Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

DYK queue status There are currently 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Current time: 19:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 19 hours ago( verify reset purge )

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia proposals 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.

Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy? (And if so, what should be the "hook")?

The proposed DYK is here. The form of the hook as of this writing is

• "(Did you know)... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum, is dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia?".

There is also an earlier discussion about the matter above. Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(N.B.: for the purposes of internal DYK requirements, if any, that DYKs be processed within a given time after article creation, the time that this RfC is open shall not be counted against the age of the article.) Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Survey

• I oppose a DYK for this. The article is back at AFD and is obviously a bone of contention. Warden (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (N.B.: my original !vote was so bollixed up that I've completely rewritten it. FWIW The original is here) -- Herostratus (talk).
  No, I oppose this DYK, after thinking it over. It's an interesting situation, and I don't have a problem with the article existing, but here we are talking about featuring it on the main page, and in that regard:
  • The article is about a website, and an effect of the DYK appearing on the main page will be to drive eyes to the website. Given that the article creator and most of the main authors are associated with that website, that doesn't sit too well with me, and wouldn't for any website.
  • It wouldn't for any website, but let's face this honestly: this is not Little Sisters of the Poor we are talking about here. While no fair-minded person, I think, could maintain that Wikipediocracy is monolithic or they don't do useful work (as well as being a wretched hive of scum and villainy), the plain fact is that that those eyes will be driven to a website that is dedicated, in part at least, to the destruction of the Wikipedia and to the immiseration of its individual editors personally. The Wikipedia's rules are not a suicide pact, and anyway the policy WP:IAR forbids us from deliberately abetting damage to the Wikipedia, which is a likely result of enlarging the Wikipediocracy community. Let them do their own advertising.
  • The purpose of DYK is to encourage the creation of new articles. To facilitate this, we deliberately allow DYK hooks to be less interesting than they could be (if we used a larger pool of articles to draw the hooks from). This degrades the potential reader experience, and must lower the number of clicks into the Wikipedia, lowering our readership capture. We accept this loss in order to maintain the benefit: providing an incentive for article creation. (All this is fine.) Does this DYK fit into that paradigm? No, it doesn't, per the two points above. The article creator and many of the other article editors are not good-faith actors in the DYK process. They are not going to feel pride in their DYK and be motivated to make further constructive contributions. This DYK is a perversion of what DYK was created for and is supposed to be about, and I don't see why we should have to stand for that, notwithstanding that they may have met the technical requirements for a successful DYK (if they have, which FWIW seems debatable).
  • Also, the very fact that it is controversial is, in an of itself, a good reason not to run it, I think. The appearance of the DYK would make many productive editors unhappy. That is not a useful function for DYK to perform, even if one concedes that the editors being made unhappy are wrongheaded, overly sensitive, or even cretinous. DYK is suppose to be happy time. We have plenty of DYKs that won't make a bunch of editors unhappy, so let's stick with them. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC) (Originally 13:57, 24 May 2013 and 16:53, 25 May 2013)[reply]

"DYK is suppose to be happy time?" I must have missed that particular guideline! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I responded to this in the discussion sections below. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Crisco 1492. Also, it is an opportunity to show to others that Wikipedia is a place strictly adhering to neutral point of view & where even articles of it's critics get a fair chance to get popular. - Jayadevp13 03:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely! We want to show that we can treat articles related to Wikipedia, either those which shed a positive light on the project or negative one, with neutrality. That, I think, should be the mark of a professional. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's a chance for us to take our criticism seriously, which gives us credibility on WP:NPOV. TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 11:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the above support votes. It may further Wikipediocracy's interests to have this DYK, but it equally furthers Wikipedia's: to be seen not to be sweeping criticism under the carpet is the best advertisement Wikipedia could have in a case like this. (I say that both as a Wikipedian, and as a Wikipediocracy member and moderator.) Andreas JN466 05:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I see no reason why Wikipedia should bend over backwards to prove how open-minded and neutral it is. I also dislike the free advertising for a random website. DYK should be restricted to non-promotional purposes, in my opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I see no reason why Wikipedia should bend over backwards to prove how open-minded and neutral it is." - Who's bending over backwards? DYK for new articles is not out of the ordinary. And what is promotional about "Wikipediocracy criticizes Wikipedia" or the ilk? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Pretty much a POINTy nomination; the article barely clears GNG (or barely doesn't clear GNG in the opinion of a significant minority). DYK has been manipulated in the past and has insufficient safeguards to manipulation now and this has neener-neener written all over it. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Carrite. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

I separated this into two subsections, for clarity -- Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion on the meta-issue of whether this RfC is even in order

• What? You closed an open DYK nomination to start an RfC on whether a new article should have a DYK? Is there any reason why a new article would not be eligible for a DYK? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have reverted that close, this is absolutely unnecessary to hold a side discussion; you don't get to ban topics from DYK on "I don't like it grounds". The Alt2 hook discussion was going on with no contention at all, and even agreement among the interested parties and independent ones. Let that discussion flow, please. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A community RfC is not a "side discussion". If an RfC is opened, the purely local discussion involving those (relatively few) editors aware of the discussion becomes the side discussion. Herostratus (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: Although this community RfC probably trumps purely local discussions, editors at the local discussion ([here) are fighting to keep that local discussion active, and for it to be the controlling discussion. Since this is a time-sensitive operation (the DYK will automatically appear on the main page after N days pass, which is before this RfC expires), I suppose this is a political move intended to trump consensus and push the nomination through, rendering this RfC moot. I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of the DYK, but I do have a strong opinion on moves like that: I don't like them. Therefore I'm going to that other discussion and voting "Oppose" purely as a procedural move to block this sort of anti-community thinking and acting. I urge all editors, regardless of their opinion of the merits of the DYK nomination itself, to do so also. (Yes, I did write this but forgot to sign - Herostratus (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Herostratus, the history looks like you wrote the above "Procedural note". Yes? Because the way this thread runs, it looks like The Devil's Advocate wrote it. Anyway, I'm wondering if there is a mis-cue in "the DYK will automatically appear on the main page after N days pass"? How does a DYK automatically appear on the main page if it isn't promoted to a prep area and approved and moved up to a Queue by an Admin? Maybe I missed something in the DYK process, but I'm not aware that any DYK nom automatically appears on the main page. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes I did write it. Right, a DYK doesn't automatically appear on the main page without going through the procedures you describe. I wrote that as shorthand, meaning that it will appear if it passes those steps. Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is blatant abuse of an RfC for the sake of stone-walling and should be summarily closed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It is an abuse of RfC and a waste of time. In the past DYKs have been stopped from appearing on the main page because of concerns about whether e.g. Sexy Cora's hospitalization from giving blow jobs or death nth boob-job surgery deserved to be on the main page, on the nomination page (not even here). IMHO, this DYK would serve as an informal apology and resolution to do better with abusive editors (aided by abusive administrators), particularly on BLPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Tito Dutta: Oh, OK, sure. Well, first of all, this has been a slightly contentious nomination so far, and it seems to have aroused some strong feelings. I think that that alone is sufficient, probably. When something is contentious, it's probably a good idea to thrash it out. A case could be made -- I think this is where you're coming from -- is that if a DYK fulfills the DYK team's internal requirements of a DYK nomination, then that nomination must be accepted; it's a purely mechanical process. I'm not sure I'd agree, and I'm not sure that others would either. That's what we're here to find out, partly. A counter-case could be made that the community has a right to oversee DYKs appearing -- we are talking about the Wikipedia main page after all -- and discuss any one that they want to. That may be wrong, but in my opinion its not crazy or idiotic.

