Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:02, 4 October 2010

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

Template:FixBunching

Increasing size of backload

The number of hooks waiting to get on the mainpage has been rising steadily; probably due to an increasing volume of proposed hooks. Creating extra prep areas really doesn't solve this problem. The only way to get things back under control is to update the mainpage more frequently. I would like to propose that we begin updating the mainpage every 4 hours instead of every 6; at least until the backload is cleared.4meter4 (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think six hours is already almost too short, especially for a "night shift" - and it's always night somewhere around the globe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog seems relatively the same as the past few months. September 14 and 15 are pretty bad, according to the bot. We have discussed a lot here from clamping down on boring hooks, combining hooks, raising the article character limit to 2500, limiting hooks for creators/nominators and imposing a 5 day rule on unresolved issues. The prep areas weren't part of the solution, just a way to better manage the queues. I think one problem is a ton of hooks on the same subject. I recently saw an IP come on the suggestion page to complain about all the Wolverines' hooks. TFAR rates an article by how often it appears on the main page among other things. I think we should be able to do that, but to a lesser degree. DYK has to motivate editors but sometimes too much is more than enough for the system. Also, the long-term effects of the backlog has to be addressed and limiting their time on the main page may be a solution. What I think we can have is the creation of a "backlog state." By some quantified means, a "state of backlog" is declared. At that point, tougher rules are applied. When not in backlog, things can ease. I know backlog is hard to define as it always appears to be that way, but at times, the backlog eases.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the 4 prep areas. We can't stop the number of noms, but we can clamp down on the standards and rule enforcement, that is one thing that seems to be helping. The other is if more people review the older noms. When I do preps I pull about 99% of them from the older noms. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the prep areas (my statement above wasn't a criticism). I was merely trying to point out that they don't solve the backlog. Indeed, the number of hooks at Template talk:Did you know has remained steadily around 80 even with more prep areas filled hooks (which indicates an increasing backload). Not to mention the growing number of special date hooks which are not counted.

In response to NortyNort, I don't think tougher rules would fly at DYK. That's too much of a headache to deal with. Think of all the upset people, arguements, temper tantrums, confusion among reviewers, etc. it will inevitably cause. A temporary speeding up of the updates is a much simpler and conflict free solution. Yes, it's regretable that articles get less than an ideal time on the mainpage; but something has to give somewhere. I can't remember when exactly, but I do think we have sped up update times before at DYK to solve the backload. I certainly remember high opposition to imposing higher standards to solve the backload problem when that suggestion was brought up in the past.4meter4 (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's another way of reducing the backlog - rather than shortening the time things are on the main page, increase the number of items. There are currently nine DYK facts on the pasge - increasing it to 10, or more, would slowly reduce the backlog. I don't think it can be comfortably increased beyond 12, but even increasing it by just one to 10 will ease some of the pressure. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice thought, but I don't believe the Main Page design will allow room for more than 9 hooks. I don't think there is anything we can do about that.4meter4 (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a short TFA, we can squeeze more in for that whole day. But other than that, nothing else we can do about that. I agree clamping on boring hooks is hard. It is hard enough reviewing them; reviewers don't get much love as it is. This isn't the only thing I do on WP but one area where I think help is needed.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clamping down isn't just for boring hooks. Article standards can and should be enforced, such as referencing; not to mention enforcing the5 day rule, etc. I also think we give some users too long to fix hooks. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think clamping down on boring hooks may be easier than some think, and it may not cause the arguments and upset that one might expect. As someone who is fairly new to this and hasn't (yet) nominated any articles, I've challenged the "hookiness" of quite a few boring-seeming (to me) hooks over the last few weeks. In some cases the nominator has responded by proposing a better hook. In other cases they've let me or someone else propose a better hook. In other cases again, they've defended the "hookiness" of their hook - not always convincingly, but politely. None of them responded by getting upset or having a temper tantrum. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but it hasn't so far for me.

Now, although this hopefully improves the hookiness of what appears on the front page, it may not be obvious that it helps with the backlog. But I think, indirectly, it does. When a nominator needs to go back and find a more interesting hook, or justify the one they have, they realise they can't just bash together an article, grab the first "fact" that comes to mind, DYK it and then immediately do the same with another article. They have to put the effort in to produce what DYK is supposed to require. It is not a conveyer belt for every single article they produce.

One would assume that new editors who are about to submit their first DYK, often read the existing nominations and responses, to get an idea of what is acceptable. If they see that dull hooks are challenged, it encourages them to spend a bit of time thinking of a decent hook, rather than - again - just throwing it into DYK under the assumption that reviewers don't really care whether the hook is interesting or not, and that it's just a non-sentient conveyer belt for their article to appear on the front page.

I can see the sense of the "backlog state" idea, but I think it's an extra unnecessary rule/procedure (of which there are plenty already). I'd like to suggest just making the assumption that we are generally in a backlog state, and that we should always be "tougher" on dull-sounding hooks. A fair number of reviewers seem to approve nominations based only on the newness, length, and verifiability criteria, apparently without really thinking whether the hook is a genuinely eye-catching fact or not. This is detrimental to what appears on the front page, encourages the "conveyer belt" mentality, and thereby contributes to the backlog.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think "clamping down" is an adequate solution? I know that I myself always apply the full weight of the rules (including evaluating "boringness"), as do most of the regular DYK reviewers. Sure, some inexperienced reviewers probably let some slip by, but it seems to me that most reviewers are dilligent in enforcing the 5 day rule and not letting articles with shoddy refs get past, etc. Further, the majority of hooks are supplied by serial DYK contributors who know how to create good noms. The backload is therefore mostly made up of problem free hooks. I don't think a crack down is going to improve the situation by much.4meter4 (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Don't see how ignoring boring hooks will help the backlog any; if anything it'd just leave more nominated hooks on the candidate page and create an ever larger backlog. I know that when I review noms I'm quite a stickler for the five-day rule, and I'd like to see this enforced more. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting ignoring boring hooks, I'm suggesting questioning them more often. This doesn't "create an ever larger backlog" - a reviewer approving a nom (boring or not) so that it gets moved to a prep area does not really reduce the backlog, it just moves the problem around (since only so many hooks can appear on the front page per day.)

"the majority of hookes are suppled by serial DYK contributors who know how to create good noms" - or, in some cases, know their noms are unlikely to get challenged even if they have not put a lot of thought or effort into the hook? I think that contributes to the problem.

