm over the Grand Veymont", but is there a problem with the sources for both of these being in french? Thanks for checking it btw :) --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd go with your second. 120 million years old isn't that remarkable in geologic terms. No, there isn't a problem with French refs, although if an English one on the topic exists it would be better. The Interior (Talk) 21:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I started the review. Not into mountains, I would like someone else to look at the article also, for wording such as "It is preceded to the north (north to south) by "le Rocher de Séguret". I also wonder if the titles of French refs should be kept original (as I would do) or be translated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Approved, thanks to several helpers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Gilderien, the DYK criteria are listed at WP:DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that the millions of visitors to the Main Page are not editors the "Start a new article" link in the DYK section is unneeded "link clutter". It may as well be removed. An argument could be made that we need more editors and I could counter that with the argument that we need more good editors. I like to think thta good editors will find thier way into the community of their own volition and without the need of links on the Main Page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Student-created psychology articles on the nominations list

There are quite a few student-created articles about psychology topics sitting on the noms page right now. A few days back, it was suggested that a list be created here, in hopes of getting some coordinated review effort -- ideally by somebody who feels knowledgeable about the subject matter and enjoys collaborating with students. Accordingly, here's an attempt at a list:

Several other noms have closed already, for various reasons. Feel free to edit this list -- I may have omitted some or included others erroneously. --Orlady (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm knowledgeable about some of these topics, but not all. I don't have the time today to do any reviewing, though. I'm most familiar with these topics: Availability heuristic, Illusory correlation, Big Five personality traits and culture, and Dimensional approach to personality disorders. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed several of these. I have checked and all of these articles have at least one review done for them. Many of the students appear not to have responded to feedback, some with feedback as old as a week and they do not have notices on their talk page about being out of town and the articles don't always appear to have had work done on them in response to feedback. Pessimist, but the professor may want to be contacted and if the students aren't going to follow up on the review, just remove the worst of them... like one that requires 15,000 words to get to five fold expansion. --LauraHale (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

My experience with past student editing doesn't inspire confidence that they are aware of or have engaged WP:MEDRS, our guidelines for sourcing most of these articles. I've typically found primary studies used to source student pages because either professors don't tell them about MEDRS, or students don't bother or understand how to properly source medical articles. And often text parked in articles where it doesn't belong, just so they can get a DYK (that is, they create whacky sub-articles so they'll have a new article, when there is an article already existing where the content belongs). I've also found that most QPQ reviewers at DYK aren't familiar with MEDRS. Unfortunately, profs tie grades to DYK. I hope reviewers taking these on will be knowledgeable of WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this particular set did the sort of word count padding you're referring to because a number of them failed on the word count aspect. The articles read like research papers and the basic organisation alone sets off alarm bells that support this. It would have been really nice if WP:DYK had been informed about this class, if the education programme had recruited reviewers who were capable of better understanding these and doing it on schedule. (Students doing DYKs as an academic requirement should also be required to DECLARE this, like WikiCup contributors have to make declarations.) Er. Babbling. MEDRS is the least of the problems, and some one with knowledge should be going through these articles because of the problems MathewTownsend has pointed out. At this point, especially given what appears to be the supervising professor's hostilities to the processes found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensional approach to personality disorders‎ coupled with a general lack of major improvement on these articles, I'm inclined to think they should all be moved to a separate holding bin on the page to make the page easier to navigate. --LauraHale (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think MEDRS is the least of the problems - Sandy's raising that concern is a reminder that psych happens to be a problematic issue for Did You Know because it's a medical-related field, where standards have to be high; it happens to be one of the fields where DYK currently does not have many active knowledgeable editors, so we have to fall back on QPQ reviewing with its attendant problems of lack of interest and relevant knowledge; and it appears to me to be one of the relatively inactive wikiprojects, so that source of possible help in evaluating these nominations and improving the articles is not filling the gap. Realistically, students being encouraged to submit articles to DYK in association with a course will always be a strain on DYK for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that a course and DYK's review process impose conflicting deadlines. But another is that DYK's (and Wikipedia's) evaluation criteria are different from those of a class. However, this is going to arise . . . so my thoughts . . . it would be nice if the instructor and/or the class ambassador warned DYK here that a group of class-related nominations were coming down the pike, but it really isn't necessary, and this section of this page serves pretty much as well as anything else. More important is to check that the nominations were properly completed, and someone did do that; although if I were the instructor, I would have done that. I agree that it would be advisable for the instructor to have successfully weathered the DYK process him/herself first, but that's no panacea - reviewers differ, articles differ, and DYK processes and standards change. I don't think declarations at DYK nominations are necessary for classes any more than they are for the WikiCup (WikiCup requires declarations for GA nominations, not DYK; I happen to be still in the WikiCup this year, for the second year running, and many others are too, but the spirit of the WikiCup as I understand it is you shouldn't be able to tell, i.e. I shouldn't be nominating stuff I would not otherwise think worth nominating), and they would be as likely to scare off reviewers as to get extra helpful eyes. Also, students who are almost always new to Wikipedia, and tend to be in freshman classes, exhibit features that are common in new editors trying DYK for the first time: misunderstanding the expansion requirement (including the issue of stext shared with other articles, which also raises an issue of attribution that many editors are still unaware of), overuse of textbooks or primary sources as references, and (as seems to be the case with the article taken to AfD) putting sources in a bibliography rather than using them as inline references, so that it is hard for readers to see where information comes from, and for other editors to assess notability. But these are common problems of new editors; the class situation just makes them more apparent, by producing a clump of nominated articles, especially if they were produced under time pressure. All in all, if instructors are going to ask students to participate at DYK, I think it behooves us to make it the same DYK experience, not a special one; our focus should be on working to alleviate the problems such nominations make more apparent, the already existing stresses in the system (such as how we deal with topics relating to license-requiring professions in evaluating and preparing an article for being featured in a Main Page section, and how we can flag expeditiously problems that may be fixable but will require time to fix, such as inadequate expansion and use of bibliographies where inline references should have been used). Of course we can and should talk to the students, the professor, and the online ambassador, because in such cases there's more than one editor who can help, but a DYK nomination is ultimately just that, another DYK nomination. The standards to be met are the same and there's the same potential for collaborative fixing; learning from that collaboration is to be presumed to be one of the instructor's reasons for assigning a DYK submission. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And, as to knowledgeable reviewers, the proliferation of these educational projects is HUGE, and the amount of work just to keep my regular watchlist clean as a result of their really poor and unsupervised edits is daunting. Additional problem that they get course credit for DYKs. They aren't learning anything, and they aren't helping Wikipedia either by adding tons of copyvio, poorly sourced edits, new stubs for text that belongs in established articles, text that goes wildly off topic for the article in which they add it ... the whole thing is a nightmare, but the fact that they get credit for DYK is probably part of what is fueling the bad edits. As to amabassadors, not all of the courses even have one, some of them have amabassadors who are as clueless as the instructors and students, and even those that have excellent ambassadors (ala Nikkimaria), it is demonstrated that the amabassador can have little effect on the quality of the student edits. Whole thing stinks, primarily because I never encounter good edits from these projects, as the term ends inordinate amounts of time has to be spent cleaning up after last-minute poor student edits, and none of these students go on to become good, regular editors. Add to that, because of our high rank on google, inaccurate medical information on Wikipeida is a Really Bad Thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I've picked one example from above to look at: Template:Did you know nominations/Mood Repair Strategies. Not a single PMID indicated anywhere in the article, so by what process are the reviewers' approving the expansion and the hook? If an article is entirely sourced to primary sources, not secondary reviews, how do you even know the article is notable or that the text doesn't belong elsewhere or that there'e even anything to be said about the topic? We don't write medical articles from primary studies, and the first thing we should be teaching these students to do is to correctly link the PMID so that reviewers can click on the link and see what kind of study it is. We're doing Wikipedia, the courses, the professors and the students no favors by letting this kind of stuff slide, and it would take me several hours for each article to look up and correctly link the PMIDs. I'm sorry to see reviewers here passing this kind of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Reviewers here aren't passing this work, but we are wasting our time trying to deal with it. None of the articles on the above list has passed. Several have been failed. --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I've posted by complains at DYK nominations from one education program are flooding DYK - mainly because I don't know where to complain nor who's in charge. I also posted on meta outreach regarding the DYK problem under: Problems and what we are doing about them and learning from them - under April 16.[1] There are also out-of-process GAs being passed by reviewers that don't do a review. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not just one university class. I have the impression that at least three different institutions are represented. --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
There are boatloads of these courses, affecting who knows how many articles, and who knows how many editors who have to clean up after them. OK, I finished looking at one sample, Mood repair strategies, digging up the PMIDs and DOIs to see if they are reviews, and what we have in that case is someone writing an essay based almost entirely on primary sources. This isn't helping Wikipedia, isn't teaching the students what an encyclopedic entry is, and sure isn't where DYK needs to be spending its time. It would be just grand if these courses would improve articles-- instead they are generating unencyclopedic content. I can't determine if the hook is verified or not in this case (that is, is it a medically accurate statement sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources), because I can't determine without a lot more work if any of the text in that article can be sourced to compliant sources. In fact, it would take a lot more work to figure out if this should even be an article, or if whatever can be reliably said on the topic belongs instead at mood disorder (I find this all the time-- that students are creating articles beased on primary sources so they can get a DYK, when the text actually belongs elsewhere ... I had one studen editor trying to write an entire article about schizophrenia at echopraxia, probably because echopraxia is a stub so it can be turned into a DYK, but none of the text was about echopraxia!). We could solve a big problem by proposing that DYK simply won't accept this flood of articles-- perhaps that would encourage the professors to re-orient their grading schemes towards enduring content, rather than attempting to put up something that will make the mainpage. It's most concerning that we might run medical content on the mainpage that isn't accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the majority of student projects are generating content that shouldn't be here. Unfortunately, the psychology articles that this particular crowd are altering weren't very good to begin with -- many of them have been generated by people who believe that a single research paper in a marginal academic journal justifies declarative statements in the form of "Therapy Z is effective." In trying to figure out how to repair some of this garbage, I ran across the Google Books-previewable Dictionary of Theories, Laws, and Concepts in Psychology, which probably isn't the be-all and end-all of sources, but looks a helpful guide to the topic for those of us who are trying to figure out what to do about articles like these (they need to be dealt with as articles, DYK or no DYK). --Orlady (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll be able to do more if I get journal access; without it, all I can do is tag things, but I can't rebuild. It's the "therapy Z is effective" business on one of the internet's busiest websites that concerns me. We don't want that sort of marginal medical info on the mainpage via DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Kudos for Titanic anniversary

Today's hook sets focused on the sinking of the Titanic have been an exemplary contribution to the DYK feature. Congratulations and thanks to Prioryman for generating content that is so worthy of being featured. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a lot of negative stuff gets said here, but it's worth praising the good bits too, and this definitely qualifies. Nice work! Harrias talk 19:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree completely, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everybody! I thought you might be interested in the stats. First, for the DYKs that appeared on April 15th (plus one held over to the 16th):
Total page views for DYKs - 99,220
As for the articles linked from the Featured box:
Total page views for Featured box articles - 886,932
All in all, a very successful effort, and thanks to everyone who helped to support this and make it such a big success! Prioryman (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Asleep at the switch?