(BTW and FWIW, it has been established (de facto, as a political reality) that this doesn't apply to the daily featured articles; the Featured Article team publishes what it wants to (which may be a good thing, not sure). Whether this should apply to DYK I'm not sure. I don't think it should, but lack of such a standard could lead to a lot of unwarranted meddling in DYK I suppose (but much doubt). Anyway, that's a matter of whether the DYK team wants to establish that as the prevailing state of affairs and has the support to do so. Probably the best way to determine this would be to WP:MFD this RfC.) Herostratus (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiefer... an "informal apology"? Or in short, basically you want this posted to prove a WP:POINT? I am sorry, but that is simply asinine. If this is to be posted, it should be only on its own merits as a qualifying article. If the desire to put this on the main page is based on internal political considerations, then it most certainly should not be posted - any more than we should post any positive-themed naval gazing. Regardless, as I have indicated in the DYK nom, I oppose the posting of this article at this time because it lacks evidence of notability (and yes, I have read the AFD which was snowed under by superficial 'it passes GNG because I say so' comments), lacks non-trivial independent coverage and is nothing more than a WP:COATRACK operating primarily as a duplication of the criticism of Wikipedia article rather than something dedicated to Wikipediocracy itself. But that latter part should be expected given there is no significant, independent coverage to be found. Resolute 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't we require that "editors" pass a quiz on WP:Point before they are allowed to miscite it? (Everything I write has a point, pilgrims, so please stop telling me that I am being pointy....) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So... next time I see a DYK nom that I simply don't like, I can start an RfC on it? Volunteer Marek 17:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes, sort of. Subject to the general WP:RFC guidelines, which discourage idiosyncratic RfC's (which are generally disallowed by nature, that is they will garner no support and fail or be WP:SNOW closed anyway). Should you not be able to? We're generally pretty lax about these things -- it's a wiki after all. Anyway, I didn't open the RfC so much because I didn't like the DYK (I may vote to pass it through, not sure yet) but because there was already argument and discussion on the matter. Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summarily close this RFC. The article was taken to AFD, where it was snow kept as containing sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I noticed the speedy keep and size of the article, which was largely created in two waves by Volunteer Marek and Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I figured that Marek probably would not nominate it since he had not written as much of the articleas Alf had, and Alf was too quiet and nervous to nominate it, so I nominated it for them. Don't use an RFC to make the DYK fail the technical requirements for DYK articles simply because you don't like the subject matter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a summary close as being in order. I think the correct next step, if you don't agree that the RfC is in order, would be to file a WP:MFD on it. Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that would be amusing. An MFD on an RfC on a DYK about an article that has survived AfD. This place does my nut sometimes. Harrias ^talk 17:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently we would have to nominate the entire talk page for deletion in order to close this shit down too. Nah, we can't just say "this is pointless" and close it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that that's true, at all. The "M" stands for "miscellany" and includes everything not covered by another specific XfD, including sections of pages, I would think. If it doesn't include sections of pages, we can make it so now -- this is a wiki after all -- unless there's a specific rule saying that doesn't. It'd probably be the appropriate thing to do in this case. There are now two entirely different things being contended here:

• Whether this particular DYK should or should not appear on the main page.
• Whether an RfC may be requested on any DYK.

Some people are seeming to say "no" to the second question, so rather than interleaving and confusing the two issues it'd be better to separate them I think. This could take the form of a separate RfC, but that would be confusing and it'd actually be much better to run an MfD on this RfC (if the MfD succeeds, we can probably assume that no RfC's on DYKs should be made in future). There's no hurry, so we can work through these things one at a time. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said over there, the problem I have with this is that it was a drastic big step in the dispute resolution process that didn't seem to be necessary. RfCs should be called to help settle prolonged and intractable debates, which that DYK discussion really wasn't, once it went got past the initial ERMAHGERD TEH WIKIPEDIOCRACY commentary. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree that it's not contentious (beyond the knee-jerk opposition you describe), based partly on my reading of the thread higher up on this page. But if you're right, the RfC will be accepted with flying colors and only a bit of time will be lost, so why not see it through? Herostratus (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I'm getting confused as to where to post stuff now. This independent, neutral and professional source looks at WO's involvement in exposing the Qworty incident. And they are coming from a completely different angle. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd rather just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, just like everyone else is; at this point, all the discussion is on the merits of the RfC's existence, not with the question you posed. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Close this: This is an out of process RfC on a non-issue which is sorting itself out as we speak. Although my own views on Wikipediocracy are fairly public knowledge, I must stress that we do not prevent articles from running just because the subject is related to Wikipedia or because we don't like it. This goes for the Wikipediocracy article and, ironically enough considering the forum's reaction, the Sarah Stierch article. Both are/were neutral articles which can/could stand on their own legs and thus get/got the same chances as every other article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, if it's a non-issue, what's the problem? Everyone will vote "Yes" and the DYK will go through. Go up to the Survey section and add your Yes to the cavalcade of unanimity there and Bob's your uncle. You could also read my argument there: it doesn't matter if the article was about Saint Alda, DYK exists for a specific purpose, and this nomination doesn't fit it. That doesn't have to matter to you, but it matters to me, and notwithstanding that you think that that's not a fit subject to even be discussed (individual DYK nominations are not a good venue for discussing larger issues like this) I respectfully submit that it might matter to other editors. Or maybe not. I'd rather know, since I prefer data to no data. Herostratus (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Close, by Crisco, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Close - Crisco is right about this. Prioryman (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there've been a number of editors contending that this is out of process and should be summarily closed. Any uninvolved editor can close an RfC. I don't think it'd be a good idea to summarily close this one, since it's not clear that it is disallowed I don't think. But I'm sensitive to the contention that RfC's on DYK's are out of line (I don't agree with it, but I suppose I could be wrong), so here's what I suggest:

• Let this one go through. It's too late to stop it now without drama, and it's only one RfC -- the Wikipedia will survive.
• Go to the thread I've opened here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Question re RfC on main page issues. and (if enough people go there and support the proposition), add the suggested text to the page. This will prevent this situation arising in future.

Does this seem like a reasonable way to address this question of legitimacy? Herostratus (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 wrote, in the Survey section, {{xt}"Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial.}}

Well, "being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria" is exactly the problem. (That's why we're having an RfC, and so why I'm writing in this section, to expound on why this RfC is a necessary and good to have.)

The established DYK criteria is essentially or wholely technical: is the article the right age, is the hook the right length, does the article have enough refs, and so forth. That's all well and good as far as it goes. My understanding is that considering matters such as (say) "Will publishing this damage the Wikipedia" or "Will publishing this maybe cause some editors to feel bad" or "Will publishing this maybe cause a firestorm of angry debate on various Wikipedia fora" or "Will publishing this maybe end up in the news" or whatever is not really something that DYK is set up to well consider.

You DYK folks do sterling work which we all sincerely appreciate, but maybe you are getting a little too close to your own work? Llook at the larger picture. DYK exists for a reason. The larger Wikipedia community is interested in and feels a stake in what appears on the main page. One may think that's silly but it is what it is.

No one likes having a boss, but most of us have them. The DYK folks have one: the larger community. If the Wikipedia had a paid professional Editor-In-Chief to answer these questions, she'd surely insist that potentially problematic main page material pass her desk. The main page is important! We don't have an Editor-In-Chief because (for good or ill) we have community decision-making instead, so the larger community serves this function.

Geez, if I were you, I would want the larger community to help me out with these questions. This is a hard question! You have enough to do without have to handle stuff like that without help. That's what an RfC is for: to help. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion on the merits of the question asked in the RfC

• Comment The main question of the RFC asks Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy?. Now, the question immediately indicates that there are some reasons for which the article/hook should not go on the main page? But, what are the reasons— that has not been clarified. Guesses— a) all/mostly unreliable refs; if so, please add tags and templates in the article b) fails notability; please add tag and take to AFD if needed c) CoI/written like advertisement/neutrality disputed; add templates if applicable and discuss at talk. These tags and/or AFD (if applicable) will help (read "stop") both the review and the reviewer ("immediately"). --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or is the opposition to Wikipediocracy appearing on the DYK section of the main page actually due to its exposure of serious COI concerns with GibraltarpediA, which was blatantly spammed across the main page for months? Hmmm...one has to wonder, given the stuff regularly posted.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[N.B.: part of my answer to Tito Dutta concerns the meta-issue and is in the above subsection -- Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC) ][reply]

As to the merits of whether or not the DYK should appear, here are some of the points made at earlier discussions:

• Whether the article is stable is perhaps open to question (it appears that it is being or recently has been actively edited).
• Whether the entity is notable is perhaps open to question.
• Most of the creators and editors of the article are associated with the entity. This could possibly bring conflict of interest questions into play.

And here's a point I'll add for my own part:

• While there aren't any specific rules or guidelines I can point to regarding this matter, the whole issue of intent here could have some bearing, if one is inclined to consider such matters. Whether we're being trolled here, whether that matters, what we should do about that (if anything), to what extent we as normal human beings with normal human emotions should have to put up with stuff like this, and how any of this actually improves or is intended to improve the Wikipedia, are all questions that might arise in the minds of some. (I do note that the nominator features prominently on his user page the motto "Make articles, not drama", which, given that he made this nomination, is I suppose intended to enrage, or maybe sarcasm is the intent. Whatever it is, I don't much care for that sort of thing. Again, that may not be germane, but we are supposed to here to try to get along and to improve the Wikipedia, and how much shrift we are willing to give to folks who aren't is a reasonable question I think. The Wikipedia is not a suicide pact.) As a counter-argument, "We're bigger than that" is a valid point, which is why I haven't made up my mind yet. Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added later: I talked to the nominator, and he wasn't trolling, and I was wrong to say so, and I apologized to him. Rather, he really was surprised at the notion that anyone would want to discuss the appearance of this DYK on the main page, beyond issues such as whether the hook is the right length and so forth. This in turn was extremely surprising to me, but I guess that's just a failure of imagination on my part. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 wrote, in the Survey section, "Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial."