I'm not saying that this will have a massive impact on the backlog, or that other measures might not be needed. Just pointing out what I've seen in the nominations and how they are reviewed over the last few weeks.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How much weight do we give to the nominator's view when considering combining hooks. There are two hooks on T:TDYK at the moment that I have suggested be combined, as one of the ALT hooks for DYK nom A wikilinks to the article for DYK nom B. The nominator is not in favour. I can understand the nominator's perspective, and he recently had a DYK nom rejected so I don't want to upset him, but I do wonder what the usual practice is with such suggestions for combining noms, especially given the backlog. EdChem (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the backlog, unless there's a really compelling reason not to, we should always combine hooks. More than 5 hooks make it eligible for the DYK hall of fame. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog has actually been considerably reduced over the last few weeks - it's down from around 380 to 250. I see no need for radical action at this point. However, I do agree with Rlevse that when we have a backlog, hooks should be combined into multis wherever practical. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion here may have been getting sidetracked. If there is a problem (and I'm not the one to judge that), then I doubt that it's down to potential multi-noms not being combined, or due to articles of the wrong age slipping through. I haven't seen any figures presented, but I suspect that these are minor factors. Disallowing "boring" hooks is subjective, and could lead to acrimony. The simplest solution, it seems to me, is to remove the assumption that any DYK nomination with a tick will make it to the front page. Just because a hook is eligible, doesn't mean it has to go there. The backlog could be reduced if those editors who compile the prep areas occasionally pass over the least good hooks that are available to them. It might also make it easier for them to ensure a balance between different fields. If we've got more hooks than can be reasonably put on the front page (which is a good thing, from the point of view of the encyclopaedia, don't forget), then that just means that not all of them can go on the front page, unless anyone is prepared to update every 3 hours, or every 2. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Older nom reviews needed

We're slipping behind here again. Can reviewers pitch in on older noms? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on this folks. Let's continue to keep an eye on older noms. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noms from September 21 need clearing, they're sitting there stale. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Hawk hook in Queue 5

The following hook is presently in queue 5:

... that the 1994 documentary, Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys, helped popularize the pedophile group NAMBLA?

I am wondering what the word "popularize" means in this hook... is it saying that NAMBLA was made popular? That seems unlikely to me. If it is saying it made NAMBLA more well-known, then "popularize" seems an odd word choice. Checking the article doesn't help with clarifying the meaning, and the original source is not viewable on Google Books. I think we want to be careful before appearing to state on the main page that a documentary made NAMBLA popular, given that most people find NAMBLA offensive. EdChem (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Publicize" might be a better option. Gatoclass (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or even "helped to raise awareness of", perhaps --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "helped to raise awareness of". — Rlevse • Talk • 17:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, but is that supported by the reference in the article? EdChem (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so and it's preferable to "popularize" (note I'm one who detests NAMBLA). The ref mentions being shown at film fests and video distro, so it's bound to have increased awareness of NAMBLA. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Google Books may be regional or something, so, for those who can't view it, the source reads "In 1995, Chicken Hawk, a sixty-minute documentary on NAMBLA by an independent filmmaker, Adi Sideman, which premiered at film festivals and was later distributed by video outlets, helped popularize the group." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, I think that source is a "gay" encyclopedia, so it arguably has a bias in favour of the subject~~. I think "raise awareness of" or "raise the profile of" are probably reasonable NPOV substitutes. Gatoclass (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) On reflection, I think "raise awareness of" has some positive connotations that are undesirable in this context, so substituted "raise the profile of" instead. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I agree with you that something like "raise the profile of" or "raise the awareness of" are more likely intended meanings for the chosen word. I also think that one of them is more appropriate for the main page of Wikipedia. However, I take exception to the suggestion that the source is a "gay" encyclopedia, so it arguably has a bias in favour of the subject. LGBTQI people are no more in favour of NAMBLA, or child sexual abuse, than any other group in society, and suggesting otherwise is buying into one of the more pernicious and offensive anti-gay stereotypes. I certainly hope your comment was made without giving due consideration to the comment, and I invite you to withdraw it / strike it. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment certainly wasn't intended to suggest that homosexuality is equivalent to paedophilia, or that homosexuals in general might approve of such practices. However, I do think it possible that the authors of an encyclopedia on alternative sexuality might be inclined to be less judgemental about such matters than others. The very fact that they chose to use a word like "popularize" in such a context would appear to indicate as much. Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were using the word to indicate that it "brought the group to popular attention", not to "bring it into popularity". In any event, "an encyclopedia on alternative sexuality" is not a "gay encyclopedia" as there are other alternatives in human sexuality beyond the heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual divisions. As a gay man, I'd prefer a different word choice be implemented because of the false stereotyping that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles.Imzadi 1979 → 08:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, it is a book about homosexuality specifically, as the title Gay histories and cultures: an encyclopedia clearly states. I would point out that it isn't myself who chose to include NAMBLA under that heading, but the authors of the book themselves. However, obviously I have no wish to offend, so if you would like to suggest an alternative wording for my post, I will certainly consider altering it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just struck the comment instead. It wasn't really necessary to my point in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking the comment, Gatoclass. Since the source we are talking about is an encyclopedia, I think it is logical to assume that the authors would look to cover all topics neutrally, just as we do. I think we are looking at a case of a poor word choice, with the meaning Imzadi suggested ("brought the group to popular attention") being reasonable. The documentary makers chose to examine NAMBLA from the perpetrator's perspective, and have stated that they chose to allow their viewers to judge the comments made for themselves without lots of NAMBLA=bad editorialising. So, I can understand that there are suspicions of a pro-NAMBLA bias in the area. Just, please understand that any suggestion of a generalised gay = pro-paedophilia implication is something that strikes a nerve for me, the stereotype is incredibly damaging to the LGBTQI community. EdChem (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no probs, my apologies for the clumsy wording, which was obviously open to misinterpretation. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← I don't know if it's just my sleep deprivation, but I think "raise the profile of" has more positive connotations than "raise awareness of". My first thought was the same as that of Gatoclass, and I still think "publicize" is the most neutral substitution suggested. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about we forget the "helped" construction altogether, which itself is kind of awkward, and just say it brought the group increased attention? Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "brought increased attention to". Gatoclass (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A trout

to those who promoted the hook

... that Robert Rompre was drafted by the Marines but was allowed to play for the U.S. men's ice hockey team at the 1952 Winter Olympics where he set a record by scoring four goals in a single game?