I've moved another prep into the queue. What's going on? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Tax day in the US . . . ? I should have tried my hand at doing a move to queue last night, didn't think to check, and today I was paying for procrastination. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I tried; the next queue is set up. Some admin who knows what they are doing had probably better check that I did it all and it's right. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Ahhh, right, death and taxes are the only things that keep us away from Wikipedia. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, looks like you did good, but I think you have to either have the images protected on Commons or locally uploaded and protected, not just create-protected here. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh good. I have an amazing capacity for mucking things up. I'm afraid I was utterly out of my depth on the picture protection. Did you fix that? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Materialscientist protected them on Commons, so it's all good. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've started doing that on a regular basis since last week or so. Coupled with the bot alarm (if the images are not protected), this should take care of image protection, but I operate manually and can't guarantee 100% rate (say, if preps are composes and moved while I'm offline). Also, some images are worth DYK-cropping and uploading locally. Materialscientist (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Commons has a system that is supposed to automatically add protection to DYK images. It was working well enough for a while there that I quit obsessing about the need to protect DYK images that are on Commons. Is the system no longer working? --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It is a cascade protection which usually works, but is not fail safe (might have delayed action). Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I uploaded File:View from The Great Doward 3 - geograph.org.uk - 1397857.jpg locally as it was on DYK and not protected at Commons - can it be deleted now from this side? - The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems to have a different filename from the Commons image (I haven't figured out what the difference is), so if it's deleted here the image will disappear from the DYK archive page... --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Name is the same. Deleted. Strange - I've protected the Commons image in advance. Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Huh. Maybe there was lag in the Intertubes, because when I checked it it wasn't protected on Commons. Odd. Anyway, thanks. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Queue 5

"that Jodie Stevenson (pictured) is trying to make the team to represent Australia at the 2012 ISF Women's World Championship, a competition the country only won in 1965 when they hosted?" should maybe read something like "Jodie Stevenson (pictured) is trying to have the Australia women's national softball team represent Australia at the 2012 ISF Women's World Championship, a competition the country only won in 1965 when they hosted?" SL93 (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I saw that earlier, thought it looked awkward, meant to change it, but got distracted. I've modified the hook - how does it look now? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
On "to compete", I would remove to. SL93 (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, not too sure about that - it's awkward, but even more awkward without it, IMHO. Alternatives (in the ~1h left before it goes up)? - The Bushranger One ping only 15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Could say "to get the Australia women's national softball team to compete". Mikenorton (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Now on Main Page. But I think it's intended to mean that she wants to get on the team (which will be competing) not that she wants to get the team into the contest. Which is what the hook says, and what the lead of the article on her says. So, probably best left as is and let people click to find out about it :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Personality changes

This section is creating problem Template:Did_you_know_nominations#Personality_changes --SupernovaExplosion Talk 02:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

QPQ for multi hooks

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

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

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

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

The trouble is that "what's fair" varies greatly with the articles involved. I've dealt with some multi-article hooks in which all of the articles were short and based on the same short list of sources, so it was no harder to review three articles than it was to review one. In other cases I've seen, a hook lists several long articles, each of which has its own separate sources, and a lot of reading and crosschecking is necessary to verify hook facts and check for things like absence of close paraphrasing. I suppose that self-nominators who are not honest in assessing whether their review "quid" matches their nomination "quo" should expect to be beaten around the eyebrows by reviewers. --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't question the "what's fair" issue at all. What I'm suggesting is that we finally write this into the rules, so that there's one place where one can look up what the story is rather than having to trawl through the archives or having to ask the regulars who might remember. I believe the draft rule text above captures all the previous discussions, but by all means, let's amend those words to deal with the "what's fair" issue. Schwede66 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I've added additional rule H4 now. Schwede66 20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Two more Titanic DYKs

There are two Titanic DYKs I nominated recently that missed the centenary weekend. I'd still like to see these go up sooner rather than later, so that they can catch the tail-end of the interest generated by the centenary events, so I'm pointing them out here in case anyone is willing to review them. One is ready for review here: Template:Did you know nominations/United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic. For the other one, I still have to complete the QPQ review, but I'll point it out as well in case anyone is interested in taking a look at that one: Template:Did you know nominations/British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic. Presuming they are passed, if it's not possible to get them up this weekend, probably best to just let them go up in the normal course of events, but I thought it was worth asking. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Second QPQ review done. From the lack of response here, I'm assuming the 'moment' has passed for the Titanic centenary, but the two nominations are still there if anyone wants to review them. They are being expanded by another editor, but I think that work has finished now. Carcharoth (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

New education noticeboard

There are already two threads at the brand new WP:ENB, discussing the issues at DYK with student editing programs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that nearly every time I visit the front page of Wikipedia (on almost a daily basis), I'm greeted in the DYK section by a Horse-related article (Horse-racing, particular horses and their contributions to different lineages, etc.). It may seem like an exagguration to say that these types of articles are ever-present on the front page, but it's certainly been noticiable to me. The front page has limited space of course, and yet it seems to be saturated by these horse articles that I find it hard to believe the general reader has any interest in at all. Worse, a lot of these articles are basically just lists of significant races won, what type of horse it was, and lines that it sired or what have you, because really, what else can be said about a HORSE?

I don't know anything about DYKs, but as a long-time and consistant reader and occaisional contributor I'd like to ask that whoever is influencing this selection of articles (perhaps a group of a few people who all happen to have this uncommon interest in horses) tone it down a bit. There must surely be a rule in place that recommends DYKs have a variety of subject matter, right? 216.185.77.30 (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please go up the thread and read #Why all these items on University of Michigan football. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Articles on similar subjects do commonly come up in brief bursts, but this is a reflection on the editing habits of the article creators, rather than the DYK project (which has no rule on variety short of keeping individual updates varied). I know I've thrown up a dozen hooks at a time on a television series I liked, which I'm sure folk weren't keen on seeing recur (tough, there's still another 12 to come); while others have complained in the past about sport-related hooks appearing to be skewed towards certain teams or universities. It's simply down to the volunteer nature of wikipedia—if an editor creates ten, twenty, or two thousand articles which fulfil WP:N and are viable for DYK, then it's needlessly unfair to penalise their efforts at expanding new content by saying "nope, too many horses". Plus, for every horse-related hook approved, another hook is going to have been signed off on by the nominator, so there'll still be a degree of variety no matter what happens. GRAPPLE X 19:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest in my thoughts, I think I understand what you guys are saying. While it may seem to me like there are a lot of horse related articles in DYK right now, it is not due to a horse fanatic with some sort of special privaledges going a little nuts, but rather a slight burst on the subject being present in DYK due to an equal burst in new content on the matter. That's understandable to me, but I hope in the future this can be improved upon for more day-by-day variety of DYKs. While I believe DYKs should encourage new content to be given its due credit, as well as credit to the editors who create it, I don't think it should be a soap box for the same editor or few editors to saturate their articles (which in this case I consider glorfied stubs that would probably take less than an hour to make) for notoriety. I hope this is understandable. 216.185.77.30 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As Grapple says, it's a common thing if an editor has created a lot of articles based on a certain issue. For example, looking at the nominations page, it looks like there will soon be a number of hooks on womens national football teams. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Precisely - sometimes a spurt of articles occurs on a subject when an editor's muse hits them with a cattle prod. For instance, last year I sent a barrage of articles on little-known and seldom-seen missile projects across DYK; sometimes this happens. And even an article at ~2000 characters and written in an hour can educate - letting you learn something that, perhaps, You Didn't Know. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Overlong hook in Prep 1

I make the hook for iostat: "... that early versions of iostat, the computer system monitoring tool, when running on multiprocessor systems can interpret one processor waiting for I/O to wrongly mean that all processors in the system are also waiting?" 218 characters when the "... " is left out, but I don't begin to know enough about the topic to shorten it. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

With some trepidation. because I'm well out of my depth here, I suggest
... that when early versions of iostat monitored multiprocessor computer systems, they could interpret one processor waiting for I/O to wrongly mean that all those in the system were also waiting? Mikenorton (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I tweaked that to "... that when early versions of iostat monitor multiprocessor computer systems, they can wrongly interpret one processor waiting for I/O to mean that all those in the system are waiting?" Still in prep, not yet moved to a queue - anyone see inaccuracies in that? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I tweaked it back to past tense, because I had to read the present-tense version several times to figure out that "monitor" was a verb -- and that "iostat monitor multiprocessor computer systems" wasn't a noun cluster. --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to all involved in tweaking this hook to make it both comprehensible and a sensible length.

Scott Adams once authored a Dilbert cartoon to illustrate the sense of humour of engineers (I believe it's in The Dilbert Principle). In the cartoon, one engineer says something vaguely similar to "Did you know that iostat (some techno-jargon babble)?" The rest of the engineers fall about laughing, almost incoherent with mirth, as though it's the funniest thing they've ever heard.

Despite there being some subset of our main page audience who presumably feel the same way, it's pretty hard to get something interesting from technical material of this nature and also keep it under 200 characters. So we have done well!

Technically speaking, the past tense is slightly misleading, as the particular ancient operating system and software combination in question is still in use by some of the world's largest businesses to provide critical IT services. However, that doesn't really matter much, not least because the vendors of said operating systems would definitely tell you that such old versions really shouldn't be in use any more, even if they are. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Repetitive hooks