• OK. We just disagree on this I guess. Of course I'm not advocating a flat ban on featuring controversial topics on the main page. Each case is different. But, yes, if a topic is controversial -- is likely to cause a non-trivial number of editors to feel sad or angry when they see it appear (surprise!) featured on the main page, for instance, or have other bad effects -- that is certainly a factor that tends to militate against doing so, yes. Why would it not be. (Of course, we are not discussing whether the article itself should exist; if we were, "No, the topic is controversial" would be pretty weak tea. This is different.) Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I was just looking at that site (Wikipediocracy) just now, and I see that once again they've ferreted out and published the name and address of a Wikipedia editor, which is something they do do from time to time, with the intent of intimidating that editor (and, really, by the you-could-be-next example, anyone and everyone) from further contributing to the Wikipedia. It's not illegal to do this, but still: c'mon. Do we really have to abet this by giving these people valuable free promotion? I don't think that would show that we're neutral and brave and uncensored, at all. I think it would show that we're stupidly heedless of our own basic interests. I think it would show that we don't care to protect our editors from personal peril or humiliation. I don't think that successful organizations behave like that. Herostratus (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources and DYK

My question is, how exactly do primary sources factor into DYK nominations? Because there are a fair amount of primary sources in use in the article that are referencing a fair amount of content that doesn't otherwise have a secondary source. What are the normal DYK rules about this? Silverseren^C 01:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable for certain details and most of the sources being used are reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are being used conservatively for a small number of details, a quote and two sentences about contributors, where their use falls well within policy. Even without those sections the article would still be over the 1500 character limit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I should think that standard SPS procedure should be followed: non-controversial, non-self serving, actually about the subject itself. As of my writing there is no rule against using SPSes to source a hook fact — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's back again. Today's winner is:

"Did you know ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 38 Squadron was equipped with DHC-4 Caribou transport aircraft for 45 years?"

Well no, I didn't know that. Wow.

Runner up: "... that Michelle Nunn, CEO of Points of Light, the largest organization in the U.S. devoted to volunteer service, is considering running for the U.S. Senate, where her father once served?"

The runner up borders on being political spam. Who approved it? Tony (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony, for the RAAF hook at least, that is at the very least somewhat interesting for those familiar with military matters. Can you imagine the USAF using Thunderbolts (WWII) in Operation Desert Storm (1990-91)? That's how out of date those planes were when they were finally taken out of service in that squadron. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd guess that Tony isn't particularly conversant with military matters because as someone who is, I can say that fact definitely is surprising. I'll go and have a look at the article now to find out the story behind this... Prioryman (talk)

• WP's main page doesn't aim exclusively at military experts. If the hook can't convey a surprising aspect to normal readers, I think it shouldn't be displayed. Tony (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In which case you should suggest a change to the DYK rules, as the currently written ones do not specify a general audience. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I approved the Nunn hook. Given that the election in question isn't until November 2014, I figured it wasn't an issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved the RAAF hook to the prep area. I didn't know anything about the airplane and I wouldn't have visited the article if I hadn't been checking it for promotability, but I recognized that there are people who are very interested in military aircraft and that 45 years is a long to use any one airplane model. If DYK limited itself to topics known to be of widespread interest among people who visit Wikipedia articles, it probably would only feature current topics like reality TV, popular music, hot video games, and the latest iPhone model. Let's not go there! --Orlady (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, all that is required is that the point of the surprise or interest be clear from the hook to main-page readers. This should have been weeded out long before it got to the main page if no better alternative hook could be conceived; but I'm guessing that no one even bothered to improve it. Tony (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Tony, if you wanted a stray poll, "45 years" is enough to draw attention of non-specialist. Move on. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  What is notable about 45 years? If this is the best you can come up with, DYK should be terminated, or at least drastically reformed so that GAs can at last gain a little exposure, with much better material. Tony (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Several editors are trying to convince you that it is a pretty long term for a military piece of equipment, especially an aircraft. Hooks are not about "better material" - you'd have to shift your criticism to the article for that. Materialscientist (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Tony, that you do not find it interesting or unusual does not mean nobody does, or even that barely anyone does. I yawn a little bit wider every time I see a sports hook, but there are a significant number of readers who go berserk for them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not the topic: it's the hook. Tony (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And most of the hooks for sports-related articles are... sports related, and at times barely penetrable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Today's winner: There are so many candidates it was hard to choose. I settled for "Did you know that Ravi Shankar, the world-renowned Indian sitar player, was a musician from Varanasi?" Errr ... it's a fact, yes, but is it a suitable DYK hook?

  Runners-up: again abstruseness abounds for anyone who isn't already an insider for the topic—this seems to be increasingly prevalent. So we have "... that Zainal Abidin acted in over 150 films but won only two Citra Awards?" ... Um ... OK.

  And "Did you know that Tom Collins resigned the presidency of RCSI-Bahrain over the alleged government cancellation of an ethics conference?"—Wake me up when it's finished.

  May I ask why prehistoric "hill complexes" feature twice in the current shift? This is very bad control of theme. Tony (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh. And that's why there are links, for those who are not "insiders". If rules required, for instance, "... that Zainal Abidin acted in over 150 films but won only two Citra Awards, Indonesian film awards which have been likened to the Oscars?", then I (and most active DYK editors, I should think) would rather just not go through DYK. Requiring every term to be familiar to Anglosphere readers is just ensuring that Anglosphere topics are even more dominant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Requiring every term to be familiar to Anglosphere readers is just ensuring that Anglosphere topics are even more dominant."—you're going down a rabbit hole there. "Did you know ... that Zainal Abidin acted in more than 150 Indonesian films, but won only two of the coveted Citra Awards?" – that would be a tiny bit better, at least providing a cultural anchor and pointing to the reason for the irony. And no, visitors to the main page should not have to click forward and click back, once or even twice, to get it. Bad idea. Tony (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citation for "coveted", Tony, per the DYK criteria? I agree that it's true, but verifiability is not truth. I don't think I said readers need to "click forward and click back, once or even twice, to get it". If they get it, good. If they don't get it but are interested, even better—they've learned something. If they don't get it and don't click, no biggie. Very few DYKs get the same level of attention as a TFA or POTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Tony's complaint boils down to, I think, is that a fair number of DYKs are of specialist interest - mushrooms or Bach cantatas, for instance. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. Many editors are specialists too, but there's no requirement that DYK topics should be "populist", nor should there be. I think the range of topics - including those which are perhaps rather esoteric - is a good thing, in that it exposes readers to subjects that they probably would never come across from their usual daily reading. Prioryman (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Crisco and Prioryman: Um ... no, actually. See rule 3(a): "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." (my underlining) This rule is being flagrantly disregarded by both nominators and the promoting admins. Tony (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, "broad" is not the same thing as "universal". Just because you do not like something is no reason to declare that nobody else likes it. Looking at your first two cherry picked examples, are you really claiming that there are not sizeable populations interested in either military aviation or charity work? --Allen3 ^talk 10:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So who says anything about universal? I'm interested in military history, and I think I'm still listed as a member of MilHist. But I don't have a clue about the point, grammatical news if you like, in the DHC-4 Caribou transport aircraft hook. Why not have reframed the hook so that it points to the interest, the surprise? That much is demanded by rule 3.