- (i) its reference is much too thin; (ii) phrasing is incorrect as 4 goals in one game might only be a record for 1952 games; (iii) one ref was unformatted. Materialscientist (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, hook was proposed by Alansohn, approved by NortyNort, and promoted by Grondemar. - Dravecky (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In their defence, the FDL Record did make the statement that was cited in the article and the hook. It was completely wrong, but that is neither Alansohn's fault nor that of the reviewers. Sometimes we can't help it if secondary sources blow it. Reso lute 04:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch Materialscientist. My apologies, it appeared legit. There is more dubious information about him out there as well, this source states he was inducted into the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame in 1992 but I can't find him.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is only trout, the catch is by an anon at WP:ERRORS (though 4 goals setting a record should make anyone doubt, I just never crossed with this nom). The U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame is a nice catch actually. Removed. Materialscientist (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the fact that there are statements in the article that have been contradicted by other sources as caught by Materialscientist, but the statement made in the hook was backed by the provided reference. I agree with NortyNort that the United States Hockey Hall of Fame doesn't seem to be supported by the HoF web site, though the source explicitly supports the claim. I am always careful to provide multiple sources for my DYK articles and I accept a trout for the errors here. I can only try to be more careful to get better confirmation for any claims made in articles, but especially at DYK. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK with stub templates?

I am noticing in the last couple of days that there have been a lot of DYK articles with stub templates. Has the policy changed on this to allow stub templates? If so, when did that happen? Chris (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 47#No stubs. Shubinator (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not changed. By definition, an article that meets DYK standards (1500 char of readable prose) is no longer a stub. The reviewers should be removing these stub markings. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, reviewers should when approving articles for length both remove any stub templates and re-rate the article on the talk page WikiProject banners (if any) as at least Start-class. –Grondemar 02:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I routinely remove them and often they are classified stubs by WikiProject assessments on the talk page. In that case, I make the article a start, at least.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a stub template is absolutely not an issue for featuring a DYK article - its has to be 1500 bytes of prose or 5x expanded; it automatically qualified as non-stub after that, and should never be demoted just because someone forgot to remove the stub template. Those templates merely add extra categorization and invite to expand the article. Materialscientist (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I partially disagree with the above statements. An article can exceed 1500 characters of readable prose and still be a stub. Per WP:STUB, There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. While very short articles are likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which there is very little that can be written. Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written – their articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long. There's no problem with a reviewer removing stub templates, but we should not always consider a 1500+ character article a non-stub. cmadler (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instances of articles over 1500 characters of readable prose that still do not provide a serviceable overview of the subject are handled by Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules#D7. --Allen3 ^talk 19:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmadler and Allen - yes, its all true, 1500 bytes of prose doesn't guarantee the article to be ample. However. We are talking about two different cases: (i) classified as stub before DYK expansion; (ii) re-classified as stub after the expansion. Materialscientist (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK icon template

I couldn't find any existing templates for this, so I thought I'd try out my template-writing skills and make one for use in my userpage: User:28bytes/DYK

Is there already a template like this in the main template space (maybe being subst:'ed?) Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{DYK?}} rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{icon|DYK}} also does it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar icon, but what I was wondering was if there was a template that would generate the link and rollover text? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme resistance to my DYK

I'm still quite new to DYK but people seem to be opposing a lot of the articles I'm putting forward (e.g. Jewish lawyer, Criminal black man). The latest is here, against Black people and crime in the United Kingdom, and there are five or six editors ganging up on me. The hook is

that in 2009–10 the majority of males proceeded against by police for gun crimes, robberies, and street crimes in London were black?

All the concerns which relate to the rules I have addressed, but people are just saying they don't want it without justifying why. Therefore, I wonder if someone would be brave enough to put this in the queue? All I'm trying to do is put forward interesting hooks amongst a lot of boring ones, and I seem to be getting punished for it. (If people want to have a wider debate about 'controversial' hooks and to change the rules to reflect that, they can, but it's not the intention of this thread.) Christopher Connor (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with several concerns raised by the reviewers (particularly those raised by 28bytes), namely, the article should probably be retitled, and concerns about balance and neutrality in the article. Additionally, the article appears to be significantly incomplete, which is explictly against DYK rules. The "Explanations" section is marked as needing expansion, and the "Media" section consists of a single, unsourced sentance. If these issues are addressed, I see no reason why this article couldn't be in DYK, but these are all legitimate concerns. cmadler (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, failure to assume good faith by accusing DYK reviewers - who already don't get a lot of love for what we do - of "ganging up" on you isn't going to help your cause. FWIW I agree with what cmadler has said above, the article as it stands is too incomplete to promote for DYK. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I think the BLP argument is a red herring as this is a large group--not what BLP was designed for. 28bytes make some valid points except I think if it is renamed to "race and crime..." people will bitch about why other minorities aren't mentioned. Some of the objections smack of political correctness because it's a well documented fact that minorities in many countries are arrested and incarcerated at a higher rate than the racial majority in those countries and articles neutrally and objectively addressing a sensitive topic should not be turned away. The second legit objection is that even if a hook is well sourced and true, we avoid hooks that'd upset large groups of people or are highly sensitive (ex: we didn't put a 9/11 hook up this Sep 11th, we put it up a few days later). It appears many of the concerns have already been addressed, so in my view add in quotes 28bytes mentioned, tone down the hook, and an acceptable hook will result. As for the Jewish lawyer article, there are similar articles such as Stereotypes of African Americans. Copying this to the DYK nom thread too also. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Dhlomo

Unresolved

Hi. This is currently in Prep Area 3, just wanted to make sure it doesn't get listed at a time when most South Africans will be fast asleep (UTC +2). Can someone please ensure it ends up in a queue that would be a reasonable hour and move it if necessary? Zunaid 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it looks like this hook will go up at 3AM South African time. Can someone please swap it into the next queue? Zunaid 08:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Honda Motor Company

Currently in Queue 1, I wanted to link "automaker" to Automotive industry but the hooks are currently cascade-protected. Could an admin please add the wikilink before this goes up on the main page? Zunaid 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: How should backlogs at DYK be handled?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