The subject of having many hooks all on the same topic has been discussed here many times. It's probably the most frequent complaint from the general Wikipedia population, that is, people who are not DYK regulars. Every time it's brought up, the answer is always the same -- people write a bunch of articles on the same topic and they end up on DYK. The real issue is never really discussed -- that this barrage of similar hooks makes for a very boring and repetitive DYK experience! Someone above says about the people who write these articles: "it's needlessly unfair to penalise their efforts at expanding new content" by denying them a place on DYK because there have been too many recent hooks on that topic already. I would much rather deny one person the chance to rack up one more DYK credit than to deny the millions of Wikipedia readers the opportunity to read an interesting, balanced, nonrepetitive selection of hooks. Some people have a sense of entitlement -- "I wrote an article, now I'm entitled to have a DYK for it." It should not be this way. DYK should be a privilege, not a right granted for every hook submitted which fulfills the minimum requirements. Agolib 23:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The minimum requirements of DYK don't require that every hook be unique, though. The purpose of the project is to promote new content, whether or not it is similar to other content that it already promoted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Not only that, but prolific content generators may find themselves moving away from DYK onto other projects if they are turned away because a casual reader finds their work boring; a continual stream of content expansion helps wikipedia as a whole, but this is generally the avenue by which editors find fulfilment in creating such content. DYK should not be a privilege, but a bar to pass to feel rewarded for volunteer work—we don't get anything out of working on the project other than self-satisfaction, after all, and removing an avenue that allows editors to quantify that feeling of having done something tangible is just going to frustrate the people who keep this machine going. It's better to be bored by something you don't have to read than to not have the option to read it at all. GRAPPLE X 23:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Some folks lose sight of the DYK rule that the hook fact should be "interesting to a broad audience." Not every article has facts that qualify, and nominators should not be allowed to assume that DYK will accept their nom when the best hook they can find is "John Doe was born in 1892" or "Hometown High School is in Smalltown, Alberta". --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding: "prolific content generators may find themselves moving away from DYK onto other projects if they are turned away because a casual reader finds their work boring" - if done diplomatically (i.e. not turning people away, but rationing hooks on voluminous topics), that is sometimes a good thing! Prolific content generators should either work in other areas as well, or even move on if they develop other interests. Wikipedia is a large place, and there is more to Wikipedia than DYK. I too would prefer diverse and interesting hooks and articles, though I should note here that I personally object to the elevation of trivia over outstanding achievements in DYK hooks (e.g. If the article on a Nobel Prize winning scientist was expanded x5, I'd hope the DYK hook would highlight the Nobel work, rather than some 'interesting' bit of trivia). In practice, though, it is not possible to assess each article and hook in terms of how many 'similar' articles have appeared recently on DYK - the only practical thing to do is ensure diversity within each batch that goes up. Carcharoth (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to diversify again - I've collected some possibles here (if you do expand one of these, please feel free to remove from my page there). We've had some competitions to look for interesting stubs before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

E.g. - someone might know something on one of these- Category:Stub-Class River articles Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Minimum edit requirement

Would requiring new editors / students to have made a minimum number of editors to Wikipedia as a whole before submitting to DYK (similar to what is required for editing semi protected articles ) be useful? I have proposed such a measure here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but I think it is bad idea. Instead, we need nominators and reviewers to work even closer and share tips, tricks, and skills. There should be a flag on submission that lets the reviewer know if this is your first time. We need to focus on training new users and this requires being inviting and open, not creating new boundaries and barriers. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I also think this is a bad idea. It's entirely possible for a new user to make a good DYK that is completely within policy. It likely doesn't happen very much at all, but i'm sure it does happen. One situation I can think of occurring is with WP:CLEANSTART users. They would know how things work and can easily make articles right off the bat, while their account would still qualify as "new". SilverserenC 01:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
No. I appreciate the problems with the education programs, and I'll comment presently in some of the venues where they're being discussed, but DYK should be a venue where new article writers are welcome, not just a playground for experienced editors who create many articles. For instance, I just nominated Notholaena standleyi. The author built it in a sandbox with 12 edits, copy-and-pasted to article space, and made 2 further edits. I and a few others have done some slight copyediting, but notwithstanding, the author created a fundamentally sound article on a technical subject that is informative, free of close paraphrasing, and well-formatted.
This is exactly the sort of editor we should be encouraging through DYK. There is no good reason to make such an obviously informed, literate person jump through a bunch of hoops and go around correcting typos for 200 edits or 2 months or whatever before admitting them. I'm open to some reforms of the DYK process (it shouldn't be a charity hospital for the indefinite correction of poor sourcing), but this feels like one of the perennial proposals from vested contributors to pull the ladder up behind them lest they have to interact with Randy from Boise. Choess (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
With respect to "pulling the ladder up behind them" I made 4000 edits and was here for about 6 month before I used my first article assessment process which was GAN. I had not even heard of DYK or GAN until having been here for a few months. Maybe the people who figure out how to nominate an article for GA within there first 10 edits are brighter than I. If things are working fine here than of course my sort of suggestion is not needed and I am happy to withdraw it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Doc, whether you know it or not, I think you've honed in to one major problem with DYK. Most people don't know about it, especially editors who have been here for some time, and that means we're not reaching out to the right people or attracting the editors who might benefit the most from it. Instead, it's become an insular, trophy-hunting exercise for regulars and for people who like to "play" Wikipedia as if it were a game. Your experience with DYK as a new editor, Doc, is very common, and we need to do something to address it. Although most people disagree with me at this time, I believe that an automated system that monitors contributions and areas of interest could act as an adaptive learning agent and help new users learn and use the site without much guidance from live editors. For example, a system process should have detected that someone who had been here for six months and had made 4000 edits had never used DYK. If you had tried to create a new article during this time, a system process could have posted a message on your talk page asking if you might be interested in DYK and offer a brief example of how it works. We could even make this part of the new article creation process, knowing that not everybody will have the time to submit a DYK, but at least making them aware of it and teaching them how it works. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, but it needs to be coupled with a shift in attitudes about the fate of DYK nominations. Right now, people seem to feel that all but the most hopeless articles nominated for DYK deserve to pass, even if that takes a month of back-and-forth sourcing and paraphrasing corrections. Your proposal will turn up the volume through this process significantly, and if there isn't a change that lets reviewers do a quick fail, "Sorry, better luck next time", it will break under the load. (But see SL93's comment below for the response when quick fails occur.)
I like DYK because a) it rewards new people who are writing well-sourced articles, who are the kind of editors we need to keep, and because b) it exposes Main Page readers to quirky trivia. I nominated Notholaena standleyi for the first reason, and Corema conradii, from a long-term, diligent editor, because I'm familiar with the species and I knew that with a little tweaking, I could bring it in line with the second reason. Opening up the process will certainly bring in more articles that should be recognized for these two reasons, but aren't; however, it will also bring in a large number of articles for which neither reason applies, and it will only make the problems here worse if we can't turn them away. Choess (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Doc, while I feel this is a class of "perennial proposal," that's not to stigmatize you as one of its perennial proposers. To fill in a little on my perceptions here: there's been a great deal of effort of late to increase editor recruitment and new editor retention, in part driven by the WMF, but also by parts of the community. The WMF's efforts have been focused on things like the Education Project, bringing in large numbers of new editors; within the community, effort tends to be directed towards "don't bite the newbies" (see the unfortunate WP:NEWT breaching experiment) and more generally, toward the enforcement of civility policies. This, in turn, has generated a reaction from other parts of the community, ranging from New Page Patrollers to participants in Good and Featured content processes, who feel that they're being asked or forced to lower their standards to accommodate this, and who resent having to constantly bite their tongues at an endless series of Randy in Boise, no matter how much damage the Randies inflict. In my view, just as the first group errs on the side of being too inclusive, the latter group is too eager to marginalize editors who are still climbing the Wikipedia learning curve. (For instance, in the archives of this page, you can see this conflict playing out in the struggle to find a standard for "close paraphrasing.")
I don't think the current DYK process is flawless, as is evidenced from my comment. But I do think DYK has a valuable role to play in rewarding editors who are contributing useful information to Wikipedia but don't have the breadth of sources or mastery of Wikipedia tools and processes to roll out Good Articles on their subjects. It has its problems—mostly due to high volume and cursory review letting copyright violations slip by—but "reform" proposals often seem to involve making DYK into something comparable to GA in terms of article-writing effort and scrutiny, and I tend to disfavor them because I believe they undermine the role I've described and would make it even more of a playground for established editors. (I don't believe in locking out established editors entirely, because I think DYK also has a role to play as a venue for disseminating interesting trivia. That said, I find the hoopla about number of DYKs written by individual editors, etc., rather silly. C'mon, all that DYK means is that you wrote a non-stub, well-sourced article—the kind you should be writing if you aspire to be an author rather than just a Wikignome—and pushed it through a bunch of process.)
I'm not averse to the idea of doing more quick failing for DYK, instead of a lengthy back-and-forth to try to drag the article up to what should really be a Wikipedia minimum standard, but setting arbitrary limits on editor "experience" would cause a great deal of collateral damage, and I hope the example in my initial comment made that clear. Choess (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes the last thing I wish to do is discourage editors who are here attempting to improve Wikipedia's content. This last year I spoke at four Universities in an attempt to encourage students and staff to get involved ( two of which where on my own tab and two with partial funding from the WMF )[3]. Will be speaking further this coming year.
I am very supportive of the Wikipedia education program. However seeing students who nominate an article for WP:DYK or WP:GAN and never edit again is very depressing. To get students to take Wikipedia seriously it might help to require some commitment. We do not go to University because it is easy and Starbucks improved their sales when they charged more not less. The last thing we need if this program is going to succeed is the Wikipedia community upset at / biting these students or to have long standing editors walk away in frustration. Anyway back to editing medical content :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I stick to DYK now because of my experience with a Good Article nomination that I worked hard on. It was graded as B class before I nominated it. After listing less than 10 errors, the reviewer said "OK, please take this away get it copy-edited by someone who can write good plain English. I am quick-failing this now on the shoddy prose." That made me sad that because I was never given a chance to fix anything. DYK is more open to new editors and experienced editors alike. I don't know how many GA reviews are like mine. SL93 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, the person who reviewed that article is a minority among GA reviewers--most of them will give you time or even help out. But, yes, some of them are pretty tough. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I might have put it more tactfully, but I think the original reviewer was pretty much correct. GA reviews *can* be lengthy and intensive, but it's more a place for fixing smaller details than for a deep overhaul, which is what your article really needs. Being quick-failed at GA does not mean the article can never become a GA or that you'll never have a chance to improve it, but it does mean you may need to go to different venues for help, such as peer review. Having skimmed over your article, it feels very choppy and it jumps around from sentence to sentence. It's difficult to discern an overall theme in each paragraph, or what conclusion each section is leading to. Trying to fix that is a very different proposition from correcting a number of small errors in grammar, stylistic infelicities, and so on atop a sound underlying structure, which is what you tend to see in lengthy GA reviews. To the extent that DYK is "more open", I think it's because the criteria are lower than GA, so it's easier to suggest fixes that will bring an article to DYK-level than to GA-level.
There are many reasons an individual might find it hard to bring an article to the next higher level, whether it's struggling to write good prose, unavailability of sources, volatility of the topic, and so on. Deciding that you're more comfortable bringing 50 stubs to B-class/DYK level may be just as rational an investment of effort and just as helpful to the encyclopedia as bringing 5 articles to GA or 1 to FA. Choess (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Opportunity

Hello. Just a note that I see a rare coincidence in the queue. Alexandre Chemetoff and Hōkoku-ji (which is already in a prep area) both have famous bamboo gardens. If I was an admin and not an involved party I would step in. They would make a good pair, don't you think? -SusanLesch (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested. Forcing two peripherally related articles into one hook diminishes both of them, IMO. --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That's cool, Orlady. I defer to your experience in DYK. It seems to me that any repeated theme or "special occasion" comes into question, to follow that reasoning though. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

St George's Day

Could an admin please put the articles from holding in Queue 3 and 4? I missed this while building the preps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done so. St George's Church, Eastergate is now in Queue 3 and Kremikovtsi Monastery is now the picture hook in Queue 4. This allows extra time for another admin to check that the picture for the monastery hook is protected. The two displaced hooks are in Prep 3. There might be a case for rejiggering which picture hook goes in which queue/prep; St George's Church, Eastergate also has a pic at the nomination page, or maybe John Herbert Hedley should bump Janua linguarum reserata in featured position in the next queue up. I don't really have much of a feel for choosing which articles to use the pic. But the current order doesn't have two buildings in a row or anything and I don't think I broke the template. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