Right now, all hooks on the main page are excellent, presenting a rude contrast with the shift I inspected when prompted to open this thread. Tony (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Well, that's a relief. Just as well you didn't look a few hours ago, your head would probably have exploded... Prioryman (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to remind all the DYK schedulers that the Tony Award date request is targetting the next four available queues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is one left for prep 2, but I cannot add it as I have a COI. I left a note in the prep area to stop admins promoting it.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a triple nomination earlier (Template:Did you know nominations/King's Lines) - I think this is the first I've ever done. I'm not entirely sure that I got the syntax right to add a third article; could someone please check that the template is working as it should be? (And if anyone feels like doing a review, that would be appreciated too.) Prioryman (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6; hook about C/O Sir: Shouldn't the hook involve the real world in some way? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't at all well-written; its grammar needs to be reviewed and corrected. I'd suggest pulling it from the queue. As it stands, it's not exactly a good advertisement for DYK and frankly I'm surprised it passed a review. Prioryman (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is also a Stub, which isn't supposed to make it on DYK.— Maile (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but it is listed as one. Pull it out for now! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it also has copyvio issues in my opinion, despite being passed explicitly for that, compare "The character of a blind professor played by Saswata Chatterjee in the film was previously offered to Prasenjit Chatterjee. When asked about it, Kaushik explained," in the article with "The character of a blind professor played by Saswata Chatterjee in the film was previously offered to Prosenjit Chatterjee, we heard. When quizzed about it, Kaushik explained" in source 1. Mikenorton (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why has nobody done anything about this article in queue 6? It was reported 10 hours ago and it's still in the queue, which is next up for the Main Page. Can someone please pull it asap? Prioryman (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can delete it from the queue based on these concerns, but I'm not comfortable with replacing it from another queue. Would that suffice? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've removed it per the above concerns, I'm not convinced that the direct quote was a copyvio, but the article quality is weak, and I'm surprised the DYK standards (a) sanctioned this and that (b) an admin posted it to the queue without double-checking. Worse still is the fact we have this "error" report sitting here for nearly ten hours. In future, though, I'd suggest using WP:ERRORS as that's visited by active main page-concerned admins all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two relevant {{DYKmake}}s still need to be removed from the queue. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was not taken care of, but I removed the three erroneous DYK templates which the bot placed, on the talk pages of the article and the two users. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, my personal experience of WP:ERRORS is that it's usually ignored until someone goes onto IRC to complain. Prioryman (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Did you know nominations/C/O Sir a) ALT1 was suggested b) re-assessed c) this was more or less a teamwork, I have found the problematic copyvio edit, I'll talk to the editor --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 05:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two more DYKs where I worked with the same editor Template:Did you know nominations/Dekha, Na-Dekhay, Template:Did you know nominations/Chupkatha, I did not check copyvio before nominating! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 05:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not very prudent... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Paul Barlow (talk · contribs) to the DYK makes in Queue 1 for Woman with Flowered Hat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the admins for this quickie.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are less than three hours left. Can someone add a DYK template before this hits the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This did not get done, but I manually issued a credit. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mandarax for your belated help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ran on May 19, but DYKbot has just told me the nom is still open. I'd better let someone who knows what they are doing close it. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre.... the history clearly shows I passed it.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot to enter "yes" when you passed it, so it wasn't showing up as properly closed. (I've now taken care of it.) The bot notification appeared now, because the section on the nominations page containing it was just removed yesterday, so it looked to the bot like an active, untranscluded nomination. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the hooks in Queue 1 was removed a few hours ago because it was too short; unfortunately, it was not replaced.

As all four prep areas are full, there's a plentiful supply of hooks available. Since the queue already has a full quota of bios and a Tony Award hook, avoiding those prep hooks would be best.

Note that the queue also needs the addition of a DYKmake as noted by TonyTheTiger above. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The queue went to the main page with just 6 hooks. The main page is currently in balance, so it's probably best to leave well enough alone at this point. The 'bot presumably already issued the credits, so if Tony didn't get one, we can give him one by hand. --Orlady (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that Gibraltar is still being promoted by Wikipedia? Koehler Depressing Carriage on the home page. It's all about Gibraltar. Could we please implement a moratorium on Gibraltar? No Gibraltar content on the home page until we are sure that the corruption has had time to pass. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the start of another workweek so it must be time for opponents of the "G-word" to once again pummel equine corpses. Attempts to place either draconian restrictions or an outright ban on anything even remotely related to Gibraltar have been repeatedly made (you last asked for additional restrictions on May 12, 2013). Despite the repeated attempts there has never been consensus to impose restrictions more stringent than those already in place. Instead of tenaciously repeating the same set of proposals, have you considered the benifits of dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass? --Allen3 ^talk 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with this on the main page. But there's a cite error on the article, and I would fix it, but I don't understand the sourcing method on that one. Maybe someone else here can do a quick fix.— Maile (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was recognized at the end of 2012, and restrictions were put in place. Since then it's been "business as usual" with frequent Gibraltar advertising on the home page. I'll keep mentioning this until the problem is solved. Gibraltar is a tiny country of relative insignificance. Why is Wikipedia continuing to allow itself to be manipulated by clever marketers associated with Gibraltar tourism promotion? It's become a test of wills where the corrupted editors insist they have done nothing wrong, and to prove their WP:POINT, they keep festooning our home page with Gibraltar-stuff. Enough already. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is a place to feature Wikipedia's newest quality content. Who cares if Gibraltar or Podunk, New York are featured regularly if there are editors interested in creating and improving related articles. Grsz 11 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this on Jimbo's talk page as well, but as you seem intent on shopping it in multiple places... How many Gibraltar-related DYKs have there been this year? How does that compare to some other topics? Baseball players? Actors? Military personnel? Resolute 18:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, when I read Jehochman's comments I was strongly reminded of the immortal words of Buzz Lightyear, Space Ranger. Let's recap. The article hook doesn't even mention Gibraltar. That's because the article is about an item of military technology, not Gibraltar. You wouldn't even know it related to Gibraltar unless you clicked through to it. (Is Jehochman now clicking through every DYK to make sure it's not Gibraltar-related? Because that really would be sad, strange behaviour.) The article is completely uncontentious. It's gone through the usual two reviews as required by the current restrictions and there's no conceivable NPOV, COI or promotional issue with it. Nor is there any issue with excessive frequencies of Gibraltar-related DYKs – we have had just six in the last three months. Jehochman has just come away from an epic beating at RFAR (see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#July 13) and appears to have learned absolutely nothing from it. It's long past time he recognised that community consensus is very strongly against him and to stop the chronic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour on this topic which, quite honestly, is very unfitting for an admin. Prioryman (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Jehochman, since you're obviously intending to not only continue beating the dead horse but to continue until it's a bloody paste on the floor (and walls and ceiling, no doubt), let's get this out of the way: Fortifications of Gibraltar (a GA candidate, by the way) and Lines of Contravallation of Gibraltar are due to run in the near future, and I would expect there to be a couple more nominations before the end of the month. If you're going to complain, please do it now so that we can get it out of the way and get back to doing more useful things than reading your dead-ender rants. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I just can't escape this nagging thought that in the hot gambling spots of the world, bookmakers are giving odds on how many times in one week somebody can complain about any subject matter getting too much DYK mention. Gibraltar would be top odds on that one, but there are others. The odds are just too good for somebody not running bets on this. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't comment about that, but it would be crazy to suggest that Gibraltar's getting too much attention. There were only five DYKs on the subject between March and May this year, out of about 2,000 DYKs. Jehochman only thinks there's too many because he thinks the appropriate number would be zero, which virtually nobody else thinks is reasonable or necessary. Prioryman (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been three Gibraltar hooks this month already. Three more Gibraltar articles are waiting in the wings, to appear over the coming days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Gibraltar-related_articles Andreas JN466 19:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the appropriate response is so what? It's basically just you two dead-enders who are objecting. Give it up and go and do something more useful. Prioryman (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar is a spot measuring 6.8 sq km, with a population of less than 30,000. It's simply overexposed on the main page, mate. (A main page which gets roughly ten million views a day.) We're basically getting back to the levels we had last year, when the Gibraltarpedia competition was in full swing. And that "restriction" of one a day was a complete joke, given that Gibraltar never had one DYK a day to begin with. Why don't you do something more useful, like writing about something else than Gibraltar? Andreas JN466 00:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not closed. Can anybody tell me why this tiny spot of relative insignificance should appear on the home page of Wikipedia with much, much, much more frequency than other topics of similar obscurity? Why Gibraltar? Could it be that their tourism board has PAID for this exposure? To me it looks like corruption, and I will keep raising this concern until it has been addressed. The small group of editors who hang around DYK are not necessarily representative of the wider Wikipedia community. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TFAR, bottom section. The "wider" community. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, Jehochman, neither are you. Resolute 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I unclosed the discussion. This was a not a good close, at all, and the editor who closed the discussion should calm down. Discussions are usually closed when they are resolved. I don't see that here. The editors close reason was also not good:

"Closing to end the drama on what will inevitably end in WP:SNOW territory. Two vocal individuals have not, do not, and will not make a consensus, so let's drop the stick, back slowly away from the horse carcass, and try again in six months if you still perceive a problem.