WikiProjects and collaborations

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There has been a recent backlog of hooks for DYK and a no solid consensus about how best to reduce it. See the top of this page (and the archives) for continuing and previous discussions. Placed (very belatedly) by request. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the backlog has been generally shrinking for last month of so, with the current number of nominations on the suggestions page in the 200 to 220 range. Based upon the level of submissions we have been seeing for the last week or two, a better question would be when should we return to 8 hooks per update? At a run rate of 32 hooks per day an inventory of 160 to 180 hooks on the submission page is near optimal for sustained operations as it provides the needed time to perform validation while still allowing for fairly short wait times. --Allen3 ^talk 19:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stay at 9 hooks, wikicup will always come again and make us more behind. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the number of submissions dips too low, it gets really difficult to create decent updates. When is the next Wikicup round? Gatoclass (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per info at Wikipedia:WikiCup, the current and final round for the year ends on October 31. I have not seen a schedule for the 2011 WikiCup, but the signup page shows it will begin on January 1. --Allen3 ^talk 19:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the next Wikicup round is not until next year, we will certainly have to return to 8 hooks before then judging by the current rate of decline. In fact if the burn rate stays the same as it has been, I would think we'd have to return to 8 some time within the next week. Gatoclass (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's worry about that when we and IF we actually don't have 9 qualified hooks for a queue. Otherwise we're shooting ourselves in the foot ahead of time and unneccessarily. Right now we are behind in reviewing old noms (again, because most people only look at new ones) and there are plenty to choose from. This would actually have the side benefit of forcing people to review old noms. I strongly object to cutting back to 8 so soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb has always been that 180 hooks at T:DYK and a full queue constitutes "normal". Above that is getting backloggish, below is on the thin side. There are currently 204 hooks at T:TDYK so we are only slightly above the watermark. At the current burn rate, we will be below it in a few days. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gato's message above, I don't see any problem here. The list of hooks waiting for review on T:TDYK does not seem particularly longer than I remember it being on average ever since I started following this project 2 years ago. That's just my impression though; someone might be able to dig up some statistics or graphs to quantify the backlog better. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 215 hooks, lat night there were 202. That's enough for four days if all get approved. 80 (37%) are red or pink. Less than half of that 80 are approved and many of those haven't even been looked at. I will agree that this all depends on the burn rate and how many new noms we get. Do we need to panic yet, no. Do we need to keep an eye on this, yes. On the older nom topic, entire prep sets are built from the older noms yet some people stay in the new zone. I don't think this is fair to the older noms and those who nom'd/wrote them. While I am fully aware I am not the only who works the old noms, there aren't enough of this who care about this. Yes I know I'm discussing two different, albeit related topics here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, in addition to thinking about the number of hooks in each update from a backlog perspective, we should also think about it from a presentation perspective. Too many DYK hooks in a single update means that it is less likely that any individual hook is clicked as they come across as a wall of text. Ideally I think we should go back to eight hooks per update as soon as it is feasible. –Grondemar 14:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back when my very first hook appeared on DYK, it only took about 3 days from nomination to so appear and only 3 or hooks would appear. The whole issue is driven by how many noms we get and ever since WikiCup was born we get inundated. I wonder if ever we'll run out of all but a few new article ideas. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a little perspective on the size of the backlog and the effectiveness of current efforts to reduce its size, please consider the following table. All numbers were taken from the first update of Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count on or after midnight (UTC).

Date	# of Hooks	Date	# of Hooks
October 2	208	September 25	257
October 1	216	September 24	253
September 30	227	September 23	264
September 29	243	September 22	255
September 28	235	September 21	258
September 27	248	September 20	253
September 26	248	September 19	257

Checking time stamps of various discussions shows that issues about behavior of some WikiCup contestants came to a head around September 23/24. Up until that time we were holding our own, but seeing only small improvements in the backlog. In the week since then, we have seen a 15-20% reduction in the backlog. Additionally, WikiCup will only have a realistic effect on the backlog for about 3 more weeks (submissions arriving less than a week before the end of the contest may not appear on the Main page in time to score points). Given the reduction in backlog and the upcoming two month reprieve from WikiCup, it seems inappropriate for the contest to be the primary consideration in our short term planning. When looking a month or two out, I am wondering when we will be needing to cut back to only three updates per day like we did for the last three weeks of last December. --Allen3 ^talk 15:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, things can turn around suprisingly quickly. Nice analysis, BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone was unhappy with how the rules for DYK work

This appears to be about the rules, not about DYK nominations, so I am moving it here if anyone wants to discuss it. I am only including some of the wordy context... for the sake of context. I might trim some later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the original discussion was about the eligibility of Four boxes of liberty. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a strict cutoff; reviewers exercise their judgment. In this case it's clear that the article was not really 5x expanded (it has some additions and removals, but the net expansion was not 5x). The length of time an article would need to sit around in its shortened state varies from case to case. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But virtually no content was carried forward, and a huge amount was added. The earlier version seem to be mostly just unsourced comments from Ed Howdershelt. A clear rule on elapsed time would help a lot. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again: DYK does not care what the quality of the pre-existing version was. You are welcome to start a discussion at the talk page about this but I think you're just looking for a loophole. Like I said, reviewers exercise their judgment in these cases (otherwise we could just replace them with a bot that scans article histories) and in this case the choice is quite clear. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above, I agree that the article is inappropriate and withdraw the nomination. I believe the rules need clarification. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion page for the rules is thataway. But for what it's worth, rule A4 clearly states that expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter whether you kept any of it—trimming part of it right before the expansion begins doesn't lower your threshhold. And before anyone complains that "oh the rule is hard to find because it's buried in a bunch of other rules"...the whole reason that situation exists is because of people insisting on "clear" and "simple and objective" rules (your words, not mine [1] and [2]) to cover every possible contingency in an inherently subjective project. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this example the editor who nominated the article for AfD trimmed it drastically before nominating, and another editor (me) did a rescue job without looking at previous versions and nominated for DYK. That is irrelevant history. The tagline is far from politically correct and should never have been submitted. But it may be possible and useful to clarify and simplify the rules on expansion count for cases where there is no resemblance between the old and new versions. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what needs clarification or simplification here, the rules are pretty clear if you ask me. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. There is a lot of scope for reviewer initiative, as was pointed out already, but apart from that, any "clarification" would seem to be rule creep, which no-one really wants.

Also, I forgot to inform Aymatth2 that I moved this here, so I will do that now, unless I find that it has already been done. Thank you to Mandarax for adding the context for the discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hourglass effect

An attempt to clarify the issue, and request views:

Some articles go through an hourglass effect. Maybe an article on a company or individual starts with a dump of self-promoting puff. It gets trimmed down and puffed up again until a serious editor cuts it back to basics and builds it up again from verifiable sources, which may result in an article that has little resemblance to the original. The original talked about the company's mission, vision, values, leadership etc. and the new one talks about the financial problems, environmental issues and the big bribery scandal. The subject is the same, but the new version has very little resemblance to the original. The editor who worked on the new and improved article may feel it is worth nominating for DYK. The article now contains only the puff-free content they researched and added, with nothing from the original.