April 20 date request

I thought we had resolved to put Kony 2012 on the main page on April 20. There is only one more batch to queue in. Can we swap it in for one of the hooks in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3, which is destined for Template:Did you know/Queue/2 within the next 8 hours.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me - I moved the Kony hook to the 20th and then promptly forgot about it when I set up the Prep 3 set last night. I've just gone in and moved out one of the entertainment hooks (there were two in the set anyway) to Prep 1 and inserted the Kony hook. Miyagawa (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) removed the hook for close paraphrasing. I have addressed all her specific concerns and am willing to address all others. Can someone see about reinserting this. It seems bad form to have removed this contentious hook belatedly for this concern when it has been up for review for weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
HELP Nikkimaria seems to be conveniently offline. Can someone insert this into the main page back in its premium first non-lead position fairly quickly. The main page has been refreshed with the last batch of the day.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There's no "bad form" in making sure that copyvio doesn't hit the Main Page. Based on quick spot-checking of two sources, there still appear to be instances of close paraphrasing or copyvio. See, e.g., here and here. The latter includes a 27-word passage from the Telegraph ("kony and his diminishing troops many of them kidnapped child soldiers fled northern uganda six years ago and are now spread across the jungles of neighbouring countries") without attribution or quotation marks. Perhaps this article should have a thorough review for such instances before it goes on the MainPage? Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The bad form is in sandbagging the nom by checking all this stuff at the last minute. All 19 of the positives in those two reports are false. The quotation that you mention has been fixed. I have checked about 70 of the nearly 100 refs and things seem Kosher. The page can be fixed as issues are found since this is a work in progress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no "sandbagging the nom". When the hook gets moved from the nomination section to the preps and queues, it gets checked again by editors to be sure reviewers do not miss anything. Sometimes, they do; it's not sandbagging or bad faith, it's simply the final step in the process to try and avoid getting close paraphrasing and copyvio on the main page. It's not perfect - both ways - but it's the same for everybody. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Revised request

We are down to 4 hours left in the day. Can someone put this on the main page today, but leave it their for at least 8 hours or through the entire next batch.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There are still issues - see the nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Kony 2012

The April 20 date request for Kony 2012 that was agreed to by consensus in the past weeks was procedurally averted when Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) requested extensive copyvio corrections at the last minute. Orlady (talk · contribs) seems to currently question whether an article, such as this, that is undergoing constructive editing is eligible at WP:DYK. I now ask the community is this ready to go back in the queue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is, put it in. These purposefully delaying tactics bring shame on the entire project. SilverserenC 02:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Both Orlady (talk · contribs) and Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) seem to have no more objections. Anyone other than me can now approve this hook so it can be reinserted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The efforts of Nikkimaria and Orlady bring no shame to the project. To the contrary, the promotion of a hook that was rife with extensive and blatant copyvios is what could have brought shame to the project. We should be thanking Nikkimaria and Orlady for their diligence, not making baseless personal attacks on them. There seems to be an increasing tendency by some to use temper tantrums and baseless accusations of bad faith in order to impose their will on the project. Such behavior can only serve to discourage the hard-working volunteers who keep DYK running and needs to be discouraged. Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Considering the hook was known to be put specifically put for the 20th and everyone had ample time to study it beforehand, Orlady especially since they was involved in the prior discussion about the date. Bringing up issues just when it's about to run and delaying it running because of that does look like gaming to me, in order to get back at Tony. And now that the wanted date has passed, oh look, no more issues now. SilverserenC 19:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone review this now This whole process is getting annoying, but it seems that the objectors are now silent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting annoying? First, could you please link to the nomination page when raising an issue? Template:Did you know nominations/Kony 2012 Now, are you honestly demanding that an article with copyvio issues be put on the mainpage? More to the point, why is an editor who has been editing as long as you have putting up new articles at DYK with copyvio and close paraphrasing? Our bigger concern here should be whether closer scrutiny is needed to all of your past work. Blaming reviewers here for catching something at the last minute that you should know better than doing to begin with is not on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The close paraphrasing was not my content. The page I nominated did not have abundant copyvios. The majority of the text came after my nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
In other words, you're pressed to get an article on the mainpage on a specific date, but you can't watchlist the article and make sure it maintains integrity before going there, and then you dis the very reviewers who have to do that job, which you shoulda/coulda been doing yourself? Honestly ... whose problem is this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The copyright issues have already been resolved. There's no reason not to run it now. SilverserenC 04:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

2X or 5X expansion

Is this version a 2x-eligible bio?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs to be completely unreferenced, so not really :( The Interior (Talk) 02:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I had that in mind when I started editing the page. Sadly, the bio is only a candidate for GA, not DYK. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Any article is a candidate for DYK, if it has never been one. Would you care to help me expand it. This is one of those where reviewers let a 3.5 or 5x slide given it was almost unreffed to start, I would hope. Worse comes to worse and we are just stuck with a GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're right about that. What I meant was that I didn't think this was capable of being expanded close enough to 5x. I've been working on it since yesterday, and I'll keep on the expansion. Maybe someone will IAR and let it pass through (though they didn't IAR on my 3.5x expansion on David Freese). – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I had a similar case, Jan Sandström, who had one ref which was his own website. Instead of expanding "him" 5*, I wrote a new article on his piece and just linked to him in the hook, he got attention also. I don't know if something similar would be possible in this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
We're gonna try! I think we have it at about 2.5x right now, and from two references to 56 57. That sure meets the spirit of the rules, if not the letter. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm all for a bit of IAR with these major expansions, they quite often represent 3 or 4 standard DYK's-worth of new material. That might not be a majority opinion though. The Interior (Talk) 15:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
So far, we've expanded it from 4885 B to 18770 B. That's approximately 3.8x. I hope a reviewer will IAR in case we can't make it an even 5. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Twitter chat permision

I need someone's advice. There is an image which I am not cetain is properly licenced and really free. Uploader says he received authors permission over the twiter chat. Will someone more acquainted with the licencing issues please be so kind to help me with an opinion about this image?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

*If the uploader does not own the copyright on the image or the image is not released on Flicker with an acceptable license (commercial use, modification allowed), the uploader has to go through Commons:OTRS for documentation of permission from the copyright holder to use the image on Wikipedia. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with Spanish-language sources

There are some Spanish-language sources cited at Toti Soler. I've been reviewing the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Toti Soler. Would anyone who can handle Spanish-language sources be able to help out there? I don't want to pass that until this is done, as it is a BLP. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, they all seem to check out. Not much language skill actually needed in those really, simply notifications of collaboration, but your caution is wise. Kevin McE (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I went over there intending to look at the Spanish, but you don't need to speak Spanish to find the English-language cut-and-paste from totisoler.com, which is not an appropriate source for the claims it is citing anyway (claims of awards cannot be cited to totisoler.com, needs an independent source, and it could be rephrased). The same year, he received the best Catalan record award 'Premi al Millor Disc Català de l'Any', for the anthology recorded in Switzerland, Lydda. This source does not verify the text it is citing. If you take out that which is not reliably sourced, is the expansion crit still met? Seems like review is lacking here... I didn't find anything that needed review in Spanish, but the cut-and-paste sentence was quite obvious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank-you for spotting that, Sandy. The nomination had not yet been passed, and I was leaning towards failing it anyway for other reasons. I've now marked the nomination as needing additional review, and pointed out there what you said here. It would be good, if you have time, if you could help out over there and add to what I've said. Responding briefly here to your point about "This source does not verify the text it is citing". If you read what I said at the nomination, I had already pointed that out (did you not see that?). It is in my comment at '07:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)' in the section numbered (6), where I said:

"my point was that the 'Vita Nuova' doesn't seem to be mentioned by name in the source you are citing (it is named in the pdf from his website). It is unclear whether you are citing that he received the award (fine) or whether you are citing what album he received the award for (you'd need an additional citation for that)"

When I say 'the source you are citing' I am referring to the argel.cervantes.es source you point out above, my reference in the parentheses to the biographical pdf from his website was making the point that this source named the album, but it not used as a source. You are also quite right to point out that the autobiograhical pdf shouldn't be used to cite awards. I shouldn't have missed that, and I'll go and point that out right now. Finally, on the Spanish-language sources, when I assess sources, I don't just try and verify what is being cited (even my Spanish can cope with that here), but I also try to assess what sort of publication is being cited and how reliable it is. That is where I need help from those more familiar with Spanish-language publishers and publications. Again, if you (or Kevin, or someone else) could help with that, it would be really appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't read the nomination (didn't have time, and prefer for my reviews to be independent of what is already on the page anyway); only saw Kevin McE's statement above that everything checked out. If you need help on a Spanish anything, you can ping me, but I rarely have time to wade through DYK nominations (at least you linked it here, most don't!), I only checked the article and saw that it didn't all check out as indicated here on this talk. And my general question always in these cases is whether the expansion crit is met when we take out faulty sourcing, like an award sourced to self. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've failed it anyway now, but I'm sure the editor would appreciate any help you can give. Maybe they will ask you on your talk page. Good point about reducing the expansion count after taking out faulty sourcing, I think that is something a lot of people forget. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
They do :) It happens all the time, which is why I raised it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Pavlo Kurtik & Pavlo-Kurtik on Prep 4

Should there be two credit templates for the bot? Should this hook be held back for April Fools' Day, 2013? --69.158.119.218 (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I loaded the hooks into Prep4 and used my discretion in including this hook. I did not think the two articles warranted being kept back for almost a whole year. I have however now added the extra credit which I had omitted previously. If anyone wants to rescind my decision, they are welcome to do so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree ....April fools' is a looooong way away...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
These need a bit of copyediting, did some work on the person but the place article still needs a once over. I've got to head out. The Interior (Talk) 15:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Why all these items on University of Michigan football