Some problems with this are:

• Characterizing the discussion as "drama". This is not helpful or kind. There is such a thing as drama, but it is involves personal attacks and so forth. Discussion among editors about reasonable points of disagreement is not drama. It is how we get things done around here. References to dead horses and so forth are insulting and not helpful. The editor should not say things like that if it is possible to avoid doing so.
• Citing WP:SNOW is usually called for only in un-contentious situations, where it's simply easier to bypass normal process to save time, since there isn't and clearly won't be any opposition to moving forward. If a SNOW is contested by any reasonable person, that is almost proof that it was a bad SNOW. WP:SNOW is not equivalent to WP:SHUT UP. If the editor wished to close the discussion simply because he finds it personally tiresome (which would not be a good reason for a close), he should say so.
• The editor is free to ignore and discontinue participating in the discussion if he so wishes. The editor is not empowered to force all other editors to ignore and discontinue participating in the discussion if they don't so wish. Hopefully the editor, on reflection, will understand the difference and concede this point. Herostratus (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not disagree more with your reasoning. Closing unnecessary and unproductive discussions where the outcome is not in doubt is productive in and of itself. This is usually best done on ANI, but it can also be very helpful in limited circumstances on other pages ... like this one, where we have two admittedly vocal editors pushing for a resolution that is resoundingly opposed, both here and [://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=559463941#July_13 on TFAR], by the wider community. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your point, but still. Being "admittedly vocal" is not necessarily a bad thing. It's clear (from comments in venues like Jimbo's talk page) that the matter is genuinely contentious, by more than a couple of malcontents. Consensus may change over time and that's what these guys are trying to do. I don't think it's effective and I wouldn't go on and on about it myself (although if it was up to me, I'd also cool it on featuring Gibraltar articles for a good while), and I understand it can be annoying, but it's the sort of thing that it's best to put up with (rolling your eyes privately to yourself is OK) rather than trying to shut down, especially untactfully. The simple fact is this: if the DYK folks are going to continue to feature Gibraltar articles, they're going to have people mad about that, and so they might as well get used to the flak. It'll be good desensitivation training for when and if shit gets real -- that is, for when the DYK's being pushed through are not for a relatively benign entity like the Territory of Gibraltar, but for Exxon-Mobile or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or whomever. Herostratus (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • While it's certainly true that consensus can change, it's been, what, maybe a month since the last discussion? Combine that with a related discussion getting shot down 29-3, and what we have is simple: two pointy posters attempting to disrupt a project. I'm no large fan of DYK; I think that subpar articles get promoted and boring hooks lacking in all context are put on our most visible page. However, it's not okay to pointedly disrupt it. As for Gibraltar vs. Exxon-Mobile, that's apples to oranges, and it's entirely ridiculous to allow this to continue just so DYK people can be desensitized to controversy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to the merits of the case, a couple things seem clear to me, in my opinion:

1. We should probably not have more Gibraltar stuff on the main page for awhile.
2. We will.

We will because there's no mechanism for stopping it, absent consensus to do so, and consensus for anything is hard to achieve here. I don't know if, community-wide, there'd be a supermajority in favor of publishing more Gibraltar stuff (my guess would be not), but there certainly isn't a supermajority against it.

We shouldn't do it though because, any other expressed reasons (corruption, potential bad press, perversion of intent of DYK, corrosion of volunteer ethos here, and so on) aside, it is controversial to do it. It makes lots of editors unhappy, and those editors have expressed reasonable cause for being unhappy. It makes me unhappy. Absent some good reason, we should try to avoid doing that.

Because we certainly will continue to feature Gibraltar on the main page, Prioryman makes a fair point in saying "It's basically just you two dead-enders who are objecting. Give it up and go and do something more useful". Obviously it would better if Prioryman expressed himself in a less rude and hurtful way, but the basic point -- there's really no possibility of preventing more Gibraltar DYK's, so at some point it'd be wise to just let it go -- is reasonable.

As a counterpoint, there are times when its called for to keep pointing out a problem if one sees it. I personally find the Gibraltar DYK's annoying but not worth fruitlessly bitching about forever. For my part, I'm going to wait until we get a plethora of DYK's on, say, Exxon-Mobile's various programs and initiatives for environmental stewardship, clean alternative energy, third-world debt relief, global democracy, and so forth (I suppose we'll be seeing that sort of thing eventually), and I'll have more to say then on the general issue of promotional DYK's. Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that every argument that has been offered for a moratorium is utterly false. Nobody is paying for DYKs. Nobody is being paid for writing DYKs. Nobody writing any of them has any conflict of interest. The frequency of these DYKs is very low - 8 in the last 4 months, out of some 3,000 DYKs that have run in that period. None of the articles is promotional in any way. None of them are controversial. They are clearly attracting public interest (Neanderthals of Gibraltar - 24,383 page views; Koehler Depressing Carriage - 16,405). The topic is of significant historical interest. There is no need whatsoever for anyone to find these DYKs "annoying", and quite honestly it's clear that the community's patience has been exhausted with the people who keep complaining about this - the dead-enders that I mentioned. Whatever the original issues with Gibraltarpedia were, there's clearly no justification for continuing to harangue and attack editors. It's time this ended once and for all. Prioryman (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic skew needs to be controlled, urgently

It's not just that Gibraltar-related topics have a bad smell of COI, whether deserved on not; it's that the DYK insiders—and others we may or may not know who like to join the ride from time to time—indulge themselves with regular repeats of articles on similar topics. As a reult, DYK's extraordinarily privileged spot on the main page represents a weirdly skewed sample of human knowledge. How many Bach cantata articles should appear over any three-month period? Not more than one, I say; but it's been a torrent. Gibralter-related articles should be limited to one every three months, I believe. Tony (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that today's featured article is a fungus - Fomitiporia ellipsoidea. We've had a fungal FA almost every month this year (Verpa bohemica, Amanita muscaria, Inocybe saliceticola, Phallus indusiatus). Stop the rot, eh? And the other FAs seem to be quite formulaic: 7 birds, 5 hurricanes, 5 pilots, 5 videogames, 4 warships, &c. But very little hard science, apart from all the species. It's natural for these processes to follow a path of least resistance but the result seems to be systemic bias. DYK has a healthy focus upon novel topics which provide unusual hooks. I'm doing my bit and I see that Surfers Paradise Meter Maids has just gone up... Warden (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colonel Warden:, you're going completely off-topic complaining about TFA here rather than bringing your complaint to a TFA page, but fortunately this is on my watchlist. As TFA delegate, I can only schedule actual FAs that people write and that haven't yet appeared on the main page, not hypothetical FAs that have yet to be written. See the list at WP:FANMP for yourself: 65 hurricane articles, 73 video game articles, 67 warfare biographies, 89 warfare matériel articles (mostly warships), 38 fungi articles, 46 bird articles (not including extinct birds). And let's not start counting the TV episodes, the US roads or the contemporary music articles. How many "hard science" articles do you see there? Nothing left under chemistry and mineralogy; 1 engineer's biography that I'll run in a while, but can't run soon because we just had an engineer as TFA; nothing left under geology and geophysics; 2 health and medicine articles; nothing left under mathematics; nothing left under philosophy and psychology; 8 astronomy articles and Stephen Hawking (which wasn't up to standard, in the eyes of the community, when it was nominated at WP:TFAR earlier in the year, so it didn't run then). If you don't like the TFAs that are chosen, nominate some you do like at TFAR, or better still, write them! Bencherlite^Talk 11:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it would be great to give preference to FAs with a useable picture. I don't like TFAs that comprise just grey text. Colonel Warden, once a month is quite a bit less skewed that the waterfalls of articles on Gibraltar and other themes we've had at DYK. Tony (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)�[reply]
      • Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#New guideline: Home page diversity (a discussion just started by Jehochman) and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Request for comment - images in TFA blurbs (an RFC I started last month) may interest Tony/Warden, then. I suggest further discussion of TFAs takes place there. Bencherlite^Talk 11:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflicts) I have no complaints about Bencherlite who seems to do a good job with the material available. The issue of systemic bias seems common to both FA and DYK so it makes sense to compare and discuss them together. I noticed recently that there was some dispute about the list of vital articles. My impression is that that list is not well-integrated with the FA/DYK processes. How could we encourage editors to work on those instead of the current cookie-cutter topics? Warden (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a picture that illustrates the Featured Article problem. Andreas JN466 13:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've worked on a hard science FA, Gamma ray burst and you should all feel my pain. It was a very long and difficult process. The solution may be to alert the community to specific areas that need more articles for TFA and see if we can recruit editors to work on them. If somebody started a drive on one of those articles, I could get motivated to help. If you have to run another mushroom, please make a specific note to the effect, Yes, this topic is being over-represented, but we don't have enough alternatives. Rather than complaining, please go work on X, Y or Z, and as soon as they are ready, we can run them immediately. Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • TFA is upstairs. Take the fire escape, go up three flights of stairs, and it's door marked "Roof". Now, as it happens, I have lots of scientist articles ready for FAC: mathematicians, chemists, engineers, physicists ... lots of physicists. And yes, vital articles too. So many, that they will be a constant presence at FAC for the next couple of years. If you don't feel like writing one yourself, you can help out by reviewing. There will be plenty to go around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a limit on how often a particular, relatively minor topic can appear on the main page in the space of three months, as outlined by Tony above, would prevent any recurrence of the type of scandal Wikipedia had with Gibraltarpedia. In addition, it would make sense to establish a rule excluding the following from eligibility for the DYK section of the main page:

• articles written for a paying client,
• articles written for sponsored contests.