The question is how the 5x expansion rule is calculated. Five times what? If it is five times the largest historical version, full of puff, the new article can never qualify. If it is five times the smallest version of the article before the current expansion, an editor could just gut an article and then restore the content. Rule A4 is vague: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article". There has to be some definition of what "previously existing" means. The last version before the expanding editor got started seem like a simple one, but that seems open to abuse. Last version from the day before, a week before... Sort of mechanical and also open to abuse.

A judgement of some sort between how much the pre-hourglass version resembles the post-hourglass one. That seem impossible.

To see what triggered this, see the hourglass history of Four boxes of liberty, which was nominated with a politically incorrect tagline but rejected based on an interpretation of the 5x rule. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is very simple: 5x expansion is calculated from when the editing burst began. Think about what the purpose of DYK is; it's to show content that is probably new for readers. Therefore, 5x expansion is calculated against the version that past readers probably saw. In the Four boxes of liberty case, the shortened version was up for so little time hardly anyone saw it. On the other hand, if someone trimmed an article and it sat around that way for 2 years before expansion, then of course we would calculate expansion against the version that was in place for 2 years, not against the big version before that. Most cases are pretty easy to judge if you just think about the goal of DYK instead of trying to follow some hard-and-fast rule. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has always been a bit of a grey area, but my approach has always been that if the trimming was done by another user, and there is no reason to suspect collusion between the trimmer and the expander, then the x5 should be calculated from the trimmed version. In this case it appears one user trimmed it and nominated it for AfD and another came along and rescued it, so there seems little reason to suspect collusion here. Other points in favour of the expansion, I think, are that the previous version was mostly a quote, which we usually don't count as main body content, and that the article had no references. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) from when the new burst began. Use PDA script or DYK check and compare the readable prose of the version just prior to the burst to the current version readable prose. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there were, in a sense, two editing "bursts" very close together. One when the article was being trimmed down prior to AfD nomination, and a second that began a few hours later when the rescue attempt started. If the rescue work had not begun quite so soon, perhaps delayed by 48 hours, would it have counted as a separate "burst"? The underlying principle is that the article content should be primarily (at least 80%) new material added in the last five days. Not sure if this is practical, but perhaps when an article has been trimmed significantly and then expanded again, the criteria should be a) fivefold since the version just before expansion began (which could be in the middle of a "burst" with an AfD rescue like this) plus b) less than 20% overlap of content between the expanded version and recent versions prior to trimming. Checking the second criterion cannot be done mechanically, but seems important. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you talking about? Can you give date and times of the edits you're talking about? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is Four boxes of liberty. If you check the history you can see the trimming, AfD nomination at 01:53 on 25 September 2010, then rescue job expansion. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case readable prose and a 5x determination varies greatly depending on whether you use before or after the trim as the base version. And yes, in this case it is a bit of a gray area. In this article's case there is such a huge difference in the article quality and text, I'd use the trimmed version and hence call it a 5x expansion. But I don't see it on the DYK nom page and it's now outside the 5-day window for noms ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated, see original discussion, then flagged as "Not 5X". Based on the discussion that followed, it seemed possibly offensive to quote the meme in DFK, so I accepted that it could be withdrawn. DYK is not the place to introduce controversy. That is history. The question is, can we clarify the rule for determining 5X expansion? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlevse: The problem with that is that the DYK rules explicitly say "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was"[3], meaning (as you know; I'm just reiterating to be clear for everyone reading) we don't give nominators a free pass because of things like "oh, the earlier version was unreferenced, so adding references counts as expansion". What you are saying, though, (count from the trimmed version) is tantamount to saying "remove all the stuff that you think is bad and then start again from there", which is the opposite of "count fivefold expansion no matter how bad the article was", which is the version of the rule that has had DYK community consensus for a while. Of course, consensus can change, but we'd need a discussion to see if it actually has. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjanag: but count from what version of the article? what if the trimmed version is in place for a year? What about the rule about new content? ::@Aymatth2: I could care less about political correctness. I call 'em as I see 'em. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, I think if a trimmed version has been sitting around a year it makes sense to count from that (given that it's likely to have been seen by a lot of readers); if it's been sitting around for an hour then it doesn't make sense to count from that (given that what readers have probably seen is the old, untrimmed version, so a new version will not look like a 5x expansion to readers unless they pore through the article history). In between might be fuzzy, and I don't think there is a specific number of days at which we can draw a line for each and every article; it needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis using reviewers' best judgment. Someone might complain that this is not objective and not "fair", but hey, DYK is not fair anyway; we evaluate hook interestingness and a lot of other things subjectively. If someone wants a completely objective DYK process, they should replace reviewers with a bot. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't repeat myself like you did ;-), so we'll just have to disagree on this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) The current rule does say "no matter how bad it was", but in practice there have been plenty of precedents for ignoring transparently terrible prose when counting the x5. If for example, an article is just patent nonsense, vandalism, gibberish, why on earth would we count that as legitimate? "No matter how bad it was" is a useful cover for reviewers, but per IAR one is always entitled to exercise a little common sense. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this inevitably turn into this prior to AfD and finally into this, I would support the nomination. Ed Howdershelt's 'war story' was on the same level of "need to remove" as a copyvio IMO. Even if the variations section remained, 5x was met. I know the rule states "no matter how bad it was" but I believe the editor created new content and did a great job. Consensus should prevail for special cases like this in the future.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in cases of total rewrites, instead of considering 5x expansion we should look at these articles as new articles and accept them if there are 1,500 characters of new content. If any content is carried over then we'd go looking for the fivefold expansion. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem to me to be a case to WP:IAR-resurrect the nomination and pass it for DYK. EdChem (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random break