Enough already. It seems every week or so there is a DYK about U of M football. No other institution gets this kind of attention. Is the editor a U of M fan or alum? If so, he is abusing the prerogatives of his position. Cut it out. Michaelcarraher (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • It is the editor's prerogative to work on subjects which interest him/her. So long as the information is presented neutrally, the editors status as a "fan or alum", if any, is irrelevant. If you wish for greater diversity in sports related hooks, please feel free to create articles on an opposing team. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it is the editor's job to work on articles that interest readers. This is typical U of M arrogance. It is an attitude that makes the Michigan Daily a joke. Michaelcarraher (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It absolutely is not an editor's job to work on articles that interest readers. If that was the case, Wikipedia's most viewed articles would be better shape and we'd get non-stop celebrity news on the front page. How many Justin Beiber DYKs have you worked on as an editor knowing the huge amount of interest readers have in him? --LauraHale (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Crisco, one of our best American football content editors focuses mainly on Michigan articles, and there's only have a small handful of editors that focuses primarily on providing high-quality information on the sport. Typically out of all the major sports, American football articles are the worst quality wise. Secret account 23:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • What secret and Crisco said. You write what you know, what interests you, etc. The articles were pretty good and I was really impressed. Running themes like that can also be interesting. I was at a sporting event and talking to some one about editing Wikipedia. They mentioned seeing all the Australian water polo players on the front page with out me having prompted that. It gave me a huge thrill. So yeah, if you want DYKs on other sport topics, write them. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't mind the sport DYK's in general, but I do mind that many of them are typically uninteresting and focus on trivial aspects rather than drawing people into the topic with some fact that people outside the sport would find interesting, informative, and most of all, encyclopedic. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • The articles are informative, and encyclopediac. Interest is an issue that is relative. The work done on the Titanic articles was fantastic. Interesting? Not something I personally find interesting. It was a ship long ago that crashed, with a lot of press coverage in many ways because of the rich people involved. Not as much interest from others in say the Tongan ferry crash... Crisco does fantastic work on Indonesian related topics, an area that doesn't get much coverage in a part of the world hard to access because they don't speak English... but I don't find Indonesian authors and Indonesian books interesting. Animals? Again, not very interesting. If you have issues with the encyclopedia nature of the University of Michigan articles, you should take it up with the relative articles and wikiprojects regarding their content standards. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
          • I think you completely misunderstood my comment. I'm talking about the DYK's not the articles. DYK's like "Did you know...that prior to winning 323 games as a college football head coach, Bear Bryant's first regular season coaching position was on the staff of the 1936 Alabama Crimson Tide football team" are not very interesting nor encyclopedic. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
            • "winning 323 games"... sounds interesting enough. That's at minimum what, 5 seasons coaching? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
              • See this is the flip side of the argument when people complain about DYK being too cutesy, obscure or sensationalist—strip all that out and the hooks are too dry. This is why I like to strike as far in the outlandish direction as I can and have it reigned in a little (an old film editing trick for getting material past censors, overdo the blood and guts and when you cut it down as a compromise it's still as prevalent as you first intended!). A reviewer will usually tone down a hook that's a bit too out there (I had a hook in backwards letters for a Twin Peaks episode that just ran in plain lettering instead, for example), it's rare that a reviewer will pull a hook in the opposite direction and try to add a little sauce to it. Might be useful to try working towards a median line instead of taking overly dry hooks at face value each time. That went all sorts of places it probably didn't need to. GRAPPLE X 13:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • (good strategy, GrappleX! But I have been known to suggest a more interesting hook, especially when a reviewer asked for one.) ... LauraHale's right, what people find interesting varies considerably. But the underlying issue here is that we do get runs on topics that one or more editors happen to be passionate about, or just working on. Gerda's Bach cantatas project and the past runs of DYKs on English churches are examples, as well as the Australian softballers. And of course the Derby horses. (And on a small scale, I had 3 Chicago public housing projects not long ago, and I nominated a second Nazi German film a couple of days ago.) We again have a clump of psych articles nominated; if those can be got through the process successfully, there will be a period with a lot of psych topics featured at DYK. And who knows, that editor may eventually move on from U of M to a different university's sports teams. To offset the feeling of sameness, we have a whole bunch of people submitting to DYK, with a whole bunch of temporary or long-term focuses . . . however, when DYK participation falls off, the clumps of DYKs on related topics become more apparent. I think that's what we need to work on, not on saying "enough!" even by implication, but on trying to leaven the mix with other kinds of articles, whether by working on them ourselves or by nominating other people's new articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A brief reply to Michael from the person submitting the University of Michigan football hooks. There have been a lot at times, but less than a third of my DYKs fall into that category. And I only submit to DYK if I think there's a particularly interesting hook and it's a reasonably well-developed article. If I submit one that's a dud, let me know and I'll try to fix it. As someone said above, American football articles are underdeveloped and need work. Good to see in recent weeks that another editor has been submitting Alabama football articles to DYK and another for Australian softballers. Those with interests in other subjects (whether it be Ohio football or women's ice hockey) are all welcome to contribute. Cbl62 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd also point out that the top of the DYK section of the main page says "Did you know...from Wikipedia's newest content". Doesn't say "Wikipedia's newest interesting content", "Wikipedia's newest quirky content", or even "Wikipedia's newest encyclopedic content". All of which would be very much in the eye of the beholder. It just says "Wikipedia's newest content", and some of that is going to be, well, rather dry - and that's a good thing. DYK showcases interesting stuff, true, but also well-written new content, even if it's not very "interesting" even in hook form, it informs. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Gymkhana articles

There is significant overlap in content between Parsi_Gymkhana,_Marine_Drive, Islam_Gymkhana,_Mumbai, and Hindu_Gymkhana,_Mumbai, and if that content is excluded then only the last is long enough to qualify for DYK. As such, the first two should be debolded. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It was done similarly for White Goat Wilderness Area and two others. All three got attention, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
And not one of them manages to tell us what a gymkhana is (it's the English wiki, but they're forcing the reader to click on a link to figure out what the article is about). Even better, when we do click on gymkhana, it still doesn't tell us clearly what it is. Is it a court or a gym or a sports complex or what? This is en.wiki; readers shouldn't have to click out to know the subject of an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I fixed that (these are social and sporting clubs). The gymkhana article correctly says that the meaning of the term varies around the world. I was slightly taken aback, though, that the link to 'Heritage Grade IIA' in those articles takes us to the listed buildings in England and Wales page. Hopefully there is a page somewhere on the Indian equivalent (update: I found Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage [INTACH], but the graded listings might be a local Mumbai designation by an organisation such as the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee [MHCC] of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai). About Nikkimaria's original point, I agree there is close similarity. I agree two of the three should be de-bolded. They are in queue four at the moment: Template:Did you know/Queue/4. The update time there is 25 April 09:00 London time (not sure if that is BST or UTC, not sure if the 'Local update times' are adjusted for daylight saving times). So 24 hours to make a decision here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting essay like content as DYK

I was thinking about rewriting Wendell Scott to a GA. As you could tell that article is in horrendous shape, it's literally all unsourced original research from what seems like someone's high school essay. I've seen exceptions in DYK which the subject was valid but the article was in such terrible shape that it had to be rewritten from scratch. Would this be considered an exception if I rewrite it from scratch? Thanks Secret account 22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how things would work today, as the requirements here have gotten a LOT more restrictive and pointlessly bureaucratic in enforcing the rules, but back in the day this did happen. Back in 2007, Gettysburg Cyclorama got DYK credit for a similar rewrite: It had been basically copied verbatim from a U.S. government website, and it was rewritten substantially using lots more sources. The resulting final product wasn't considerably longer, but it was greatly improved, and when I nominated it for DYK based on the work that had been done, no one really objected, and it passed easily. Nowadays, if it doesn't meet the metrics of length or time it gets rejected seemingly automatically. Good luck, and I hope it is decided to grant the excemption, but I wouldn't hold your breath. --Jayron32 23:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid this falls pretty clearly under Supplementary Rule A4: "A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it was up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article." As it says there, the only exception (unless it was an unreferenced BLP) is if swathes of text in the article was copyvio. (Gettysburg Cyclorama might have been seen in that light, or things might just be tighter now.) But GA is a completely different process with no requirement for expansion as such - I'd simply go for that if I were you. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Would appreciate help

I've just nominated something, but it's not appearing on the page, so would someone mind checking that I've done it correctly? It's at Template:Did you know nominations/Lizzy Lind af Hageby. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. Nomination pages need to be manually added to this page—the process is a bit more like FAC than GAN. I've stuck it in under April 21 for you since that's when your expansion work began. GRAPPLE X 00:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks, Grapple, I thought they appeared on the page automatically. :) Thanks for fixing it! SlimVirgin (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Reassessment about Semavi Eyice

Good morning,

Almost one month ago I wrote a short article and then I put it on DYK. After an initial OK, another reviewer did not agree about the hook source, therefore a Turkish Wikipedian added two more sources for the hook. Since then I wrote to the reviewer twice on his talk page, asking him to reassess the DYK, but he did not answer. That's why I am asking here a reassessment of the hook. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to nominate Chamber of the Holocaust

Please consider the following for Did you know. The article Chamber of the Holocaust was moved from articles for creation to its own article on April 24. Comments: I did not pack the hook with more facts from the article since I did not think they were appropriate for Did you know considering the nature of the topic. Similarly, if accepted, consideration should be given in the placement of this hook with other topics of a more serious nature.

... that the Chamber of the Holocaust was Israel's first Holocaust museum, established in 1949, soon after the events of the Holocaust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.84.229 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the article! I've put it under April 25, since that's when the move to mainspace was recorded. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! 205.156.84.229 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Expedited review for Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Humber's perfect game?

This event just happened today. For timeliness, can we promoted it to the main page as soon as early this week? I'll do QPQ, suggest ALT hooks, and make sure everything is in policy tomorrow morning. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article and it is ready to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced there's a need to rush it through. For the record the event is also being considered at ITN. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Cwmhiraeth. Sadly it doesn't seem likely to make ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The DYK is approved. Since this article was not promoted by ITN, can we get it promoted to the main page for DYK this week? I'd appreciate it if someone could close it and put it in an open prep area today, so that we can promote this in the most timely fashion. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please someone promote this hook to prep ASAP. By all means delay any of my other noms to give this one priority. This is a recent news event from this past weekend and its relevance will start to decay soon, if it hasn't already. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Kony 2012 alt hook

Can someone come by and look at the latest alternate hook. We need to put this nomination to rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

see nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Kony 2012‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

After Easter

Easter is some weeks ago, Bach's cantata for the 3rd Sunday after Easter already approved, but Osterbrunnen still waiting, hint. Agreed, it should not be too close to PumpkinSky's Easter egg tree, but that appeared 19 April ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonraker! Also for a delicate translation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Benji (2012 film)

I am not sure how important this date request is, but Benji has its last airing at the Tribeca Film Festival at 9:30 PM on 4/28. The queues for 4/28 are next to be populated. Consider Template:Did you know nominations/Benji (2012 film) possibly for the first queue on the 29th.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I see people are loading Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 and it is half full now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to increase DYK queues/preps from 7 to 8 entries?

There are currently 80 approved nominations. If the queues and prep areas were all filled, that number would be 31—only one queue and two prep areas are loaded at the moment—but we also have an additional 219 nominations in the pipeline.