Those should solve the problem. Andreas JN466 13:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons why I find the Gibraltar emphasis less disturbing than the once-every-six-months Square Enix software articles.

• 1) A DYK is about 1/10 the space of a featured ad article, and appears for 1/4 the time. That means you'd have to run 40 Gibraltar DYKs in a six-month period to rival the advertising impact of Square Enix, and that's not even taking the above-the-fold factor into consideration!
• 2) Gibraltar is a part of a country. We recognize that some countries are covered more than others because we get more people from them who want to edit. We have better coverage of England than we do of Iran. It is biased, yes, but it is not necessarily a commercial I-get-paid-for-this bias. It is entirely possible that simply putting up a bunch of Wikipedia plaques makes people look at the articles more and edit more. By contrast, the work done by the "fans" of Square Enix from their own company-specific Wikiproject specifically enriches one particular company by featuring their current products.

Until such time as Wikipedia can get the video game ads under control, the worrying about Gibraltar will continue to seem like straining at gnats, swallowing camels. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that with Gibraltarpedia it was proven that someone was paid, and the (presently resuming) stream of Gibraltar DYKs demonstrably dates back to Gibraltarpedia. Prove that someone gets paid for putting Square Enix articles on the main page, and I guarantee you all hell will break loose. The problem is that it is difficult to prove. It is impossible in Wikipedia to tell a sports fan writing 100+ articles on their favourite team (I forget the name now ... perhaps someone can jog my memory), and getting all of them on the main page, from a PR pro working for that team who is doing the same. In any case though, the sensible thing would be to introduce restrictions that prevent any topic – whether it is a particular sports team, town or company – from getting undue exposure on the main page, especially if there is a conceivable commercial interest being served. On the other hand, this is Wikipedia, and the people most interested in this topic are those who want to see their DYKs on the main page, and collect baubles. So you're basically fucked. Andreas JN466 23:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To give another example, in the first 13 days of this month we have had 14 DYKs on Singapore (vs. 3 on Gibraltar). Now, Singapore is a hundred times bigger than Gibraltar in terms of area, with 150 times the population, but a rate of more than one a day is realistically too much. But no doubt the person(s) writing them will turn up here shortly and complain bitterly that restrictions would mean they are being "punished" for writing about Singapore. It's nuts: it's the tail of editors' bauble-collecting (if not PR) instinct wagging the WP main page dog. Andreas JN466 23:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen, there are more ways to determine relative importance that modern day borders and population statistics. One means you appear to have missed is the historical record. Modern day Singapore was not founded less than 200 years ago and the earliest recorded mentions of a settlement located on Singapore island did not occur until the third century. Compare this to Gibraltar which has a recorded history going back roughly 3,000 years and archeological evidence of settlements going back tens of thousands of years. When you consider the long-term historical significance of your two examples, it is far from clear that Gibraltar is receiving too much attention while a strong argument can be made that it is receiving too little notice. --Allen3 ^talk 23:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm On what basis, please, other than your just saying so off the top of your head? The facts are, Gibraltar is literally 2.5 sq mi (about one 100,000th) of the Iberian peninsula. There was no place called "Gibraltar" for most of those 3,000 years you mention. According to our good article on Moorish Gibraltar, the first fortified settlement in Gibraltar was established in 1160 (almost a thousand years after the oldest records for the existence of a permanent city in Singapore). If you say that "modern Singapore" was only established less than 200 years ago (as though its history began with the arrival of the British), please note that "modern Gibraltar" dates back to 1713. Until then, it was just a little corner of Spain. If you want to compare Gibraltar and Singapore, let's insert some relevant metrics here: Amazon.com, as a bookseller specialising in English-language books, lists less than 2,500 books for Gibraltar vs. over 21,500 for Singapore. I truly hope you don't think Gibraltar is more important than Singapore, or indeed the other 99.999% of the Iberian peninsula (books on Spain and Portugal number in excess of 130,000 in Amazon, more than 50 times the total for Gibraltar). If we go purely by the number of book sources available, then the roughly 100 Gibraltar hooks we have had over the past year are equivalent to 15 DYKs a day for Spain and Portugal together, and 100 hooks a day on psychology or philosophy (including more than two a day on Plato). You can criticise the metric if you will, but at least it's a metric that has some relationship to what the world out there is actually, demonstrably, interested in. Andreas JN466 01:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is moot until the basic problem is fixed, which I don't see happening, and that is, that FA, DYK, etc is limited by what is available and what is available is generated by people who naturally write about what they know and are interested in. It's fine to say "write more hard science", but who's going to do that? Not the average wikipedian.PumpkinSky talk 02:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who write and self-nom are a relatively small population. Most people who write new articles don't participate in DYK (many newbies don't know their articles qualify). If we want more diversity, get more people to nominate new articles written by others (e.g. from AfC). Andreas JN466 02:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, this thread demonstrates how completely obsessed you are with Gibraltar. It isn't healthy. Frankly it also demonstrates your historical ignorance. Many sources say quite explicitly how it has played an outsized role in world history. To quote from one I've used, Edward P.F. Rose, Environmental Legacy of Military Operations: "Because of its geographical situation, Gibraltar has assumed a position of importance in world history out of all proportion to its small size." An argument based on land area and population is pretty stupid when you think about it – the City of London is famously only one square mile and has a population of under 7,500 people, a quarter that of Gibraltar, so would you claim that it is even less significant than Gibraltar?

Ach, give me a break. Gibraltar has been around since Beelzebub started the Great Flood (or at least since Hercules/Melqart ended the Messinian salinity crisis) Well, perhaps the history is hard to riddle, on account of lies, exaggerations, and the occasional playful embellishment, but sailors have apparently been navigating it since the time of Atlantis. Wnt (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pretty obvious I don't give a toss about Gibraltar per se, and that it's the history of paid product placement on the main page, as part of a tourism promotion project, that I find fascinating, along with Wikipedia's absolute inability to put a stop it. Sure, Gibraltar has more sources about it than most other cities in the Iberian peninsula with a population of less than 30,000. But comparing it to the City of London? There's an order of magnitude more sources about the City of London than there are about Gibraltar. Yet Wikipedia has an order of magnitude more DYKs about Gibraltar than it does about the City of London. I am far less obsessed with Gibraltar than you, Prioryman. But I am really interested in the governance issues. DYK used to be about encouraging editor contributions. But it has become something completely different: a guaranteed and foolproof path for any moderately resourceful and determined editor (including paid editors) to bring a topic of their (or their client's) choosing to the repeated attention of millions of internet users. That, and the project priorities it reveals, is really interesting. Andreas JN466 14:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky, as for it being a problem, is it a problem? I don't see great swathes of readers complaining that they're getting a poor service. I don't think they are getting a poor service, in fact. I think everyone recognises that this is a volunteer project where people write about what they're interested in. We shouldn't mistake the complaints of a couple of long-standing Wikipedian critics of DYK for some kind of great groundswell of opinion. Could DYK/TFA be improved? Sure. But let's not pretend that this is about anything other than Jayen466's pet obsession, Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I do see a role for repeating FAs in TFA, but there would have to be strict rules about it, such as "not less than X years since the last appearance", and a requirement for "significant housecleaning/updating", and "no TFAs without a suitable image". It would be a good way of (1) giving the TFA delegate the scope s/he needs to minimise topic skew, and would be motivating factor for editors to keep our large stock of FAs up to the FA quality standards, which I suspect is not generally happening. And we have no automatic auditing procedure beyond the negatively framed FA review system.

  But the whole rationale DYK people have set up for themselves appears to go firmly against the notion of re-runs. And DYK people scream like crazy every time there's pressure to give over just a little bit of their patch to GAs. Hello??? Tony (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you mean to post this somewhere else, Tony? It doesn't seem to have much relevance to the discussion above; were we discussing re-runs? Prioryman (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You could fix the problem of subject imbalance at DYK yourself right now, with out forcing others to stop improving Wikipedia. Just create and/or expand articles of underrepresented subjects and nominate them for DYK. If you work as hard as anyone else does at improving Wikipedia articles, you can make a significant impact on the main page balance without demanding that other people stop working on article subjects that interest them. Win win! --Jayron32 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are loads of stubs that have never been expanded in topics not often seen here. I recently expanded two NSW National Parks which had been stubs since 2002. I was wondering whether introducing a quota per hook set of one stub older than three years of age as a starter? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why this whiny, wacky language about "forcing others to stop improving Wikipedia"? Come again? If we tell someone that their 112th article about their sports team will not run on the main page, because we have had enough of that team on the main page, thank you, does that in any way stop them from writing that 112th article and improving Wikipedia's coverage of that team? How does a refusal to run a DYK on the main page equate in your mind to "forcing others to stop improving Wikipedia"? Andreas JN466 14:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember, back in the day, some people used to complain that there was too much Norway-related stuff on the MP. Topics that are nominated vary from time to time, depending on the interests, time and energy of the volunteers. It's difficult, and probably counter-productive, to try to force the volunteers to work on specific topics, while discouraging other topics based on some unknown formula. Manxruler (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a really important point that needs to be made here is that DYK is an inclusive process. Any article that meets the requirements will be run at the first possible opportunity. The number of articles submitted on a particular topic, or even the absolute number of articles run as a whole, aren't a consideration. There is no quota, as we can throttle the flow rate up or down as needed. Currently we're running three lots of 7 articles per day. If we had more or fewer articles we could increase or decrease those numbers as we see fit. No article is excluded because some other article has been run in its place. If someone runs an article about mushrooms, that doesn't have any bearing on whether an article about nuclear physics can run. There is no fixed number of "places" to be apportioned out. There is also no causal relationship between a higher representation of articles in one topic area and a lower number from another topic. If someone nominates a mushroom article, that doesn't prevent or discourage anyone nominating an article on a different topic. Nobody is being shut out.

Now, what Tony and Jayen466 seem to be advocating is turning DYK into an exclusive process, where some articles are explicitly being shut out on the basis of some arbitrary criteria about "overrepresentation" (defined how? by who?). It would impose an arbitrary quota with the clear intention of discouraging editors from submitting new articles about particular topics. That would be a fundamental change to DYK's ethos and frankly I think it would make it a much less welcoming place for editors, without delivering any benefit for end users. Prioryman (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would advocate another thing: that any topic found to have made it to the Wikipedia main page as a result of a client paying a Wikipedian should be banned from the main page for a period of ten years, with an announcement identifying the client and contractor released to the press. It would be a really useful deterrent, and add some welcome transparency. Andreas JN466 14:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many good points here, one I really like is...how to get the word to non DYK regulars that their new/expanded articles qualify? Learning the total maze of wiki rules, procedures, and guide pages is very daunting. 199.112.128.5 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of underrepresented stub cats to investigate?

Ummm.....Category:Cheese stubs? for starters (entrees....chuckle) ....or Category:Food stubs.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe revive Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs - run a bot and see what comes up as some interesting DYK possibilities? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Duh!! Factor"

PumpkinSky above has hit the nail on the head. Wikipedia articles are written by unpaid volunteers. Even if taking into account that there is some acknowledged paid editing in Wikipedia, and some suspected paid writing nobody can prove, most editors at Wikipedia are unpaid. Now...who in their right mind is going to spend a lot of time and effort to put together a passable quality article about something they don't give a flying flip about? If nobody is paying you to do it, why would you put out the effort for something you don't know about and don't care about? You can recruit until the end of time, but what is the incentive? Bottom line...nobody at DYK is paid by DYK, and nobody at DYK is the boss of anybody else at DYK. You can't crack a whip and force people to write articles that will please some complainer with a hair up their nose about the process. Most of the articles that repeat given subject matter are of good quality, often professional level. There are some gifted writers contributing their talent on a repeat basis. And there's some learning the ropes. It's a flippin' volunteer group here, not a forced labor gulag where somebody can make everybody else do what they want. Those who think otherwise have issues that will not be resolved here.— Maile (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, well said indeed. Manxruler (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. Hence why we don't have 90 million articles on Indonesian footballers or businesses. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article cannot appear as DYK twice. Why? I didn't read the supplementary rules, and fell into the trap at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Aleeta_curvicosta. I went for a 25x expansion (hard work) because I thought of a fun hook for an article I was improving. It last appeared almost four years ago. But now that I know about the rule, I am wondering what the purpose is:

• is it considered that this makes dyk gameable? how?
• are you worried that readers a will see the same thing twice and get bored? how long do you think they remember a dyk?
• are you worried that this would flood dyk with repeats?

--99of9 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason for D1 is to prevent gaming the system into having an article receive multiple appearances in a relatively short time (several weeks or months). One of the underlying principles of DYK is that submitted articles should be functional and relatively complete. Without the rule it would be possible for a person with a sizable amount of referenced material to essentially write three articles (one at just over 1500 characters, one and just over 7500, and then the relatively complete article with over 37,500 characters) and submit each instance for a separate DYK.

There have been a small number of articles that have appeared more than once, but in every instance I can (partially) remember the instances have occurred years apart and involved different authors. IMHO, the recent 5x expansion and ~4 year time period since the article first appeared suggest an IAR exception may be appropriate. The one thing that holds me back is that one of the authors involved with the expansion was the person who submitted the initial DYK. --Allen3 ^talk 23:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to User:Casliber, it was me driving the dyk, he is going for GA. See User_talk:Casliber#Floury_Baker_request. I guess he had read the rules! --99of9 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is certainly a nice expansion (and a very good image), but I wanted to make sure that this article's former appearance on DYK was discussed as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too would be prepared to make an exception under IAR. It was run four years ago, there is no gaming of the system, and the article has been substantially improved, which is the objective of the 5x expansion rule. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This seems to be a suitable application of IAR.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I honestly don't think the reason for limiting articles to 1 DYK appearance is about "game-ability" but rather fairness and giving new articles a chance to make it to the main page. There is a very finite amount of real estate in DYK and we are never at a shortage of hooks vying for that limited space. How fair is it to other editors and other articles to "re-use" old DYKs? If we were running short on hooks I could see an IAR argument but we have 169 potential articles that have never been on DYK before waiting to be featured. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to agree. I would be willing to consider letting articles have more than 1 appearance on a case-by-case basis - the case above seems like a compelling one - but I don't think it's something that we should do as a matter of course. Prioryman (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignore all rules? No thanks, not at DYK, where stretching the rules is a routine hobby for some editors. I say this should not be re-run, and that supplementary rule D1 should be reframed for tightly worded exceptions if that is seen to be necessary. Tony (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right Tony, not shouting you a coffee next time we hang out I'm not fussed. I am happy to leave it if the consensus is to not use it. Been busy and not been on my radar....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee? Cas, no, I want beer. Tony (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great article and worth taking up to GA but like I said in my comment above, I don't think it is fair to other editors and other articles to invoke IAR in order to re-use an old DYK. Main Page is very scarce real estate and I would rather invoke an IAR to give a new article a chance to be on the main page for the first time. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Agne. a 5yr old DYK appearance is enough to invoke IAR here and showcase a vastly improved article. PumpkinSky talk 13:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: all queues are currently empty. Even though the next update is still a couple of hours away, it would be nice to see the queues filled, just in case. Secondly, in Prep 2 this article is present Mahila Atma Raksha Samiti. I'm new to DYK, but this article seems to have some issues: it has an orphan tag, it is in need of some copy-editing, the paragraphs of 'Founding' and 'After partition' do not seem logical as the chronological order is reversed, I don't know if anyone agrees, but at this point in time this article does not seem fit to be posted on the Main page. Crispulop (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a repetition of Queue 1. Thanks, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1 (I think) should have been on the Main Page some 1 hour and 30 minutes ago!! What's happening? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYKUpdateBot seems to be stalled. There is a very long process documented in the queue file for administrators who think they can handle it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, we are doomed! The end is coming... The template is red, and Johnny Depp has gotten more show time than he deserves!!! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manual update performed. --Allen3 ^talk 11:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm scrutinising DYK for embarrassments on a daily basis, I'm asking myself why our rules on overlinking are being regularly spurned in hooks. Right now, I see:

• "... that the talk show Ra'is el-Tahrir ("Editor in Chief") hosted by Hamdi Qandil was one of the most popular and respected television programs in Egypt before it was discontinued in 2003?"

  Why is Television in Egypt and the rather too unfocused Egypt both linked within a quarter of a second? It's a pity Television in Egypt is piped; and isn't it linked explicitly in the article itself??? "Editor in Chief" should not be capitalised.

• "... that with the development of Tropical Storm Andrea on June 5, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season became the fourth consecutive season with a named storm in the month of June?"

  Why flood the hook with links—mostly deceptively piped? Each secondary link draws visitors away from the actual DYK article. Or are DYK articles just so bad, and so undeserving of clicks by potential editors who might work on them, that you actually try to minimise visits? It's very weird strategy. Tony (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Editor in Chief" should not be capitalised. - Erm, it's a translation of the talk-show's title. Agree about the overlinking though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, and yes, my mistake about the caps. Tony (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with "[original research]"... This shouldn't be in the queue yet until that is fixed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hook swapped and nomination for the Early article has been returned to Template talk:Did you know. --Allen3 ^talk 14:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created 23 May, listed under 5 Jun, and nom'd 14 Jun, by a user who's only edited this article. Totally newbie. I feel sorry for the guy (look at the format of the nom), and submit to the community how to handle this one. I love the donkey photo.PumpkinSky talk 00:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved from Articles for Creation on 8 June, so it qualifies. Got it to 1600 characters (padded the bonkers out of it though). Creator/nominator may have a COI. Leave it up to DYK if it will be run (cute donkey :). Froggerlaura ^ribbit 02:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And... it was reverted back to the 900 character stub. Sheesh. Let it go. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 05:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was sadly pulled from hook. I see no problems with the wording. No COI, neutral enough. Can I have a second set of eyes please? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Law enforcement in the country is said to be lousy, and both the police and the government in Yemen are deemed to be unworthy of trust.[1] Very often do law enforcers in the country abuse their authority to allow others to evade tax or get away with minor or major offences, provided some paper certificates are exchanged for the favour.[9][10] Corruption in the country burns a big hole in the government's pocket.[9]" This does not strike me as neutral or encyclopedic text. This article has no place on the main page in its current form, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps coming thick and fast. Today's winner is in queue 4, which offers some really good and really bad hooks, mangled together:

• "Did you know that Transdev Melbourne will take over operation of 30% of Melbourne, Australia's bus network in August 2013?"

  Gee whizz, no I didn't know that. I'm excited. You can't just bang out a hook expecting that visitors to the main page will "get" it. What exactly is the surprise, or even the slight interest, here? The 30% bit pushes this down even further, by the way.

  Technical niggles too: "Melbourne comma Australia" stuck in the middle is so clunky, and "Melbourne" appears twice in half a second. Who thought this one up? (I suppose a minor improvement would be "of much of the city's public bus network" ... but we're still left decidely underwhelmed.)

  A justification here for worthiness of main-page exposure would be welcome.

The runner up is in the same queue:

• "Did you know that Singaporean entertainer and singer Anna Belle Francis produced Dick Lee's Euranasia?"

  What the hell? Who, and who, are these people? Readers should not have to click on these secondary links to make some kind of sense of why it's a hook (for those who don't know, a hook is supposed to "hook" you into the DYK article).

• "that Eva Perón established the Salon Rosado in the Palace of the Buenos Aires City Legislature (pictured) as an exclusive space for women politicians, where they could discuss issues without men being present?" is 209 characters (has the limit been increased???). After the comma simply repeats the obvious. I see this rule: "The hook itself should be concise: fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces. While 200 is an outside limit, hooks slightly under 200 characters may still be rejected at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators." The picture is ridiculously small ... actually, it's an insult to readers of the main page who lack a magnifying glass.

Tony (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Finally my article has entered the Hall of Lame. It is really an honour, Tony. :) Rest assured, I will be producing more of such quality articles! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Transdev Melbourne hook will certainly be of interest to Melburnians, and to those who take an interest in public transport, so I don't see much wrong with the hook, given that it's probably the most interesting fact about this company. I agree though, that "Melbourne, Australia's" is clunky phraseology that could have used some copyediting.

You are correct that the Salon Rosado hook is too long and could have used a trim. I don't see much wrong with the Anna Belle Francis hook given that the subject is described in the hook, however I agree that many hooks have insufficient information about the subject - but then, it's not always easy to get the balance right between brevity and obscurity. Gatoclass (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, I see a lot of Wikipedia:Systemic bias in Tony's "lameness" criticisms. While other points, such a brevity and awkward wording, are certainly valid, I think it is unwise to apply an anglo-centric worldview towards judging what is going to be interesting vs lame for our readers. While, yes, this is the English Wikipedia, our Main Page audience is global and there will be people with an interest in Melbourne transit, Singaporean entertainers or Argentine politics and women's issues. What is one man's "Hall of Lame" is another person's reason to click on a link they would have otherwise skipped. We should always be cautious about using our own biases and worldviews as gauges on "interesting-ness". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no, no! You don't get it. We can't have hooks interesting to Melburnians or other limited groups. They must be interesting to Tony, or he's going to whine and bitch about it on this talk page. Resolute 18:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, for years you've essentially done nothing but complain about the work of others. STOP IT. Since you're so unhappy with them, stop looking at the work of others and go RIGHT your own stuff so you'll be reading something you like. After such a long time, I can only think you're not happy unless you're bitching about the others' work (that was on purpose too). PumpkinSky talk 13:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pls....PumpkinSky talk 11:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allen3 moved 4. Thanks!PumpkinSky talk 13:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A spate of these articles have recently been created by a particular user, I am seeing multiple problems in most of them including poor organization, inappropriate prose and threadbare content. Articles of this type need sensitive treatment and a reasonable degree of comprehensiveness which they currently lack. I suggest therefore that none of these articles be promoted until the issues are resolved. In the meantime I would encourage some of our more skilled and experienced DYKers to put some work into these articles to help bring them up to an appropriate standard. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) _articles" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">18:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that some seem to be taken, in whole or part, from related articles. Case in point: Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As an example (and as noted above), Crime in Yemen has recently been pulled from a queue (nomination here) and contains the following:

Law enforcement in the country is said to be lousy, and both the police and the government in Yemen are deemed to be unworthy of trust.[1] Very often do law enforcers in the country abuse their authority to allow others to evade tax or get away with minor or major offences, provided some paper certificates are exchanged for the favour.[9][10] Corruption in the country burns a big hole in the government's pocket.[9]

This text is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. It speaks in broad generalities (police and government unworthy of trust, abuse of authority occurring very often) which is not fair to honest members of Yemen's law enforcement community, nor is it balanced text as required by NPOV. Colloquial language (corruption burns a big hole in the government's pocket) is also inappropriate. The article is illustrated with the seal of the U.S. State Department. (!) Basically, this article has no place on the main page in its current form, in my opinion. Yet, the submitter sees no problem, it was passed for a main page appearance, and it was promoted to a queue. To me, this case suggests problems beyond merely a series of articles not ready for a DYK tick. EdChem (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking more carefully, these "Crime in XXX" articles have been reviewed and / or promoted by several editors, yet none have noted that rule D7 states that "There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress" and that "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected." These articles address crimes against foreigners, prostitution, and corruption (briefly), but no other topics. What about something on the criminal justice system and typical sentences, crimes against citizens, rates of violent / property / drug-related / other crimes, and the crime / terrorism links (if any)? Is there information on the "typical" criminals? Are alcohol use, homosexual activity, and public displays of affection criminalised? Is the criminal law based in secular or religious principles? These are just a few issues that occur to me as relevant to a "Crime in XXX" article, and whilst DYKs are new articles and not GAs, taking on a topic as broad as crime in a whole country still requires an article that appears complete and deals adequately with the topic. I am concerned that several reviewers have not recognised / noted both the NPOV and comprehensiveness issues in these articles - not to mention the copyright and length issues raised by Crisco 1492. I agree with Gatoclass that this series of articles be held from approval pending comprehensive improvements. EdChem (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This listing where it was stated that North Koreans "got too hungry" made it all the way to the main page. Is this really the kind of hook we agree to and publish on our main page with reference to starving people? Thankfully it was fixed soon after the issue was raised at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it me who suggested that hook? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TRM is correct, a hook that describes the North Korean famine in which at least 250 000 (and maybe more than 3 000 000) people starvged to death as North Koreans getting "too hungry" should never have been given a tick, let alone been promoted to a queue. Simply put, this hook is offensive. Surely we need to look at reviewing standards when mistakes like this happen and it is not just a single inexperienced editor making errors. EdChem (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It seems that the link for 'big rubber duck' was inadvertently removed before the blurbs were moved from the prep area (currently in queue 1). Unless there's some good reason why it should not be linked, could someone restore it please before it goes live? Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Done. Harrias ^talk 07:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have just noticed that the hook for Leni Yahil here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue/3 -- needs to have a space between the words "advocated" and "a". Can someone please fix this as soon as possible? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Done. Harrias ^talk 07:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I really and sincerely appreciate it. Futurist110 (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that according to DYK rules that any editor with 5 or more DYK credits, regardless of how they got the credit, is required to complete a QPQ review. However the editor at Template:Did you know nominations/Khrushchev: The Man and His Era has disagreed with that interpretation and states that only their self-noms should count towards the quota. Now I asked the editor to kindly consider doing a QPQ anyways, in light of our current backlog of unreviewed noms, and to make the review go more smoothly but they have apparently declined so I am putting the nomination on hold until we can more clarification on the QPQ criteria. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why it should be restricted to self-nominations. If you nominate your own work, and 5 of your articles have already been featured, you complete a QPQ review. Simple as that.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rule does not clarify this. I feel we should clarify the rule to explicitly state self-noms and noms for others both count towards the "5 required" rule. PumpkinSky talk 13:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]