The consensus so far seems to be that in this one case the rules were maybe applied a bit too rigidly, and an article that could have qualified was withdrawn. But it seems that this was a very unusual case and generally the process works fine. Editors helping with DYK should continue to use their best judgement. Formal rules can never cover every possible situation. Best to keep them reasonably simple. On the WP:IAR suggestion, I would be against making an exception and setting a precedent with this article unless we were desperately short of DYK candidates, which is not the case. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. No one doubts the good intentions or efforts of the reviewer, but equally if the consensus here is that the outcome should have been different, there is no disrespect meant to the reviewer. The idea that WT:DYK consensus can change decisions about hooks is hardly setting a precedent. My observation is that such occurences are not that unusual. Rather than being concerned for the rules, how about we consider the original nominator? Why is altering a decision we agree was borderline and crediting the efforts of the nominator such a bad thing to do? There is a person on the other end of the wiki-identity, to me that person is more important than the possible effect of an "exception" on some rules. EdChem (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In principle you are right: if a mistake has been made it should be corrected. We should not discourage contributors. In this case, the nominator is not at all concerned with the decision to drop it - for different reasons he thought the tagline might not be appropriate anyway - and only brought up the subject because he thought it might be useful to have a clearer definition of the 5X rule. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, while strictly speaking, this did not qualify as a 5x expansion for DYK purposes, and so no reviewer could be faulted for rejecting it, this would have been a good case to ignore all rules; more than half of the pre-existing article content was a comment that probably should have been on the talk page. cmadler (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is ambiguity in the 5X rule. Possibly the article qualified under one interpretation, not another. Somewhere up above I proposed a clarification: 5X over the most recent version before the expansion started even if there was trimming shortly before, plus content is 80% new compared to older versions, which is a bit subjective. But it seems that the scenario is quite unusual: AfD trim immediately followed by rescue expansion with very different content, and then DYK nom. Complicating the rules to deal with oddball situations like this would probably be more bad than good. I could see endless loopholes being picked in the loopholes. I am inclined to leave the rules, then grant exceptions if the nominator protests strongly and with evident good reason. The basic principle is that the article should in effect be a new article, with 80% new content in the last five days. We can use common sense. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Dhlomo redux

Can someone please swap the poor guy from Queue 4 to Queue 6? He is currently due to go up at 9PM on a Sunday night South African time, far better to go up at 9AM on a Monday morning. Thanks. Zunaid 17:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shimgray | talk | 00:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prep Area 4, Coral Sea / snake double nom

There is a hook presently in prep 4 that states:

... that at least seventeen species of sea snake live in the Coral Sea, of which one has the most toxic snake venom in the world?

But, the article on the snake says it is the most toxic sea snake and the third most toxic of all snakes, so the hook seems misleading to me. How about something like:

... that at least seventeen sea snake species live in the Coral Sea, including Dubois' seasnake with the world's most toxic sea snake venom?
... that Dubois' seasnake is one of at least seventeen sea snake species living in the Coral Sea, and has the world's most toxic sea snake venom?

EdChem (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've changed it to the last option. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

There are 3 hooks about Hawaii (2 about Kauai) in this set. Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A museum, a mayor, and a missionary. I think that's sufficiently different. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An observation

Sometimes when we check an online source, we find that the page creator has made a mistake in quoting it or interpreting it, and we can correct the mistake and approve the page. But when the source is offline or foreign-language, we have no idea if the page creator quoted it correctly. Instead, we give it an automatic approval. Is this state of affairs satisfactory? Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ideal but I think disallowing offline sources causes more problems. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF? Physchim62 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entertaining the possibility that a page creator could make a mistake in quoting or interpreting an offline or foreign-language source, is not failing to assume good faith. However I agree with Rlevse that the disadvantages of having to consider all offline or foreign-language sources as insufficient, outweigh the advantage of thereby removing the potential for approval of an item that contains a mistake. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't give automatic approval to offline or foreign language sources. Many or most offline sources can be verified with the help of Google Books, and if they can't I wouldn't accept something that looks dubious or unreliable. Online translation tools help with many foreign language sources, but if you are in doubt you could ask for review by someone who speaks the particular language. Articles that use offline or foreign language sources should certainly not be penalized at DYK. BabelStone (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My approach is similar to that of Babelstone. As a general rule however, I give more scrutiny to submissions by new users or users with an unknown track record than I do to those from known and trusted users in good standing. Gatoclass (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. Yoninah (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited nom

Hi guys, where do I complain?! :) I had a double nom for Church of St Demetrius, Patalenitsa and Patalenitsa and the two recently appeared on the main page. I only got credit for the church article, not the village article. You can see that it was a double nom in the hook, see the box at Talk:Church of St Demetrius, Patalenitsa. I want my yellow box or I'm gonna throw a tantrum all around here! :) Cheers, — Toдor Boжinov — 18:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. When you create noms for more than one article or where more than one person gets credit for an article, after you save the edit, open it again to ensure the template processed it as needed. A lot of people don't do this and it causes this sort of problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't searched through the T:TDYK archives to check, but it could also have been an error in when the hook got moved to prep, which happens sometimes. In this case when Bruce1ee put the hooks in Prep4[4], the credit for the second article was missing. If it turns out to be his mistake we should clearly fire him.</sarcasm> rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not Bruce's fault; the credit was already missing when he promoted it [5]. Someone else will have to be fired instead. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the articles were originally nominated, only one {{DYKmake}} template was created. This original error was not caught by the time the hook was promoted. - Dravecky (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake then, I didn't know I had to use another {{DYKmake}} for a double nom. Thought it's about looking at the heading and/or counting bold links :) I'll know for the future. Thanks guys for the replies and the credit :) — Toдor Boжinov — 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also my mistake, I should have spotted that when I promoted the hook. Sorry. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hook swap in queues

I nominated a triple-article hook (Larry Taylor (gridiron football), 2004 Motor City Bowl, 2007 Meineke Car Care Bowl) for DYK which was approved and placed in queue 6. Unfortunately, this set is scheduled to run between 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM EDT, when virtually everyone who cares about American college football will be asleep. Is it possible for the hook to be swapped for one in a later queue, perhaps queue 2, which right now has very few US-related topics in its set? –Grondemar 19:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! –Grondemar 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another bonnet

I just expanded another bonnet article, Mycena inclinata, and if it's not too much trouble, would like to have it added to the 10-part bonnet hook currently sitting in Prep 1. The new hook would read as follows:

... that bonnets may be orange (pictured), clustered, scarlet, frosty, mealy, ivory, grooved, snapping, milking, bleeding, or bulbous?

I calculated the expansion at 5.03X (1195B to 6019B). If this is a hassle, no problem, I can make a separate hook for it. Thanks for your time. Sasata (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion and source confirmed, and added to the hook. Ucucha 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the bother, but I knocked up another one, Mycena leptocephala. Please add nitrous somewhere in the hook. Thanks again! Sasata (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Real-world context"

Hi guys, I just added a hook back to T:DYK after DragonflySixtyseven removed it because it was "pertaining only to fiction with no real-world context." If his action was correct, let me apologize in advance, but I didn't wanted to unfairly punish a nominator whose article had already been approved. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, will DS ever figure out consensus on the way he does this is clearly against him? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall we've had discussions on this issue - hooks purely talking about fictional plot - before. Did we reach any consensus back then? (Sorry I wasn't a participant in the discussions) --BorgQueen (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and DS's interpretation was soundly out-consensused (do I get credit for creating a word?). IIRC it was about 6 weeks ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind it was entirely inappropriate for that hook to be removed unilaterally by a single administrator without there being a serious problem with it like WP:BLP or WP:HOAX. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to remove an approved hook from the Main Page. –Grondemar 00:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that, but the fact that it was already approved makes this even more inappropo. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found the archived thread: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_57#Clarification_for_.22real-world_context.22_in_DYK_rules --BorgQueen (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BQ, okay, so it was 7 weeks ago ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I would have intercepted it earlier if I hadn't been terribly busy these past few days. My point is that it's not a fact. It's a fiction, a lie, a figment, an invention. It was made up, and there's no way we can change that. DS (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting it DS. Your interpretation of the fiction rule is out of whack with IIRC everyone but yourself and your unilateral removal of an approved hook is unacceptable. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is disruptive IMO, especially after we have discussed it thoroughly already. Previously, we had thought the point was clear and it would stop.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already told him that on his talkpage. Do we need to ban him from T:TDYK? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted him again. I support the ban. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also... hook switched here in Q2 and I don't think it made it back to the suggestions. Another hook also removed from Q6, don't think that one made it back on the suggestion page as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just put Neuilly sa mère ! back onto the discussion page after waiting quite a it for DS to do the proper thing. - Dravecky (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably my error in approving the last one for promotion. As discussion about the hook had focussed on other issues, it seems I overlooked the fact that the phrase "social juxtaposition" rather than "social inequality" was used, which are not necessarily the same thing.

In regards to the larger question about "fictional" hooks, I don't think we did actually come to a firm conclusion in the last discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... that Ribby baked a mouse pie for Duchess, but Duchess thought she was eating her own veal and ham pie?" would have been a wholly-fictional hook, and so not acceptable according to Rule C6 ("If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way"). But "... that a veal and ham pie is a critical plot element in Beatrix Potter's The Tale of the Pie and the Patty-Pan?" is perfectly OK by my understanding, as it places a fictional veal and ham pie in the context of the creation of a real world book written by a real world author (a plot element is an aspect of the writing of the book, and not part of the fictional world of Peter Rabbit and his friends). I would like to see the original hook reinstated. BabelStone (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did it again? Unbelieveable. Formal call for ban from DYK. I've posted on his talk to read this thread again. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is we still don't have a clear interpretation of the rule. The last discussion kind of petered out without a conclusion. DF's somewhat aggressive approach aside, I think interpretation of this rule still needs some clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we grant that point for the moment, he's been very disruptive and ignoring significant concerns. Towit: his edits mentioned in the last 8 hours or so. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits are you referring to Rlevse? The removals from the queue/mainpage? Given the lack of clarity over the rule, I don't think he can be sanctioned for that. It appears he did not restore the contested hooks to suggestions, which is obviously a problem. But I don't know of anything else he has done, have I missed something? Gatoclass (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the queue; he yanked the Hold On! hook right off the front page today without discussion or restoration. - Dravecky (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when I said "queue" above I meant both the queue and mainpage, I've rectified that now. There is no rule which says hooks cannot be pulled from the mainpage if they are problematic. The failure to restore to T:TDYK is obviously an issue. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd gone to sleep. Henceforth I will restore problematic hooks to Suggestion status. DS (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that; if you must remove approved hooks without consensus, then you also need to remove the credit from the queue, so people don't keep getting messages for articles that don't appear.

But since you seem to have so many issues with the job that other reviewers do, given how often you are removing their approved hooks from queues, why don't you save everyone (including yourself) trouble and just be more active in the review process, instead of waiting around to remove hooks later? Then we won't have to have this argument about whether you're right or wrong; just raise your objections before hooks get promoted at all. Many of them are very easy to address.

Or, on the other hand, if you can't be bothered to participate in the review process, maybe you shouldn't take the time to rule the queues either. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Thanks. When you do remove hooks however, please be sure to restore the previous discussion about the hook, and a new comment of your own, so that the current state of play is clear. Given the controversy over your previous removals however, I think you should start a thread on this page outlining your concerns before removing hooks from the queue/mainpage until further notice. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that DS has just said he'll restore them but made no mention of rectifying this issue, yes, let's settle this once and for all. If DS can participate here enough to do that, then we need to proceed with the ban. He still seems to fail to realize there's a problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do review DYK a lot. But not all the time (I was at a convention this weekend). So, let's see: if I feel I must remove a hook that's gotten all the way to the front page, or from one of the queue pages, then I must a) return it to the suggestions page for further discussion, and b) remove the credits from the queue. Have I missed a step c) or d) ? (And please note, most of the changes I make to the template pertain to grammar and punctuation.) DS (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the people above are saying is that they don't want you to remove hooks that you don't "feel" good about without first discussing the hook in question here. (See Gato's message just a bit above this.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's the important bit. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It should also be noted that the template T:DYK is full-protected indefinitely. This means that it can only be edited by administrators. This means that any disruption ongoing at that template page, is due to such disruption being caused by active administrators. This can be seen as akin to a form of Wheel warring. As such, at the very least, I would support the ban proposal by Rlevse (talk · contribs), above. However, grounds for more significant sanctions, per WP:WHEEL disruption from a sysop, could also be proposed and considered, but that would probably have to be addressed by ArbCom. -- Cirt (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's only wheel-warring if you revert a revert. AFAIK, DS has not done that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, quite right. -- Cirt (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've specifically avoided doing that because it would be a wheel war, and strong feelings about something that'll only be up for six hours aren't worth such a fuss. I haven't done any full double reverts, although I've done some partials (for instance, if I remove hook #3 and modify the grammar of hook #5 slightly, and then my edit gets blanket-reverted, I will restore my modification of the grammar of hook #5). But that's not what you meant. DS (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of my fussing with DYK content, I've just yanked a historical entry from the queue (not, you'll note, from the active template) because the wording of the hook felt ... incompatible with the statements in the article. I also removed the Credit tag, and I restored the hook to the Suggestions page and appended my reasoning. Good? DS (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Didn't you see the editors just above saying that they think you shouldn't be yanking entries at all without first discussing here? rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DS you're also still totally ignoring the issue that your idea of fictional hooks is out of sync with everyone else's. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse (talk · contribs), how would you propose to go about assessing consensus for a ban from DYK activity for this user? Seems an appropriate step forward at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about just voting on a proposal that DS is welcome to participate in reviews at T:TDYK or to post error reports about articles in queue here, but not to edit the queues, prep pages, or main template directly? That appears to be the general consensus (at least based on my skim of the above discussion). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now proposed, see subsection, below. -- Cirt (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DragonflySixtyseven DYK ban proposal

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:DragonflySixtyseven_DYK_ban_proposal.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ban proposal: DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) is welcome to participate in reviews at T:TDYK or to post error reports about articles in queue here, but not to edit the queues, prep pages, or main template directly.

Support, as proposed (wording as recommended [6] by Rjanag). -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious oppose, to the extent that my opinion matters here. DS (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you gave a reason why you oppose, or suggested some alternative solution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I oppose because I disagree with limiting my ability to correct sentence structure and punctuation errors. This is just a reminder that I shouldn't go five days without checking the DYK suggestions. I don't anticipate seeing any more problems make it all the way to the prep queue or the front page before I object to their content, but I do anticipate seeing minor glitches that need correcting. DS (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not just about gnomish edits. In your most recent comments in the above section you still were saying you thought it was ok for you to remove entire hooks without discussion, and that is what people were complaining about (I don't see anyone complaining about punctuation fixes). The reason people were suggesting a ban is because they don't want you removing hooks without discussion and that you still have not given any indication that you understand that this is a problem. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it's problematic to remove a hook that's factually incorrect? DS (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people watching this page all the time, so in the event that you think a hook is bad you can leave a note here (as has been suggested repeatedly above) and, if the hook really is bad, someone will react quickly. The issue, made clear from the above discussion, is that some editors here do not trust your judgment about what hooks can and can't be removed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, okay. If a hook which I feel is completely inappropriate to the point of indicating <generic personal attack on the nominator and everyone involved in approving it> has gotten all the way to the front page anyway, and it's not in violation of one of the other criteria, I'll let it stand. It's just a reminder to myself to not let the queue go five days without filtering out the garbage. DS (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Restoring a factually incorrect hook for the sake of process is a clear violation of WP:POINT.~~ SORRY, MY MISTAKE DS (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's restoring factually incorrect hooks? No one said anything about restoring factually incorrect hooks. What I said, and what everyone is saying as far as I can tell, is that your idea of what kinds of hooks are bad is at odds with everyone else's idea of what kind of hooks are bad, and they don't want you enforcing your idea on everyone else. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that you don't understand the editors' complaints here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. Cirt restored a factually-inaccurate hook, but I hadn't properly indicated why it was factually inaccurate. Sorry; I retract that specific comment. DS (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not too much different from what us non-admin DYKers can do. Is a good proposal, support. However further discussion is needed on the rule that led us to this in the first place. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural question I haven't read enough of the relevant discussions to voice an opinion, but I have to ask. Is this within the power of this talk page, or would this discussion be better suited for AN? Courcelles 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A notice has been posted to WP:AN, therefore this question is satisfied. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how AN is relevant. DYK is a WikiProject and in the past has always been able to make its own decisions about these kinds of things (although I think it's been rare for anyone to be formally banned). AN would only be relevant if people were complaining about abuse of admin tools or looking for a desysop or something. This proposal is essentially, as Strange Passerby points out, asking the user not to use his admin tools in this project. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if we decide in favor of the ban, and DS does not comply, and what happens next? --BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of more significant escalated sanctions. -- Cirt (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The reason this is relevant is... what would you do if this is enacted here, and DS67 acts otherwise? Would ArbCom desysop? Would someone block? Or are we asking nicely and calling it a "ban", because if there are no teeth behind it, that's what this really is. The reason AN is relevant is that AN has, by long history and clear precedent, the power to impose binding restrictions that mean something. To draw a parallel, if DYK is a Wikiproject similar to any other; would a discussion on WT:OLYMPICS to ban an editor from certain articles under the project's scope be enforceable? I would tend to say it wouldn't. I'm sorry to be a pain about this, I really am... in fact, I probably protest more against this being used in future as precedent than against the proposal under consideration here, but is enacting bans on a WikiProject talk page really something we want to see? Courcelles 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bans come from consensus. If members of a project make a clear consensus that they do not want a particular editor editing that project's pages (not articles within the scope of that project, but the project pages themselves) and the editor keeps editing them, then it's still obviously a violation. Besides, what is the point of rushing off to AN to get formal injunctions now, before doing something here to determine once and for all whether there really is consensus for this? There's no point looking for legalese at AN unless someone can demonstrate consensus here that such an injunction is needed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:DragonflySixtyseven_DYK_ban_proposal, ban proposal will take place there. -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First time reviewer

Hi, I just reviewed my first hook, George Ballis, and intend to start helping out here. If anyone sees me messing up at all please feel free to let me know. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update regarding User:DragonflySixtyseven

After discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:DragonflySixtyseven_DYK_ban_proposal, recommend further talk with the user at user talk:DragonflySixtyseven, and possibly dispute resolution via Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Sanctions can be discussed again, if after consensus from RFC desired results not obtained and/or further disruption continues after that process. -- Cirt (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hate to say 'I told you so', but I did say there was little point running to AN if we didn't first get consensus here about what to do regarding DS's behavior. (Actually I guess I don't hate to say 'I told you so'...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, like I said, there is always dispute resolution via Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, who are you exactly to make such a comment? Please do not forget that your own conduct is hardly immune from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, just as for any other editor who choses to comment on this page. Physchim62 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this suggestion was originally proposed not by myself, but by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs), see diff. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that the section on WP:AN was closed by Gatoclass (talk · contribs), not yourself... Physchim62 (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to note that I will be logging off shortly, and so won't be able to participate in any discussion with DS regarding his edits, but as an interested party I request that any agreement with DS not be finalized until I've had a chance to voice my own concerns along with everyone else. Gatoclass (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I missed it all the postings on at least 3 different pages, please point me to a diff(s), but where in all this has DS conceded his view of "inappropriate" and "fiction tied to reality" is out of sync with the community's? I get the impression he still feels his view of this is all that matters and he seems to keep evading this core issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if he removes one more approved hook I'll block him myself as at this stage that's just pouring fuel on the fire. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 432: / Line 432: @@
 :::Wrong. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=388735920 diff]. Cheers, -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 I would just like to note that I will be logging off shortly, and so won't be able to participate in any discussion with DS regarding his edits, but as an interested party I request that any agreement with DS not be finalized until I've had a chance to voice my own concerns along with everyone else. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
+::::If I missed it all the postings on at least 3 different pages, please point me to a diff(s), but where in all this has DS conceded his view of "inappropriate" and "fiction tied to reality" is out of sync with the community's? I get the impression he still feels his view of this is all that matters and he seems to keep evading this core issue. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 20:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
+:::::PS, if he removes one more approved hook I'll block him myself as at this stage that's just pouring fuel on the fire. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)