The reason I'm suggesting 8 slots three times a day instead of 7 slots four times a day is that we're having real trouble getting prep areas loaded and shifted into the queues much in advance of when they're needed on the main page. Maybe if we have a couple of days where we keep the queues mostly loaded it'll be a sign that we can increase the frequency from every eight hours to every six hours, but for now I think the increase from 7 to 8 is all we can realistically handle. Besides, it's nice to give each nomination the longer time period to be seen. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If we are indeed having 8 hooks per set, please make sure there are not too many wordy hooks together in the same set. We should not make the left side of MainPage too long, forcing ITN to use more stale old news items just to maintain left-right balance on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I endorse an increase to eight hooks per set. I'm not, however, convinced that anywhere near all of those 80 approved hooks are ready for the main page -- the poor quality of some reviews is a reason not to accelerate things further.
PFHLai is right about the need to focus on short, snappy hooks -- it's hard to fight the tendency toward trying to tell the whole story of the article in the hook, but it's important to try. Not only do long hooks consume main page space, but they often are less effective -- why read the article if you already know what it says? --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I Concur with an increase to 8 hooks per set.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I have just reformatted most of the prep areas to 8 hooks. I did not do Prep area 2 although it is still almost 12 more hours before it hits the main page. Feel free to add a hook to prep area 2 as well however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I also support 8 hooks formatting. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I support the shortening of hooks where possible. Moswento (talk | contribs) 11:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Queue 1 needs two new hooks

Due to two removals for problematic hooks, there are only six hooks in Queue 1, and there needs to be eight. We need an admin to find two hooks, probably from the prep areas, to insert into this queue.

Please, however, leave the current final hook in its final position, since it was chosen to end on a lighter note. (200 chickens!) The new two hooks can be inserted somewhere above it. Thanks! (Which reminds me; there should probably be a non-breaking space after "200".) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Would an admin consider choosing Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Humber's perfect game? I'd like this to go up ASAP due to its newsworthy nature (the event happened on April 21) that might start fading, if it hasn't already. By all means don't promote any of my others for a while so you can focus on that one. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I see that queue already has one of mine, Miller Huggins. I'd be happier to see Humber's go up and delay Huggins, but that would still mean finding two more anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Orlady has taken care of the problem by adding two hooks from prep 1 to queue 1. Thanks, Orlady!
Muboshgu, I've promoted Philip Humber to Prep 2. Since Tony already had the Kony hook in prep 1, I didn't feel I could put it there, but this will only delay posting by eight hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That works for me. Thank you for your consideration. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hook of Zanzibar women's national football team in Queue 1

I feel there is a problem with this hook. Although there is a cited source stating the team plays without Hijab, there are also sources suggesting the opposite: Source 8 in the article suggests they do wear something (or states they have to), while the citation itself stems from Source 10. Now I have no idea if they do, but feel this part of the hook is not sufficiently sourced... L.tak (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing does not clearly support the hook, but the problem should be fixable without great difficulty. I swapped the hook into Prep Area 2 to allow a little more time to get this sorted out. I have not found a source that definitively says they do not wear head coverings, but it is clear that they do not cover their bodies in the general fashion discussed in the article hijab. Also, photos of the team, such as those at [4], [5], and [6], show that at least some of the players don't wear head covering, but a few have some sort of head cover. This pair of photos of one of the players is particularly interesting, as she is fully covered in the Muslim custom in one photo and she is uncovered (and without a head cover) in the second photo. I think that it might be possible to source the hook as currently worded, or else the hook could be reworded to say something like "... that in a largely Muslim country, the Zanzibar women's national football team does not dress according to Muslim custom when playing and has beaten domestic men's teams?" or perhaps "... that in a largely Muslim country, the Zanzibar women's national football team has few women's teams to play against, and has beaten domestic men's teams?" --Orlady (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Erk. :( Embarrassing. Honestly, "... that in a largely Muslim country, the Zanzibar women's national football team has few women's teams to play against, and has beaten domestic men's teams?" would be fine. I didn't see the sourcing when I nominated it or I wouldn't have done that. :( --LauraHale (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That happens sometimes when we get caught up in an interesting topic. :) Upon reflection, I think that the hook could be trimmed to "... that the Zanzibar women's national football team has few women's teams to play against and has beaten men's teams?" How does that grab you? --Orlady (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd kind of prefer something that highlights the unusual nature of the team and the challenges they face as a result, but I'll take what I can get. :) Again, thanks for the assistance. --LauraHale (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, there definitely are some interesting possibilities for hooks about the challenges they face being in a Muslim country, such as the clerics who object to their clothing. If you want to play with other possibilities, go ahead! We can review the hooks here. (There definitely are some interesting possibilities. You'll notice that I added to the article, based on some of the websites about the movie, because I was finding interesting content that wasn't already in the article.) --Orlady (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) Apologies for taking so long to respond. Had to go out. Some ideas and happy with any one or a variant.

--LauraHale (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think this nomination should have been passed in the first place. If there are statements in the article that contradict the source, then the solution isn't to change the hook, but to wait until those issues are resolved. Furthermore, the article makes extensive use of unreliable sources.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If there were problems, then I agree it should have been pointed out so it could be resolved before it got moved. It wasn't an intentional error on my part. The problems addressed have subsequently been resolved because of the work of two other contributors and this is very much appreciated. As for calling it a country, that is not done in the hook. The article follows a standard naming convention for women's national football team. Zanzibar national football team is the men's national team and they have played international matches. The first sentence actually says "Zanzibar is an island that is governed by Tanzania and as of 1999, had a population of around 571,000". Beyond that, as sourced, the ARE for the purposes of Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations "recognised" as an independent country. --LauraHale (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Alternative sources have now been found for both sources. The one remaining fact I could not find support for, a member of the squad being deaf, I removed. Are there any additional concerns? --LauraHale (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no concerns anymore and think the article is good for DYK now. I prefer hook 3 as factual and short. Hook 4 is ok as well, but I strongly suggest to place disgrace between quotation marks as now it could be taken as a fact that the players disgraced them L.tak (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Twinning request

There are two separate DYK nominations that are related, and which I'd like to see 'twinned' if possible (not combined, and not included in the same batch, but run separately on the same day). They are Template:Did you know nominations/United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic and Template:Did you know nominations/British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic. What I proposed at User talk:Crisco 1492 was whether it would be possible to hold back the one that gets dealt with first, until the other one has been reviewed, and whether it would then be possible to run them both on the same day, one during the British 'day' (roughly) and one in the US 'day' (roughly)? It might be better to let them just go up as-and-when they are ready, but I thought it worth asking. Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Chamber of the Holocaust in P3

I'm surprised to see this article making its way through the approval process. At 1671 characters, it exceeds the minimum number of characters but still reads like a stub. You would also think there would be more reliable sources for a museum that's 63 years old. Two of the four sources are tour guides, and one source is unformatted. Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled the hook. --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Simrock

Nikolaus Simrock, now in Prep 3, reads as if the person published works by Brahms. The publishing house N. Simrock (or just Simrock) which he founded did. He was dead by then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The one cited source for a Mendelssohn composition gives a date after Nikolaus himself was dead. I think this had better get pulled back until the hook, and the article itself, is sorted out, since the prep area is the next to be queued. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Queue 4 Bach cantata title formatting issue

In the hook, the title of the cantata is in italics, as it proper, but the italics extend to include "BWV 12", which is not. It should be set: Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen, BWV 12. Note that the final comma should not be in italics; the title of the article itself has the correct format. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edited. I hope I did it right. --Orlady (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks good on the main page! Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Administrator intervention requested

Tomorrow, 29 April, the hook for Shlomo Moussaieff and the Moussaieff Red Diamond will go on the main page. In the meantime, a new user and an IP address (possibly the same user) keep vandalizing the Moussaieff Red Diamond page. Is there any way to protect this page until after the DYK appears? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(Note: Moussaieff Red Diamond is not the bolded article in the DYK hook, so this is not a case of an unstable article being featured on DYK.) I've issued final warnings to both the registered user and the IP (after reverting the latest edit by the registered user). If (when) the registered user vandalizes again, they can be blocked and the IP will receive an autoblock. --Orlady (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Amsterdam Sex Crimes Case

I did not notice until now Template:Did you know nominations/Amsterdam Sex Crimes Case, now in Prep 2. I would prefer not to see the abuse of babies on the Main page. "Checks out", the review says. Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The references support the claim (from what I can see) and as has been pointed out in numerous mainpage discussions, we are not censored. Having said that, it is disgusting in the extreme. So the question is do we use discretion or stick forcefully to the rules in spite of the disgusting nature of the incident? Usually these discussions end in many cries of not censored so moving it was a case of following precident. Doesn't mean it has to stay that way. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Put me in the group that does NOT want to see this on the main page. I don't even have the stomach for reading the article. Not censored is one thing .. but there's such a thing as humanity and good taste too. — Ched :  ?  20:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Common decency should prevail here, not some rigidity on a rule designed to not censor graphic pictures of sex organs.PumpkinSky talk 20:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I mean really, sexually abusing a 19-day old baby? That is so disgusting I can't even formulate the thought in my mind. PumpkinSky talk 20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
What do you expect from a DYK review? This is a valid article and a valid nomination. What sort of reviewer comments would you prefer? It's not a review of the crimes or the case, and it certainly isn't an appropriate place for a discussion on child abuse in general. Not writing about this case, not promoting well-written articles about horrific crimes, that doesn't make them not happen. Why should we pretend like these things don't exist? It isn't like a work of fiction about these crimes that is being glorified, it is a factual presentation. Sexual abuse happens, and this kind of info is sadly relevant to a much higher percentage of the population than the 2007 Monte Carlo Rally. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a disgusting act, but the hook is as tastefully done is it could be, and it did happen. I very much don't want to get into the habit of editors discarding DYKs because they're disturbing. I find this less disturbing than having a TFA for that centipede movie, but I didn't complain that the centipede thing wound up on the main page. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Sven, I know nothing of a centipede movie, but I don't see how that could be more disturbing. Johnny - You miss the point entirely. And it wasn't that well written, it was clearly written by a non-native English speaker, so I fixed it. It should be an article, but not plastered on the main page. But I'm sure the "not censored so we can post anything no matter how disgusting" bandwagon will jump in, so I'll bow out of this now. I've said what I have to say. PumpkinSky talk 21:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is forced to read an article just because there's a short hook to it on the main page for a few hours. It's not as if it's promoting child abuse, and if you don't want to know about the case then don't read the article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
@PS: The Human Centipide, it's a grotesque horror film. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
That seems fiction. The babies and their parents are real, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Which was my point. Fiction like that is made to glorify horrific acts, and I would not be supportive of that being on the main page. I also don't consider myself as part of any "not censored bandwagon", as that mentality leads to a lot of stupid decisions on EN. A man sexually abused babies at a day care center. 67. How is that not relevant information for the general public? The shock people will feel is not at the article, but at the acts. They do not need to click through to find out all of the details, but pretending that things like this don't happen helps nobody. What about the possiblity that using this hook might make someone realize that their own child is in a compromising situation? Or make them more critical of day-care their child receives? How does hiding this information help anyone? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Well this discussion shows exactly the dilemma I had and I can imagine the opinions both sides. My personal conclusion was that this was a story that should be told and I must say that I have left out some of the more graphic details that I feel uncomfortable writing up. And it is not that we are bringing this while others don't; every medium in the Netherlands covered it every day during the trial (most however anonimize the suspects as Robert M. and Richard van O.). However, if we load the suggestion on us that we are being too sensationalist for bringing this in a DYK-environment, I can imagine it should be withdrawn... I will go with whatever is the consensus here and am absolutely not planning to push the issue any further... L.tak (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a bad idea, as the verdict is announced on the 21st. We could also make sure that it is paired with information that doesn't trivialize what happend (more sombre facts than whimsical). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Can we have some common sense here? This is a perfect example of the sort of article we should never feature on DYK, regardless of whether it ticks all the boxes or not. Putting the article on DYK may not promote child sex abuse, but it is profoundly unsuitable for featuring on the main page. If it is used it will inevitably cause righteous outrage amongst both readers and editors, and will be yet another nail in the coffin of DYK (does nobody still remember the furore over the Gemma McCluskie DYK?). BabelStone (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, this is new content that meets DYK criteria. If people don't want to read about a horrible sex crime, they don't have to read it. Pulling offensive material starts us on a slippery slope regarding what is deemed "acceptable" and what isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I may have a language problem. So far I thought DYK statements are an invitation to KNOW, not: don't read what you don't want to know. - I also think the article name is very general, I don't know Dutch but see that the Dutch term seems not to mention sex and crime, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I take no pleasure in defending this, but I do strongly believe in upholding the right of free and open access to all knowledge, regardless of how distastful it may be. If people do not like the not censored policy, I would invite them to try and get that policy changed, though I don't hold much hope for that happening. It is rediculously dramatic to state to this would be the death of DYK. Also, we have other hooks in the prep areas regarding gay porn and brothels. There are many of more delicate sensibilities who would argue that putting articles of that subject matter on the front page would also defy common sense. Where does this argument end?
If anyone has any arguments which fit into established policy (for examble, if someone thinks the article is not up to DYKs criteria) then wonderful. I would welcome their input as I think we all should. Until then, why is this a debate? I think we can all agree that the acts committed are obscene in the extreme. No one is promoting peadophilia and were they to do so I would hope they would be summarily taken out of the equation.
I left the question open in my initial statement but the arguments against appear to stem purely from emotion. I applaud your revulsion and I feel it too. It's just not neutrality and it's not for us to stop others accessing knowledge. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned above, we should be very careful what hooks we use to fill out that queue. Maybe forgo the usual quirky final hook for this particular set. And we should prepare for the inevitable sh*tstorm once it's up. The Interior (Talk) 01:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this deserves to be included in DYK. Unlike some of the exploitative titillation that appears in DYK (items along the lines of "Topless Appreciation Week"), this is real -- and something that almost everyone in the Netherlands is aware of. However, I suggest trimming the hook to reduce the emphasis on "sex" and/or the number of upsetting details, thus making it a little less upsetting for the squeamish. For example:

...I agree the emphasis on sex (mentioning the term twice) is a bit overdone here and can imagine the "less than one month" part can be construed as a sensationalist detail. But I feel the age of the children should in some way be shown. What about:

  • ... that the defendant in an Amsterdam sex crimes case awaiting final judgment has admitted to abuse of 83 young children?
    Furthermore, I appreciate the balance that is sought in filling out the queue without word jokes, easter egg trees etcetc... We might also wish to avoid 4 and 5 May for the DYK date as it is Remembrance of the Dead and Liberation Day (Netherlands) respectively. Holding the article in the special holding area until the day of the verdict however, means that we are bringing this when the article is possibly in a non-updated or unstable state and I would not consider that doing due diligence... L.tak (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In the news

I slept over it. Still imagining to be the mother of one of those infants: What do you think of running it "In the news" once there is the verdict? The case seems rather news to me than encyclopedic knowledge. Or could it be expanded to a broader coverage of Abuse of young children? (as the one special Easter egg tree was expanded to a broader perspective). I don't see how holding the article would bring it in an unstable state, enough people will watch it now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

ITN is better for this article, when the verdict comes in. And what's wrong with Easter egg trees?PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with Easter egg trees! It's just weird to have such a type of story in the same group as such a terrible story (as several have remarked); but both have their place in wikipedia... I am open to moving to ITN, just won't do it myself; don't feel like pushing this much as it feels much like defending it... L.tak (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
ITN makes sense. Would this be held for DYK after the verdict and after ITN, or not? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
To my understanding it's one or the other, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Gerda is correct an article that's been on ITN is not DYK eligible and vice versa.PumpkinSky talk 22:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense, and seems a good compromise. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
My sincerest apologies if this sounds abrasive but if our argument on whether to absolve ourselves of the responsibility of putting this on the main page begins with the words:Still imagining to be the mother of one of those infants - I assure you, there is nothing we can do to lessen that pain. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A comment from an ITN regular, this probably wouldn't get posted there, as criminal trials aren't often posted unless it's a very significant crime. Hot Stop 22:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's a good candidate for ITN, fine, let's go that way. But let's stop playing hot potato with it, and commit to one course of action here. The Interior (Talk) 22:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, where does it say an article that was once DYK can't be ITN? Hot Stop 00:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
ITN is separate, and should have no effect on the decision here. Any ITN decision should be made there. There is no policy saying "one or the other". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It's a DYK policy that ITN use precludes DYK use, but I don't know of any reverse ruling. So something could conceivably be run in DYK, and if it flares up later and is included in ITN, there's nothing to stop it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Adding that PumpkinSky above seems to think the reverse is true at ITN. So maybe it is one or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
again, I've never heard of such a rule in my time at itn Hot Stop 01:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Then PumpkinSky could well be mistaken. Like I said, I don't know ITN, and you clearly do. However, the DYK policy about ITN publication being a bar to subsequent DYK publication is definitely real. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know rules, but remember an article last year which I reviewed, 2011 Pulitzer Prize, waited for improvement, and then was told that it had appeared on ITN and therefore was no longer available for DYK, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Rest of the hooks

If/when this runs, obviously we don't have any whimsical/wacky hooks. Should the rest of the hooks be neutral (like polymers and fish)? I feel that it would be most appropriate to add hooks that are sombre in nature like "Prisons in Bahrain" and "Mental health of refugee children". That would be the most respectful and appropriate, but that would make the whole batch depressing. I am still new to DYK, but it seems that keeping the entire batch sombre is the best idea. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think having seven somber hooks would be the wrong thing to do. There shouldn't be whimsical ones—any kind of humor could be problematic—but there's nothing wrong with some neutral yet interesting hooks about buildings and plants and even people. The last three hooks in Queue 1 right now are an example of excess: they feel like too much all together as it is, but imagine seven of these including Amsterdam. No thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Respect

Slept over it again. Please excuse my limits of English. Of course I can't imagine the suffering of the victims and their families. We apply respect in the biographies of living people. I can't imagine any hook being respectful enough in this case. Do you? I still think the title of the (good, factual, perhaps even needed) article is too ambigous and too sensational. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It could be; it is just that I haven't heard any better title yet. As I said in the nomination discussion, the unambiguous Dutch title is de Amsterdamse zedenzaak. There are more "zedenzaken" in Amsterdam, but the shear horror of this one makes that everyone refers to it simply as "de amsterdamse zedenzaak", so that is the common name. If there is an English title available, we should use it. "Zaak" is short for "rechtzaak", very similarly to "case" being used for "court case" so that is established as well. Leaves us with "Zeden". This word is not used often in Dutch and historically means something like "customs/good-behaviour", but now if it is used it is used exclusively used in a criminal or pejorative sence related to sex/sexuality (van lichte zeden: of light zeden= a hooker; zedenmisdrijf=sex crime, so it is "against the zeden"). The only mildly comparable translation might be vice in the UK-English sense, but I believe a "vice case" is not commonly used in English... I am open to any better translation however, just wanted to point out why I deemed this title best... Any thoughts? L.tak (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
No English speaker yet? Extremes: "Amsterdam Zedensaak" to "Robert Mikelson abuse case". In between something like "Amsterdam R.M. abuse case". I would not know how to mention "children", ideas welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Could we start with some common ground here before all kind of suggestions come up. Do we agree that we should follow WP:COMMONNAME? and that we thus should use "Amsterdamse zedenzaak" (if that is what is commonly used in English), the common name in English (if that exists) or the best available translation of "Amsterdamse zedenzaak"? L.tak (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that there are two defendants, and the crimes include both molestation and pornography. So the name would probably be Mikelsons/van Olffen child molestation and pornography trial or something similar. Which is a long title. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is Ridiculous

I am happy to bray this particular point from the rooftops. We appear to be seriously suggesting that we limit the spread of free access to all knowledge because some of that knowledge is distasteful. Not because it's unencyclopedia or doesn't meet the criteria for DYK (although I see a valiant effort being made above to attempt to make an issue out of the name), but because it's icky. Well, yes, it is. So are a lot of things. That gives no one the right to deny another person access to knowledge. Could we please either have the courage of our convictions and let the damn thing run, or admit that we're too cowardly to own up to posting something so vile on the front page? Either way, letting it languish in the prep areas like this is worrisome at best and pathetic at worst. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Furthermore was this any other forum it would be noted that there is now clear consensus (based on policy and not emotional appeals) to let the hook run on the proviso that it is done respectfully. Let's not drag this out for too long. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Agreed with Panyd about getting this out of the preps, either through the queue (as she suggests) or by reopening the nom for further discussion. In my year here I've never seen a hook languish in limbo like this. I think this should be allowed to reach the main page, so long as it is done sensitively and in a way that won't prejudice the trial. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer to return it to discussion until after the verdict. The article IS available without restriction, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
What is the reason you want that? Because you want to suggest it at ITN first? Or for relevance reasons? To have it get more views? I would like this discussion to end with something definite (OUT of the main page, in ITN, in DYK) so it should be clear what the path forward is.... L.tak (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry I posted at all under a heading mentioning "ridiculous" in this context, don't listen to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've held off on posting to this section because editors I respect have a real problem with this hook, and I wanted to allow them space to make their case - and for us all to express our disgust and think about how best to deal with the issue. However, I agree with Panyd, the article meets DYK criteria and whether we like it or not, as an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes current events providing they meet a certain level of notability, and this one does. (We also have articles on older crimes - I used Wikipedia to look up the Moors murders to see what my parents had hidden from me.) I think the title is the best available; if English-language newspapers begin to cover it under a different title, it can be moved. Yes, we should avoid having it in a set with flippant hooks, or running it on the 4th or 5th. Yes, it may be a candidate for In The News once the verdict's in, but that's a separate project - we can't and shouldn't try to shove this off onto them. It's not fair to that project or to those who worked on this article. We were all burnt by the hook that was pulled off the main page, but in my view this is a different situation and we shouldn't shy away from it. (Just as we don't shy away from all sorts of other unpleasant topics, including plane crashes and mass murders. We can't make knowledge not include horrific stuff.) I think it's time to assemble an appropriate prep set and run this hook. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Yngvadottir. We can't really be take people's disgust into consideration. We probably all agree child molestation is horrific. However, I've had my personal sensibilities offended by recent hooks. Metal bands being called Armageddon Holocaust or Holocausto is utterly distasteful in my mind, but I wouldn't object to them being covered on DYK. I think the three plane crashes currently mentioned on DYK are tragic, but again I think they should feature on DYK. Recently, there was a hook about a gay porn movie. The sexually repressed would probably take offense to that being covered. Are we going to give in to that? It's a slippery slope, is what I'm saying.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not so sure; I held off commenting because I didn't want to trivialize the starting point for this discussion - but it now seems to have widened to a more general debate; sure WP:Not censored - but isn't its application being distorted? Might well be a compelling argument against deletion, but WP:Discretion or even Discretion might be more relevant for DYK: all the tits and bums hooks, attention-grabbing sure, but is there not a difference between having these available for the prurient and slapping them in people's faces? Seems a bit puerile at times. Gruesome and disturbing hooks require far greater discretion; and then there are those that promote war... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Promote war? Did I just turn down a blind alley? What's the relevance to this hook? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Presumably you might also wish to ask what's the relevance of the salacious content? The discussion appeared to have widened in application, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The word "ridiculous" probably was a poor choice because this is not a topic for laughter, but it accurately conveys that this discussion veered into strange territory. (How did promotion of war enter in?)
If I remember correctly, that hook that got pulled off the main page some time ago was pulled because it focused on a rather grisly detail of the recent murder of a named person, which made it bad taste if not also a WP:BLP issue. This is not the same kind of situation. In contrast with that other hook, this hook deals rather impersonally with the facts of a well-publicized criminal case that is currently at trial. As I stated earlier (and as I have now implemented by editing the hook in the prep area), the offensiveness of the hook can be reduced by making the word "sex" a bit less visible.
I fail to understand the theory that this hook must not be displayed in a hook set that also contains lighthearted hooks. Yes, we would not put this hook in a joke-filled April Fool's set or in a set largely devoted to a religious holiday. However, we normally make a practice of balancing content by mixing the mundane with the bizarre and by mixing light topics with serious ones -- such as creating sets that present hooks about sports, music, and celebrities alongside hooks about war crimes. Candidly, I would want this kind of hook to be mixed in with hooks about non-serious matters like the record of a football team and the historical basis for a novel. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm offended. The record of a football team is serious stuff. ;) Cbl62 (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I just read the above discussion.
Firstly, it was stated that "an article that's been on ITN is not DYK eligible and vice versa". This is incorrect. While DYK disqualifies articles that have appeared in ITN, ITN has no such rule about articles that have appeared in DYK. So the ITN prospect isn't grounds for rejection at DYK.
Secondly, I must state in no uncertain terms that I strongly support the hook's inclusion. This debate began with the statement that "I would prefer not to see the abuse of babies on the main page", and that appears to be the entire argument against it. No one has presented evidence that the material is inconsistent with any policy or guideline, and extra care has been taken to ensure a respectful presentation.
It's been asserted above that the hook might generate outrage contributing to DYK's demise. On the contrary, Wikipedia doesn't bow to the demands of angry mobs; we politely inform them that the site isn't censored and might not always reflect their sensibilities. However, the suppression of factual information on the basis that it might upset people is exactly the sort of thing that would lead me to question this section's existence. If anything more controversial than the Eurovision Song Contest is off-limits, that's a problem.
Postponing the hook's appearance in anticipation of the verdict might be appropriate. Its outright exclusion is not. —David Levy 14:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, WP:Editorial discretion, one policy/guideline that has been cited, is ranked as of "Low impact" [7], Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Editorial discretion is an essay, not a policy or guideline. That doesn't automatically negate the information contained therein, but I don't see how said advice is applicable in a manner justifying the hook's omission. —David Levy 15:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what David Levy said: "Postponing the hook's appearance in anticipation of the verdict might be appropriate. Its outright exclusion is not." Having said that, I think this hook should be excluded until a verdict is reached. Having an article on an ongoing trial is one thing. Pushing it upfront on the main page is another matter altogether. I think all ongoing trials or sub judice matters should be excluded from DYK until the cases are over. ITN is another matter, as if something receives enough coverage to pass the bar at ITN (usually due to coverage following a verdict), then that is OK. The other thing that is a concern is excessive coverage through multiple hooks. I would hope that if someone worked in this area and created or expanded lots of articles on child sex crime trials, that regulars at DYK would be able to judge whether a steady submission of hooks (e.g. one per day for several weeks) on such matters would be appropriate. I would also personally exclude the hook anyway using editorial discretion, but consensus might be against that. Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Although postponing in principle is possible, I prefer after this lengthy discussion to "get it over with"... This case should indeed not be a precedent for other cases that are still under the judge. Here however, the coverage in NL was wide: daily coverage in every single national/regional newspaper, news shows, talk shows etc before and throughout the trial. So it is not us "hyping" it now; it just following very extensive coverage; in other words if the judges are being influenced, they'll be influenced by literally hundreds (on main pages of newspapers, on prime time television etc) of sources in their own language and we take -even on the main page- a "following the news" rather than "setting the agenda" approach with respect to NL... L.tak (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Time for a decision

I've moved this hook into later prep areas twice over the past couple of days, hoping that a decision would be made. I personally think we should not exclude the hook, and I'm unwilling to be a party to allowing this to drag out any further by moving it again; it's time for a decision. As Yngvadottir notes above, ITN should not be relevant to this discussion; in the unlikely circumstance that they later decide they want to cover the story when the verdict is announced in 13 days, they're free to do so.

At the moment, the hook reads, "... that the defendant in an Amsterdam sex crimes case awaiting final judgment has admitted to abuse of 83 children, one of whom was less than a month old?" One possibility mentioned above by L.tak is to change "abuse of 83 children" to "abuse of 83 young children" and stop there, not mentioning the youngest of them.

So do we run the hook or not? And if we do, should it be phrased "83 children, one of whom was less than a month old?" or "83 young children?" BlueMoonset (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There has been no reason stated that is in line with policy for holding this hook or removing it. There has not been a majority so overwhelming to get us to go against policy and remove it. The nom has not been moved-down, I see no reason not to used the hook as passed. A separate nom can be made for ITN when the verdict is announced, but that makes no difference here. I'd say to move it to the latest prep area so admins can start carefully selecting the accompanying hooks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Just one point of information - anyone who feels confident enough about the fiddly bits (and Rjanag has provided instructions that are not as scary as you might think) can close a template and move a hook into a prep set (although it shouldn't be the hook for your own article). Anyone can then come along and remove a hook, or move it to a different prep, but it doesn't become an admin thing till the prep set gets moved to a queue. As Bluemoonset states above, they've been moving it down repeatedly, so it's been sitting alone in a new prep. In theory we could all pitch in and assemble a complete set around it. (I'm on the fence about rewording the hook.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason to deviate from Orlady's newest edit, removing repeated use of the word "sex" (and I'd still prefer to leave the final move-to-prep to those more experienced with DYK than I). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
...After much consideration I opt for the removal of the last part of the sentence. Although there is probably no formal reason, the longer hook looks for the boundary in something that is horrible enough when addressing the core of the case. The longer hook also mentions a specific victim. I added the part originally because I wanted to stress the overall age of the children without getting into definition matters (infants yes, but the 83 included also toddlers etc); but the "young children" should do IMO.... L.tak (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
What about replacing that part with "83 children, including toddlers and infants". He said that he stopped when they started to talk, so that would mean toddlers and infants, I don't know that some weren't older. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I've used L.tak's preferred edit just now. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between simply distasteful and disgustingly immoral. Wikipedia is not censored, but not having it on DYK does not censor the article. No matter how it is written,I don't think that it should be on DYK because it is still the same exact thing. Sexual abuse of children is sexual abuse of children no matter what. If this is posted on the main page, I assume that people will complain about it. If others respond to them saying that Wikipedia is not censored, that would just disgust me. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation: "Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't suppress material that people find objectionable." It's a distinction without a difference.
I agree with you (as would a vast majority) that the acts in question were abhorrent. But that view, even if universally held, is irrelevant. We don't decline to propagate knowledge — in the encyclopedia or on the main page — on the basis that it might upset some readers.
All content is potentially objectionable to some, and a great deal is potentially objectionable to many. We run main page items about genocide and its perpetrators with little or no controversy. Perhaps I'm biased (in part because most of my father's relatives died in the Holocaust), but I don't find such subjects any less disturbing than I find this one, nor do I believe that they should be left off the main page to avoid upsetting me (or anyone else).
You, conversely, want to impose your sensibilities on our entire readership, rejecting a DYK hook purely because it upsets you (and some others). That's the antithesis of the principle that Wikipedia is not censored. —David Levy 21:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm just stating my opinions. One person can't stop the article from appearing on the main page. I'm not imposing anything on anyone. The fact that editors are trying to rewrite the hook to make it sound better is horrible in my opinion when it is the same no matter what. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
But that's life. Controversial or not, we'll have to talk about it and find out what is acceptable under which circumstances. I have indicated several times what my reasons are: to show the facts and I therefore object just as you do to changes which would "make it sound better". That does IMO not preclude us from being careful to avoid (claims of) sensationalism. With all present hooks the threshold is met I think; it comes just down to choosing the best one. L.tak (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I wrote that you want to impose your sensibilities, not that you're capable of doing so unilaterally.
Indeed, you're stating your opinion that content should be suppressed from the main page because its inclusion upsets you (and some others). And I'm stating my opinion to the contrary. —David Levy 23:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have filled the Prep Area. I've endeavoured to make the other entries as neutral as is possible. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good selection. I was on the fence about rewording the hook, so I've gone with the rewording at L.tak's request. There seem to be far more people in favor of running it than against. There are still two days before the hook runs, if it gets moved to a queue and proceeds from there to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you please link to the prep area? I've noted my objections above if the trial is still in progress. Carcharoth (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
It's in Prep 2. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Having looked more closely at the article, I see it appears to be one not involving a jury, but one involving three judges, and that the hearings have ended and presumably the judges are writing up their finding for their judgement expected on 21 May. So the subjudice concerns are not as valid as I thought. Still, it would be better to hold it back, if only to be able to include what the judges say. I'd also like to thank whoever wrote the hook used at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2, as that is much better than the suggested hooks in the nomination, which focused unduly the age of the youngest victim (you can almost hear the editorial voice saying "isn't this shocking" - well, yes, it is shocking, but Wikipedia's role is not to express shock, it is to educate). I would still prefer waiting for the judgement, at which point a more encyclopedic hook will be possible (e.g. any recommendations the judges make to prevent something like this happening again). Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
While I initially agreed above that it would be better to wait since the verdict isn't that far away, at this point I would really rather be done with it. People have already become very emotional here, and Panyd (and probably others) have had to shuffle the hooks around for days because we wouldn't demote the nomination or agree to use it. The prep area has been carefully filled with neutral hooks, this is as ready to go as it's going to get. Waiting again will make all of this effort pointless, and there will probably be another discussion at that point. As it is it would be better to handle the verdict at ITN, and let's just move on. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention that there's no guarantee that anything useful or useable will come out of the verdict in terms of a hook revision. I agree: we should go ahead. (For those wondering, the hook is currently set to run in 20 hours.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_80&oldid=1136061278"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy