Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 129

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131→Archive 135

Is DYK a hobby?

It is not immediately clear what hobby Fram is referring to with the statement that I "should find another hobby where you can do less harm." Perhaps he is referring to the building of prep sets, where my philosophy is to fill a set when I see that several are empty and queue-builders will have difficulty moving prep sets on. I wouldn't really call this a hobby, but rather helping the DYK process, being a cog in a machine to move things along. I doubt my record here is any worse than that of anybody else, its just that I have persisted when others have given up.

More likely, Fram is referring to all my participation in Wikipedia, hoping to drive me away from DYK or Wikipedia altogether. Now Fram has his good points, but has a domineering personality and has largely "taken over" DYK. He has a laudable ability to discover facts that others have missed and root out erroneous statements in hooks. You could even call this a useful attribute if it were not used to humiliate, denigrate and hound others. So what of my "hobby"? If you look at my recent efforts through my "contributions" tab or my talk page, you will see what I think is an impressive legacy of activity and improved articles. Now look at Fram's contributions and talk page and you will see a depressing array of negativity. Even Fram's evidence at the TRM arbitration hearing was off topic, being a diatribe against me. Fram has been pretty successful at driving other editors away from DYK and Wikipedia, but he is not going to succeed with me, so it's best if he stops trying. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hear Hear. Don't let anybody push you around Cwmhiraeth. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Just look at the Büning discussion above. I have no problem with the other editors on that hook, they made an error, I point it out, they accept it, no problem (just like people pointing out why my evidence or interpretation of it are wrong are no problem). But we have one editor who first insists that it isn't an error, only to afterwards reveal that he didn't even understand the hook source and accepted it in good faith. Revealing your very problematic behaviour (on this and other DYKs where you were in the wrong but insisted that you were right against all the evidence) may be humiliating to you, but it's a humiliation of your own doing. I have no interest in driving you away from Wikipedia, though if the way you go about it outside of DYK is comparable to what you do here, it may be a good idea for you anyway. But the good work you do is no excuse to disrupt DYK and attempt to get your errors (hooks you wrote or accepted) on the main page even after others have pointed them out.
As for my talk page, I see a first section "Thank you so much", a second section "Great! Thanks again", a third section with a standard friendly message, a fourth about a page that has been deleted, a fifth with "Thank you! ", and so on and so on (this is not a cleaned version, it's just the way the messages were entered since my last archiving). Even when I start looking at sections started in 2016, the first one is "Thanks", the second is an award, then a few standard questions, a "thanks" for an unblock, inbetween a few DYK credits, a barnstar, further standard discussions, thanks from different people... The "depressing array of negativity" seems to be mostly missing, apart from interactions with you mainly, and a few people disgruntled because I deleted their article.
Finally, my Arbcom evidence; "The Committee will also hear evidence setting those disputes in context, particularly on matters related to ITN and DYK." Your behaviour and comments at DYK is relevant context for the kind of bullshit TRM, I, and others involved in keeping errors away from the Main Page, have to deal with on a near-daily basis. And in that sense, yes, your record is a lot worse than that of most others here. Fram (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I’d like to thank Cwmhiraeth for the vast amount of work they have done for Wikipedia. Their User page is awash with articles created and barnstars from others. It shows a lot of hard work. It’s a great shame when discussion degenerates into a slanging match of “I am right and you are wrong”. I’ve often found that the sources on which DYK hooks are based are open to interpretation. It’s not pleasant to be insulted for pursuing what one believes to be a perfectly legitimate point of debate. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Having closely monitored Cwmhiraeth's work over many weeks, and crowned her the winner of several contests, I can safely say that she's easily one of the most productive editors we have on the site, arguably better than anybody at basic improvements in bulk, which is work we badly need, and a lot of people aren't bothering to do. I'd say given the amount of work she produces, errors are inevitable. It's good that Fram points ouut errors, but he has the tendency to operate like a bad smell at times and seems to enjoy picking on editors instead of genuinely just trying to improve wikipedia. Fram, you could be a bit nicer to people at times and less bullyish and you know it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Have you even looked at the above Büning discussion. It's not a case of "being open for interpretation" and "a perfectly legitimate point", it's defending a hook based on a source he can't even understand. I have no problem with Cwmhiraeth continuing to do his hard work, as long as he avoids his problem areas. If too often hooks he proposes or accepts have to be rejected afterwards, and worse if he continues to defend such hooks without understanding the issues or the source involved, then that is a problem here, at DYK. Being good at other things at Wikipedia doesn't give him immunity here or the right to put his errors on the main page. Fram (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
We can assume Cwmhiraeth is a he, then. Your diktat "as long as he avoids his problem areas" sounds particularly patronising. I don't think you, or anyone else, "has to deal" with anything "on a daily basis." That's your choice? Your "hobby" perhaps? I'm sure you have very good motives for wanting in keep DYK up to scratch, but I'm sorry to say that your comments to others often come across as belittling and demotivating. It certainly puts me off contributing to DYK in case I get something wrong. As regards Eleonore Büning, I'd be more than happy to accept any advice regarding an "understanduing of German" from Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
DYK has to deal with these things on a daily basis. I am one of those now trying to keep the errors of the main page, but of course I don't have to do this. I choose to check DYK hooks to keep errors from the main page. Cwmhiraeth chooses to nominate, review and promote hooks. Fine, but if you choose to do something on Wikipedia, you need to have the necessary competence to do so. The more prominent the activity you choose to do, the higher the standards become. Putting DYK hooks on the Main Page is one of the more high-profile activities, and when you too often get it wrong (for whatever reason), and are unable to accept corrections, then you need to be demotivated from continuing that activity. Fram (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Cwmhiraeth, I hope you will continue to build sets because set builders are very important to the running of this project and we rarely have enough of them. I've said before and I'll say it again that just putting a varied set together is a task requiring a lot of attention and I think it unreasonable to expect that those engaged in the task thoroughly check every aspect of a nomination into the bargain. That just makes it too big of a job and if we demand that of set builders nobody is ever going to bother putting a set together in the first place. Of course, set builders should do a quick check for obvious problems but they can't be expected to do everything. It is the initial reviewer who is in the best position to thoroughly check all aspects of a nomination, and after that, the administrator promoting the set to the queue, these are the users who should be taking prime responsibility for quality control, not set builders who have many other demands on their attention. Gatoclass (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Not having enough set builders is less of a problem than having sloppy ones. The basic demands are not "thoroughly check every aspect of a nomination", but "thoroughly check the hook" at least. And if you don't do that, then at least accept the pull of a hook from someone who has done that. Gatoclass, if you want to change the instructions for prep builders, you are free to propose this, but at the moment, their instructions are at Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook, and one of the instructions clearly is "4) Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated)." Hook review is one of the basic requirements of prep builders, and indicating that they can ignore this will only make DYK worse than it too often already is. Fram (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Fram, with all due respect, you have never done any set building or queue promoting. Your contribution to DYK consists essentially of popping over here now and again when you're in the mood to check a hook or two to see if you can find a flaw. That's an order of magnitude easier than working to keep the project running day after day. If you've never built a set yourself, then you don't know just how difficult and time-consuming it can be just to find seven or eight appropriate hooks, let alone thoroughly check them for errors.
What I will say, from the point of view of a set verifier/queue promoter, is that I would much rather see a couple of completed sets containing a few errors in the preps than no sets at all. If I have the basics of a set to build on, I can always toss a couple of erroneous nominations and find a couple to replace them with somewhere, but if there is no set in prep, I am faced with the herculean task of both finding a balanced set of eight hooks and verifying them, and even with all the experience I have had at DYK, that is just too much to do. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
If it is too time-consuming and difficult, then they should do something else. But if you do it, you have to do it right. I do love it though that you consider "checking a hook or two to see if you can find a flaw" so easy. If it is so easy to find these errors, then why haven't the promotor or reviewer or nominator found them? What I get is that you consider it more important to have this running day after day (no noms rejected ever preferably, see the discussion above) than to have the main page as error-free as possible. You may not mind a few errors in the prep sets, but the problem is that too many of those make it to queues and main page, despite the magnitude easier task of finding these errors. You are aware that promoters don't need to build full sets? You can just bring one or two correct hooks to a prep area, done, no problem. You are not required to build the whole set on your own. "if there is no set in prep, I am faced with the herculean task of both finding a balanced set of eight hooks and verifying them" just isn't true. If there is no set in prep, then the set on the main page will stay up a bit longer. If that happens too often, we should reconsider whether DYK needs 8 hooks and couldn't be reduced to less hooks (just like we already have reduced the number of queues per day, without Wikipedia collapsing because of it). Having new sets is less important than having correct sets. Fram (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Fram, if you say you don't have to build the prep yourself yet appear quite blase about how much work that goes into it, why don't you have a go at it? If you think it isn't hard, come and have a go if you think you're up to it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Please reread my comment. Gatoclass was the one being blasé about how little effort goes into finding errors. I have made no comment about how easy or hard it is to build prep sets. Fram (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Fram, I never said it was "easy" to verify hooks. If it was easy, none of us would be having this discussion. What I said is that it's much easier to just drop by now and again and check out a hook or two than it is to build and verify entire updates, week in week out. Nor did I say it was "more important" to keep DYK running than to ensure an acceptable standard of quality control. And neither have I ever advocated "no noms rejected ever preferably", that is completely incorrect. If I had my druthers, rest assured that there would be plenty of hooks and articles getting the flick. However, Wikipedia works by consensus, and coming up with ideal solutions in an environment where nobody is in charge but everybody has an equal say on everything that happens, can as most experienced Wikipedians recognize, be diabolically difficult. And just because I happen to oppose one particular proposal does not mean that I don't recognize that a problem exists or that I'm not open to other possible solutions. It doesn't work like that. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You certainly did your best to give those impressions. But if you get the impression that I only drop by now and again, I'll have to make sure to be here even more often, no? Fram (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You can spend as much time as you like on quality control, the more the merrier. Just as long as you're not making a song and dance about it every time you find an error. Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I got complaints when I pulled errors without noting it here, or without pinging the editors whose hook was pulled. When I don't include my evidence, I get flak for overruling three or four others ("consensus"!) on a whim. And when I do note it here with pings and evidence, I get compaints that I shouldn't be "making a song and dance about it". But apart from all that, I'm more than welcome to continue my quality control... No matter how I do it, people complain, so I'll continue doing it the same way. Fram (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It's great that we can all just pitch in, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep set

I have no interest to go into the technical aspects of how to promote a set of hooks to a prep area (closing the nom and so on), but apart from that, here is a complete prep set of 8 hooks. Fram (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

One would think that anyone who is an Admin, who is constantly correcting what others do, would have enough self-respect to read how to promote a set to Prep. "I have no interest" is not productive. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not too bad for a first effort Fram, but I note you have included four hooks about buildings - Igloo Church, Wonder Gardens, Lettonie Restaurant and Kingston Lacy house. Moreover, two of these are about entertainment venues. One should never have more than two hooks on buildings in a set, and really, not more than one entertainment venue. So as you can see, it's not as easy to come up with a balanced set as it might look from the outside. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps because having a balanced set is not really what I care about (and an article on a restaurant is an article about a business, not really about a building, in any case). ANyway, split them over two prep sets and you have 8 vetted hooks for free. Fram (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I have moved them all to prep 4, not because I want to dismiss your concerns about a balanced set, but because now you just have to move them to whatever set you want, without needing to close them (and this way my name is attached to the promotion, so people can criticize the right person if necessary). If I made any mistakes in the promotions, please let me know. Fram (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not only did construction of the Igloo Church begin without a building permit, but the article clearly says it was completed without a permit? The authority concerned seems to have been "particularly sloppy" there, don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC) I guess they "didn't really care" about strict regulations, did they?

I've pulled the John Ellenby hook as it is factually incorrect. It says it "who created one of the first laptop computers", though the article says it was one of the first commercially successful laptops - prototypes were available a decade earlier and IBM attempted to market portables in the mid-1970s, plus the Epson HX-20 might predate it, though mass production wasn't. Also the Grid Compass says it was designed by Bill Moggridge, not Ellenby. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Fram making yet another error over DYK, isn't it bad enough already without more errors from Fram too? ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
"yet another"? This one isn't even an error. I have explained at the DYK page, but for starters, the IBM 1970 models were portable computers, while the hook is about laptop computers instead. Even if the Epson predated it (which isn't clear), it was at most by three months, so "one of the first" seems perfectly correct. And the hook didn't say that Ellenby designed the laptop, he co-founded the company, who designed it. The hook seems to be perfectly correct, but if necessary can be rewritten to be clearer of course. Fram (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Everyone but Ritchie has indicated at the DYK nomination that the hook I promoted was indeed correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 11:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
So everyone disagrees with my views - big deal. I've always thought Tony Kaye was a better fit in Yes than Rick Wakeman, but many people disagree with that. It doesn't really matter though, everyone has moved on, suggested alts and come up with a better hook. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not argue endlessly how right we are. Don't be a poor winner. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm just trying to imagine the backlash I would have gotten if I had pulled a hook for such poor reasons... You shouldn't pull a hook (or put your own hook back in) because of "different views" but because you have a) understood the hook (which you didn't here) and b) found evidence that it is wrong (which you didn't here either). Someone not correcting his statement that a hook is "factually incorrect" is a poor loser, if you feel the need to play this as a winners-losers game. Fram (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Nobody else cares. This discussion is over. Have you got an article to write? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Anything else, your highness? Of course you want this discussion to be over, as it shows that you are as good in judging someone else's hooks as those you wrote yourself, and as good in finding errors as you are in acknowledging them. Fram (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Fram, for promoting Kingston Lacy. The hook is correct, but in changing the year in the article you introduced an error. Ralph Bankes died in 1981 and bequeathed the Kingston Lacy estate to the National Trust, but they did not accept it until 1982. The National Trust does not accept all the properties they are offered. I have changed the wording in the article to try to clarify this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow, given the Arbcom case is (somewhat/incredibly/utterly biased) called "The Rambling Man", you guys are certainly working well on filling it up with examples of why DYK should be examined closely. Don't be ashamed, the Ref Desks and ITN (to an extent, although it's a far classier environs than here) are also getting a share of the observations. I wouldn't be surprised to see motions filed to at least examine the shortcomings exhibited daily by this project, so please be prepared for a few months of dramaz. Don't say I didn't warn you, you're all on the big stage now! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think it cleared the air quite well and set the scene for what I hope is a new era, a less-confrontational and more cooperational approach to DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think it will spotlight a few individuals who are clearly incompetent, who continually make and promote errors to the main page, despite dozens, if not hundreds of discussion points, even this year alone, where the usual response is "well, we're human after all!". The same mistakes continue to be made, and I look forward to the three or four individuals here being seriously scrutinised to see if they are really fit for purpose. After all, Arbcom need to do something so identifying those who are responsible for the majority of the errors and correcting their behaviour one way or another would seem a good idea! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The source used in the article says that it was given in 1982, not that it was accepted then.[1] Looking at other sources, one can find both 1981 and 1982 as the year it was bequeathed[2]. Fram (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
In English law a bequest cannot be immediately accepted when it is "made", as it requires the provision of a will which needs to be proven via the due process of probate. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Attitude blurs the message

So none of you know me, but I have worked in IT for 20 years, often dealt with implementing quality improvements and initiatives as well as helping transforms departments. Why am I telling you this? Because I see a need for DYK to make some positive changes and I see some of the issue that have stood in the way of improvement projects I have been on. So with the spirit of wanting to help improve the quality at DYK I offer the following observation

  • Attitudes kills the message

TRM and Fram have great intentions, a reduction in errors on the main page. That to me should be the end goal for everyone and definitely the end goal for any improvement suggestions we try to implement. Unfortunately the negativity of both (especially TRM) gets in the way of that message. No one wants to listen to someone who does nothing but put people down, badmouth the entire DYK community and basically go on and on. That attitude gets in the way of what they are trying to accomplish. Case in point, it was brought up by TRM several times to go to 1 set of hooks today, often presented in the "colorful" way that Rambsy works and never went anywhere. When we had a constructive, positive discussion about it we actually came to the conclusion to go to 1 set of hooks per day. This could probably have been achieved sooner if the attitude did not get in the way of the message. Comments like "Slag heap" and pretending like everyone who works on DYKs are idiots who are trying to get errors on the main page is not really helping anything. Can I quote myself from a previous post? Yes, yes I can.

  • Don't be a douche - if issues are found with your hook, work with people to solve them instead of whining and crying, be responsive, people are trying to help get your hook correctly on the main page.
  • Don't be a douce part deux - Assume good faith when a mistake slips through, it's most likely not an evil plot to subvert Wikipedia or make millions of dollars off that sweet front page exposure. Repeat offenders who do not show any sign of at least trying to help fix the issue and learn from their mistakes can get the AGF aspects nullified.

In conclusion it is all about the attitude - positive attitudes with a constructive mindset makes all the difference in the word and will actually lead to change. Negativity just leads to more negativity.  MPJ-DK  01:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

TLDR, bottom line is that certain members of this project have their head in the sand. Without direct action, the errors, the dull hooks, the arcane processes &c. will persist and the project will die. As for the claims of "colorful" suggestions to go to one set, it was just about you all getting a grip on the situation. I noted repeatedly, calmly and clearly that reducing the throughput to one set per day would increase the time people had to re-review all the reviews and promotions in an attempt to reduce sub-quality tat being posted to the main page. It was a pretty simple message and I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough for some of you. And I don't think Fram or I have ever called anyone idiots here, just lacking in competence. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Disappointing but not surprising. So when this arbcom thing you keep threatening eventually comes up I guess you would rather be seen as part of the problem, personally I would rather be part of the solution, but to each their own. Good luck with that then, hope you have fun buddy.  MPJ-DK  13:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Heh, you've got it arse about face. The problem is not editors pointing out failings in process, incompetent individuals who repeatedly fail, arcane rulesets which pay no heed to the quality of articles or hookiness of hooks. The problem is with the massive inertia that exists against any changes, or reporting of suggestions for changes. If you think DYK is something to be proud of, you need to think again. I'm not interested in the Arbcom case, I'm continuing to do the job I believe is important, and that's maintaining the integrity of the main page. It's a shame there are so few people willing to do that, in the face of these kinds of mass hysteria about a broken process, I"m not surprised. And if you consider fun to be re-checking at least the quality of every single target article linked to by DYK folk, then yes, that's what I'll continue to do. I don't see much from you, so I'd stop throwing those stones, glasshouse buddy! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So let me ask you this - if there is an "intertian against change" do you think your negative attitude perhaps increases that? I mean someone says "hey you guys suck, listen to me" is not really going to find a lot of attentive listeners in the audience, it is a self-fullfilling prophecy. And you don't see much from me? who cares what you see? I'm trying to be a positive addition to the DYK process, be it making sure preps are filled to give more time to review or make constructive suggestions on improvements or whatever else I can do, you may not care (and I don't care if you care) but I am trying to actually get some improvements in quality through instead of just complaining.  MPJ-DK  20:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Either you have no idea what I contribute to the DYK articles every single day, or the suggestions here for more interesting hooks, more stable output, higher quality output, or you're just deliberately talking past me. Either way, waving some flag that says all I'm doing is complaining is so far off the mark as to be laughable. As I said, I see nothing from you other than this continual rejection of a demand for a higher quality project through inaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Inactive nominations

Would it make sense to put some sort of timeframe on these nominations? what I am talking about is if a review has been done and the nominator etc. need to address issues but nothing is done for over a week. I say those nominations should be closed as abandoned instead of sitting on the nomination page stagnant. It would take it off the page and allow us to focus on nominations where the editors are actively engaged.  MPJ-DK  02:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Historically, we have done that, but I think some of the users who used to take care of that sort of thing are no longer very active here. I certainly have no objection to nominations being rejected if the nominator hasn't responded within a reasonable period of time. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So it would be okay if I ping'ed people if a thread has sat inactive for 7 days, giving them 2 days to respond and then close the nomination if nothing happens? We have a space issue on the nomination page it seems and I would like to remove anything that does not have a shot at the front page.  MPJ-DK  07:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I think 2 weeks is more fair, especially for new nominators. With the dearth of reviewers we have right now, someone can nominate an article and wait weeks before it is reviewed. They're not exactly keeping an eye on the nominations page the way we DYK regulars are. Then there's a review and they may be on a break or busy with other articles. Pinging them after 2 weeks, and then giving them a week (not 2 days!) to respond, will wrap up the nomination within 3 weeks, which is one week less than the month we've been giving until now. Yoninah (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Seven days from a talk-page ping (pings from the nomination don't always work) is standard; two days is inadequate. However, it's typical after that to add an X icon due to lack of response and have someone else close it; the closes usually happen fairly soon after. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So in general it is about a 30 day timeframe with no input before it it closed? At GA it is more around 7 daysbwith no input and GAs can wait for MONTHS to be reviewed, surprised it is that long for a DYK.  MPJ-DK  14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Different approach to "Boring"

So I am not in favor of the "let's vote on 21" suggestion, but instead of just criticising I figured I should try to come at this with a solution, not just a complaint, trying to be some positive vibes to this. So I am trying to build a few prep areas, checking hooks and spot checking articles. I came across this nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Under Armour All-America Baseball Game with a hook of

  • " ... that Under Armour has been the title sponsor of the Under Armour All-America Baseball Game since 2008?"

Which to me reads a little boring, basically "Company X sponsors event with Company X name in the title". I find it boring myself, but it is subjective and in this case I'm on the fence on yea/nay for even moving the hook. So here is my suggestion - Bring an approved but possibly boring hook to the talk page and have people give input on if they think it's boring or not to get other opinions. And if it is boring perhaps other eyes on the article could help determine if there even is an interesting hook in the article. So what does everyone think? Both of the approach and the hook listed? Figured it's worth a try myself.  MPJ-DK  03:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. While my opinions on the subjectiveness of "boring" is well known, I see no problem with a bit of community collaboration to see if there is a better hook that could be used for the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Tedious hook, not even a "hook". Just a plain statement of fact. Did you know that X sponsored X Games? BORING. A prime example of the sad state that DYK has accepted as normality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So continuing this in a positive vibe I pinged the creator and gave a couple of suggestions that to me seem less boring, I figured a fresh set of eyes may come up with something different. Yes this would require a second review, but better to have a new review than the alternative of a boring hook. I came up with the following (I did not do any links yet)  MPJ-DK  01:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1= ... that Cal Ripken was the official ambassador for the Under Armour All-America Baseball Game several years?
  • ALT2= ... that Kyler Murray was the first player to play in both the Under Armour All-America Baseball Game and Under Armour All-America Football Game?
  • ALT3= ... that The Under Armour High School All-America Baseball Game is played at Wrigley Field?
The Kyler Murray hook is the only one that seems of general interest, even though "firsts" are tricky: I may not know Murray, but he played in All-America football and baseball, and being that good at two major sports isn't that usual, though it does happen. (I corrected typos in ALT2 and ALT3.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mexican politicians

Here's a comment regarding the currently trend of posting one Mexican politician per set, from an uninvolved editor. Some feedback the project should listen to I suspect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • So basically the question is if there is a bias in what someone choose to write about, which there is a natural bias/preference of course - we only write about what we personally want to write about since it is voluntary. That is the same bias anyone has as a voluntary editor, not sure that is a unique DYK challenge, nor if there is actually anything that range done short of topic bans (I am not advocating this, that would be to punish someone because no one else covers a specific topic). Now if an individual user has a POV they were pushing that would be different.  MPJ-DK  22:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Everyone writes about their area of expertise and, as in this case, keeps writing on the same subject in abundance. I think that TRM has identified a way to avoid this overexposure, though, and that is by not running same-subject articles in every set, or even in every other set. Yoninah (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Having a long spate of hooks (Mexican politicians, wrestlers, whatever) on a subject for which there is no current event or anniversary can be seen as undermining the credibility of DYK, the main page or even Wikipedia itself. All new content should be welcomed, subject to notability criteria of course; we just need to find a way of reducing the frequency of hooks on any one such subject. Yoninah is right. Perhaps this is best addressed by an expansion of the rules. Edwardx (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Having a "filter" adds to the credibility of DYK? Interesting take on such a restriction. DYK isba subset of what people are adding each day. The subsection consists of layers of "unwritten" filters already 1) those that even know that anyone can submit a DYK 2) those that then care to even try 3) those that can navigate the rules without quitting, 4) those who are willing to.do DYK and finally 5) Those willing to put up with bad attitudes and flaming hoops to jump through in certain cases. That is keeping the variety down, those who have "cracked the code " on DYK are repeat custokets, those that don't do not come in at all. MPJ-DK  19:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to confess that I don't understand some of what you've written there. My original post was simply to highlight the fact that someone outside of the project, and by the looks of things, a normal reader, was dissatisfied with the endless Mexican politician parade that has beset DYK for some weeks now. The articles are sadly dull, the hooks similarly, this is a "by the numbers" exercise which really isn't going to be enjoyed by our readers. If DYK wants to draw in new editors or encourage the development of new articles, it needs to vary what it posts, and not just in a set. Let's put a moratorium on Mexican politicians, perhaps allow one every four days, and work around it that way. With the Star Trek three-dayer coming up, that gives the project plenty of time to get some hooks ready that aren't just run-of-the-mill minor Mexican politicians. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That's okay, neither do I (rimshot). And actually, the question was "why only living Mexican Politicians?" not "why so many?". There was no outside concern about the volume as such, only why they were all on living politicians, which is a matter of selection bias - not topic bias.  MPJ-DK  20:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So build a new rule based on a misapplication of one question by one person? Seems like an over-reaction and again not appropriate to the actual question that was asked.  MPJ-DK  20:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not interested in continually crafting more and more arcane rules into this already creaking machine. Just use some common sense and stop promoting endless hooks about dull-as-dishwater Mexican politicians. And while it may not be 100% aligned with the original question, we've evolved the discussion since then so I guess it's time to catch up with the "other" problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

To give another example (@Gerda Arendt:) Max Reger, a notable but not exceptionally so composer (one can easily name 20 contemporaries who are a lot more known than Reger, from Debussy and Ravel to Sibelius and Richard Strauss); (linked part of a DYK hook on 4 May, 6 May, 9 May, 10 May, 11 May, 12 May (pictured), 13 May, 15 May, 17 May, 18 May (pictured); then a gap, and then; 16 July (pictured!), 21 July, 22 July, 26 July, 27 July, 1 August, 7 August (pictured!), 16 August, and then today (plus 1 in the nominations, again with picture!!)

Nothing here was against the rules, and yet this seems excessive. Getting the same composer on the Main Page 18 times in 4 months, three times with his picture added, is unbalancing DYK. Some rules to restrict the numbers of DYKS per topic and per period would be useful. Fram (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Per topic? Unless topic is defined as narrowly as "related to Reger" then putting the kibosh on another composer seems counter productive to me. A "Topic limit" would first have to define what a topic is, too wide and it is too restrictive, too narrow and it is pointless. And I agree with Gerda, balance is an inherent challenge when dealing with people writing out of desire and not because they "have to". If we were talking about guidelines for how to space topics out so specialized subjects don't generally run back-to-back that is a different matter.  MPJ-DK  16:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Rules Creep coming to an IMAX theatre near you! See for yourself as Wikipedians get lost in a maze more diabolical than any horror film ever made. The screams! The head banging rages! The bugged-out eyes and gasping for breath! — Maile (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
2016 is Reger year, see [3]. We had a lot of Britten in 2013 and Sibelius in 2015. The Wikipedia Main page has not been balanced since I observe it, just look at the percentage of hurricanes and mushrooms among the TFAs, and sadly more battles than peace treaties. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice if featured articles were spread evenly across the range of subjects, but they aren't. We have to work with what we have, and we schedule TFAs as far as possible in accordance with the proportions of each subject within the available pool of featured articles. This has been explained about a thousand times before, but the same old complaint still gets trotted out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Brian, I think we agree, I didn't complain, just observe that due to the personal interests of us editors it will not be "balanced". I tried at least to "promote" a composer who is celebrated worldwide this year, not my brother ;) - I was ashamed when I saw how few of his compositions were covered in an article. Any help with the biography is still welcome. Cassianto, may I remind you of what you said on the talk? - If you want to listen, a YouTube link is on top of my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
2016 is not only Reger year (according to whom?), but also Satie-year, Dutillieux-year, Menuhin-year... And a hook like "... that Max Reger's Zwölf Stücke, Op. 80, for organ contains nine pieces composed in 1904 and three from 1902?" fails the "interesting" aspect rather badly.

Actually, and in all seriousness, WP:TFA is often criticised for featuring "too many video games!!!!" or "too many mushrooms!!!!". I could be wrong but I believe that a regular there (Brianboulton) keeps tabs on the overall numbers of FAs in rough categories and also overall numbers of featured FAs, to check that, proportionally, they are approximately equivalent. In other words, that the TFA selection reflects approximately the number of FAs that are within that broad category. DYK could use that kind of approach, rather than just saying, well hey, we have three hundred hooks about dull Mexican politicos, let's feature one per set, our English-speaking audience are bound to be interested in minor and inconsequential Mexican political bios once (or twice!) a day for a year or so... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I keep a table here, updated each month, showing how we're doing in terms of proportional representation at TFA. The theoretical aim is that at the end the year the right-hand column will contain all zeroes, which is unlikely to happen, although we'll try to get near. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't we just use the "interesting to a broad audience" provision to keep some of these hooks off the main page? Some arguably fail the "interesting" criterion to start with, and a law of diminishing returns suggests that each successive hook in a relatively short time frame will be even less interesting. Edwardx (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • There are a couple of Mexican politician hooks that are sitting and approved - if someone wants to give them an "is this interesting" assessment it'd be appreciated.  MPJ-DK  21:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    Sadly, the "this is interesting" brigade died a death when people like EEng stopped contributing here. Regardless of methodology, at least he and other like-minded editors were mindful of the fact that DYK should never be "DYK that A is a footballer who played for B during the C-D season?" (or, in this case "DYK Pablo Dominguez was a politician for the ABC party who won a seat for the DEF party"). Yes, hookiness is subjective but nine times out of ten, reviews are not bothered by that. Hence we have a backlog of Mexican politicians to come.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
"When Mexico sends its hooks, they're not sending their best. They’re not sending Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators. They’re not sending the corporate CEO grilled on the witness stand. They're sending hooks that have lots of problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good hooks."– EEng
The preceeding Fence will naturally be paid for by those pesty Ostriches. ;-)  MPJ-DK 
With the recent string of Mexican politicians, and to a lesser extent the Mexican wrestlers, never since the (still ongoing?) drumbeat of Pennsylvania creeks and streams have we had such an extensive run of hooks, day after day, calculated to make readers say, "Jesus! I'm so tired of reading about [fill in blank]!" I'll say again we should be taking only 1/3 to 1/2 of submissions, based on a straight gut-feeling vote on "interestingness". EEng 21:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A-Hem, Mexican wrestling shows thank you very much, I have not done a lot of wrestler bios recently ;-) If I am being held up as an example I would like it to be for what I actually did ;-) Re: "We should only be taking 1/2 of submission" - I do want to repeat a statement I have made weeks ago It is okay to fail a DYK - GAs and FAs fail every single day, but very few DYKs outright fail - they either get abandoned or someone retires, very few end up with a "thanks, but no thanks" fail.  MPJ-DK  22:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So based on comments by Mr. Rambler hisself catching up with the "other" problem, what is the actual suggestion here? I see some go "topic restrictions" and some go "space them out" and others say "Be less boring"? So to some as long as they're interesting they can go every day, others are okay with mundane as long as they're not a daily thing. Is that where we're at? the cross-roads of "Boring" and "regular"?  MPJ-DK  22:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: I think the problem with the Mexican-politician-in-every-prep-set started when we didn't have enough hooks to fill two daily prep sets of 7 hooks each. That problem has been solved with our new cycle of 8 hooks every 24 hours. The slower burn rate has also led to an increased in reviewed hooks, now over 50 (from just over 30, as I remember it was before). As a promoter, however, you are the last line of approval for a hook. If you think it's dull, don't promote it, and write something to that effect on the nomination template. So many reviewers just pass things automatically to get their QPQ. We have to make DYK hooky again! Yoninah (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I think a 1-in-3 for Mexican politicians when we actually have several approved Mex-Pol hooks would probably be okay for frequency - just like that one time there were like.... oh I don't know 70 IWRG wrestling show hooks we had the same challenge, fortunately, sanity has prevailed and there are not as may IWRG show hooks to choose from so the regulation of how often they appear on the main seems to have self-regulated (Well that and if I build six preps fully then they will not have any of my hooks in them).  MPJ-DK  01:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • When Donald Trump is president, he's going to build a wall to keep uninteresting hooks out. And In The News is going to pay for it! Uninteresting hooks will be sent back to their nom pages, and will have to reapply! There will be no automatic path to the Main Page! EEng 01:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • While @MPJ-DK: is quite right that it should be okay to fail a DYK, even on the "interesting hook" criterion, I also think some awareness of this on part of the nominators is in order. Many editors here, myself included, work on strings of closely related articles. In these circumstances, we need to remember that not all of them are DYK material. For instance, I have created a number of articles about snakes in the genus Lycodon, but I nominated only one of them here: because only one of them had material in it that was more than pure routine. This is not to say that those articles are worthless: of course not. Boring Run-of-the-mill short articles on obscure topics are absolutely necessary: they just may not be suitable for the main page. Vanamonde (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately DYK has long been the Special Olympics of Wikipedia: everyone's a winner! No one can bear to pass judgment or hurt anyone's feelings. EEng 06:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the problem really is, who decides what is interesting and what is not? Perhaps one person would find 10% of hooks uninteresting, while another, 50%. There's a lot of subjectivity with regards to this criterion, not only because people differ in what they find interesting, but because "interesting" is hard to define in concrete terms. Probably the easiest standard to apply is to ask oneself whether the hook highlights something unusual. Common, everyday or mundane events obviously fail that test, so that is one thing at least reviewers should be on the lookout for. Gatoclass (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Who decides? Editors who want to participate decide. It's subjective? Editors make lots of subjective decisions. But unlike almost everything else we do at Wikipedia, it's not a question of getting something "right" -- it's just a question of gut appeal. I've said this a million times: just vote on the hooks, and the top X vote-getters are the ones that appear on Main Page. EEng 07:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
EEng, we barely have enough reviewers to keep up with the backlog. Where are we going to get a committee to !vote on each and every hook? This is just not practical IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the "hookiness" vote is the first step, which would effectively reduce the backlog by rejecting DYKs that aren't actually interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How to quickly and easily decide which hooks are interesting, and cut review workload in half at the same time

That's right, TRM. Gatoclass, I don't get it. You and I had this exact discussion not even a month ago. Don't you remember? I'm pasting this description in from that discussion:

"Interesting" hooks are selected, [clarification added:] from among incoming nominations -- all this happens before the normal review process -- with no discussion, no consensus -- just raw vote counts based on gut reaction, like this:
  • Every day, 21 hooks are randomly chosen to be gathered in a set to be voted on.
  • Everyone gets to vote for up to 7 of these. When the day's votes are in...
  • The bottom 7 are struck permanently -- too unpopular.
  • The middle 7 are marginal -- unclear if they're interesting enough. These are returned to the main pool so that sooner or later they end up in a new set of 21 to be voted on. (These 7 don't move as a block, they just all go back into the pool to swim around again until one by one each ends up in a new voting-set-of-21 selected from the whole pool.) This might happen to a given hook two or three times, but every hook eventually ends up either in the top 7 or the bottom 7, deciding its final fate.
  • The top 7 hooks are "interesting", and pass on to the usual stages of review etc.
This produces 7 interesting hooks per day to go on to the review stage. Assuming about 1 in 7 doesn't actually pass review, that gives us 6 per day to go on the main page. (Yes, 6. We're only going to run 6 DYKs per day.) The beauty of this is that we eliminate 1/2 of the noms right at the door, before any significant brainpower at all is spent on them -- nothing more than the gut, "Wow! That's interesting!"
Obviously the specific numbers are adjusted according to the rate at which noms are coming in and the actual # we want to run each day.
EEng 21:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly this is a sea change for DYK who have traditionally pretty much guaranteed to run every single nomination, regardless of whether it's of any interest. I am certainly in favour of the principle of jettisoning dull hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  • My response to this proposal is the same as it was last time EEng, which I will now repeat for your benefit: while I sympathize with your vision of more interesting hook sets, I don't believe a process like this would significantly improve them. If you look through the DYK archives, you will occasionally see a standout hook but most are pretty run of the mill no matter how you cut it. A very small number of hooks are genuine dogs, but far less than a third, so under a process like this, you would be penalizing a third of nominators quite arbitrarily in order to get rid of the occasional dog. Not a very fair or efficient process IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not a third, it's half, and your worry about 'penalizing nominators' is at the heart of what's wrong with DYK. This shouldn't be about rewarding people or being fair, it's should be about getting good content onto the main page. If someone doesn't want the heartbreak of their nomination being rejected, they shouldn't nominate dull hooks or zillions of hooks on the same subject. This process isn't inefficient, but rather highly efficient since it kills half the nominations right at the door (of course, that proportion can be adjusted) thus releasing brainpower to do actually effective reviews on those left. The point isn't to eliminate 'dogs' but to select the best -- honestly, I'd kill 2/3 of moms, but I'll settle for 1/2. EEng 08:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
EEng, arithmetic is not my strong point but last time I checked, 7 was a third of 21, not a half.
And besides, hook interest is certainly not the only criterion by which nominations are judged. There are contributors to DYK who are able to supply excellent, FA-quality nominations who couldn't write a decent hook to save themselves. One also has to consider the quality of underlying articles, people who spend ten minutes writing a stubby 1500 byte article that happens to have a slightly better than average hook should not be getting preferential treatment over those who are submitting FA-quality content with slightly under-par hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In the described scenario, out of each set of 21 hooks, 7 are rejected and 7 accepted; thus an equal number are accepted and rejected i.e. 1/2 are rejected, 1/2 accepted. The 7 returned to the pool don't count.
  • DYK is for decent articles with interesting hooks, not really good articles with crappy hooks. If your first hook is rejected, you can renominate with a different hook. (Ask a creative friend to craft a new hook.) But sooner or later, to get in the door you have to have a better-than-average hook. I know this may amaze you, but I start and develop articles even though for one reason or another I don't expect them to appear as DYKs; to be perfectly blunt, people who lose their motivation if they can't get a DYK barnstar aren't likely to have any idea how to create quality content anyway, because good writing springs from a love of writing, not from a love of the spotlight. If you only get in the spotlight half the time, that will motivate you to do better. This is Main Page, remember? -- not the Special Olympics.
EEng 12:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
EEng, if 7 hooks go back to the pool, that means only 7 out of 21 hooks have been rejected. You appear to be even worse at arithmetic than me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me explain this using an analogy not entirely unlike the DYK process itself (stupefying boredom, the feeling that you must have done something awful in a past life to deserve punishment, the degradation of pointless busywork, etc.). Suppose you;re in hell, where you sit on a couch in front of a TV on which every channel shows nothing but Formula 1 racing for eternity. In front of you is a huge jar of jelly beans, and the punishment for your sins (in addition to watching Formula racing for all time) is to eat them.
Now and then an imp comes in to add a bean to the jar, so during the day it tends to fill up. To keep it from overflowing, Satan periodically reaches into the jar with his accursed hand and draws out 21 jelly beans. 7 of these he forces you to eat (i.e. are judged interesting and pass to the next stage of the DYK process); 7 he throws into a fiery pit (i.e. they're rejected); and 7 (for some reason) he puts back in the jar. He does this every day. Now, what proportion of the beans eventually end up in your gullet? Half. What proportion end up in the fiery pit? Half. The 7 that go back into the jar don't count, since their fate has been postponed for a while. Do you see now? EEng 13:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Deary me, what a macabre imagination, I didn't think DYK was quite that bad. But in response to the substance - if you start out with 21 jelly beans, and throw 7 away, you still have 14 jelly beans left, whether you decide to eat them all today or put half of them back in the jar for consumption tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, EEng is right, you eventually will feature about 50% of the hooks and dismiss about 50% of the hooks. Imagine, with easier to handle numbers, that you start with 145 hooks (and that for the sake of the example, no new hooks are added), and each day you feature 5, drop 5, and put 5 back into the holding area. After 10 iterations, you have featured 50, dropped 50, and put 50 back in the holding area. So far, your 33% seems to be right. However, now you again take 15 hooks a day from the holding area, for 3 days: you have featured an additional 15, dropped an additional 15, and put 15 back in the holding area. You can now do one more iteration, and end the series with 70 hooks featured, 70 dropped, and 5 still in the holding area. Eventually, by adding new hooks, the "featured" and "dropped" numbers will get closer and closer to 50% each. (I would also support a system as propsed by EEng or something similar) Fram (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the point is that the rate of consumption has to equal the rate of production. Historically, we have had a usual rate of 21 "jelly beans" per day, so if you "eat" 7, reject 7 and put 7 back in the jar, then your rate of consumption is only two-thirds of the rate of production and you have a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You can adjust the # accepted, rejected, and returned to pool so that the total matches the rate moms are coming in. EEng 16:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Regardless, I still think the idea is a non-starter, for a host of reasons. Gatoclass (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Please list them so we can discuss them in detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Well for one thing, I hate to see perfectly good jelly beans go to waste. Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Well they'll have been rejected for not being perfectly good. Got to get out of the mindset that every nom should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and one gets a bellyache from eating too many half-chewed, hurriedly swallowed jellybeans. Gatoclass, given that the explicit goal of this proposal is to have fewer DYKs appear each day, do you have any other objection? EEng 07:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to stand by what i said last time this was proposed. As the late great Margaret Thatcher once said; No, no, no. As i have to keep saying, interest is a subjective thing, it is not up to the DYK regulars to be the self-appointed guardians of what runs and what doesn't. It would also lead to enforcing systematic bias whereby the hooks would be mostly Western focused based on the majority of DYK contributors !voting. Trust me, this is not a good idea. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

it is not up to the DYK regulars... Each day a bot could invite 100 random editors to vote, so it wouldn't be DYK regulars voting. And Margaret Thatcher was a mean, abnormal creep. Are there any objections not equivalent to, "We should just run everything nominated"? EEng 08:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Inviting randoms is not a good idea (were you going to build a bot for that?). Mostly they would either ignore it through disinterest or view it as WP:SPAM or WP:CANVASS. Not to mention they will again still vote on personal opinions. Hooks should only run if they are verifiable, if they can't be then they won't run. That's the system we already have and it works well. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, inviting random people is a great idea, and the RfC bot would work perfectly. All your criticisms could be equally made about the way people are invited to RfCs.
  • the system we already have... works well. You must be kidding.
  • Personal opinion? Of course it's personal opinion. It's supposed to be personal opinion, because "being interesting" is a personal evaluation. Suppose with 1000 votes (100 people each voting for 10) spread over 21 candidate hooks...
  • the top 7 get 150, 120, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50;
  • the next 7 get 45, 40, 35, 30, 30, 30, 30
  • the bottom 7 get 25, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 15
...do you honestly think it's unreasonable to judge that the top 7 will be far more interesting to our general readership than will be the bottom 7? (Remember that, under my proposal, the top 7 are accepted, the bottom 7 rejected, and the middle 7 are returned to the pool to be voted on again another day). If XYZ Snacks Corp. has developed 21 nachos flavors, but only wants to bring 7 to market, they ask a sample of people. Of the flavors that get rejected, is there one that someone, somewhere would have liked? Yes. But we shouldn't try to be all things to all people; that's what DYK tries to do now, and it's exactly why it's such a slagheap of low-quality material.
EEng 21:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
A slagheap which is perpetuated by the regulars who don't see any problem with posting detritus to the main page. I'm bemused, amused and depressed, all at once, by the sad "by the numbers" approach in which the DYK regulars have become entrapped. Apparently, there's no problem, and apparently, even if a solution was proposed, it would be far too dangerous for DYK and its regulars (and its "new contributors", average edits = 10k+) to contemplate. Change is bad, noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, because the random 100 you ask (assuming all are interested in getting involved, which won't happen), they may well have 80 Western and 20 Eastern and the Western interests will be given precedence in DYK. And of course people get invited to RFCs because its an area they have edited in before, this proposal is just random indiscriminate bot invites. All DYKs should be treated equally as they are now so a wide variety of subjects are showcased while also ensuring there is none of that systematic bias that Wikipedia so often gets accused of. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
If only 10% respond on the average, then we ask 1000, to get 100. Interesting is interesting, no matter what culture it's from. Instead of running stuff that people actually want to read about, you want to push stuff in front of them they won't click on anyway (as shown by the voting). What's the point of that? EEng 22:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's utter bollocks. If DYK doesn't suffer from systemic bias, why have there been dozens of Mexican politicians and hundreds of streams in Pennsylvania featured? Why have trivial Lucha Libra wrestling hooks been featured? It's nothing more than pure systemic bias (and bogus DYK criteria - every hook gets its chance!) that allows these hooks, in their vast numbers to proliferate. A very narrow variety of subjects are usually featured, day in, day out. To claim otherwise is nonsensical, and yet another symptom of problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Peaks and troughs. They come and go. There may well be a spike at one point but then it goes quiet again. For example in March/April we had a large number on Welsh Churches (and Welsh articles in general) but that went back down after a little while yet no-one complained. Every hook should deserve it's chance to be showcased, regardless of what us regulars think about how "interesting" it is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • EEng, I thought the "explicit goal" of this proposal was to have better hooks, not fewer, that's certainly the impression I've had from everything you've said prior. But if your goal is simply to have fewer hooks, I don't see any merit in that proposal at all. Gatoclass (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Better is achieved by fewer -- taking the better 50% of those submitted. As mentioned already, it also cuts the number of noms reviewed by 50%, making quality reviews easier to achieve. EEng 10:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
So the goal is better after all? I'm glad to hear that, but as I've tried to point out to you in the past, throwing out half the hooks just in order to get rid of the occasional substandard hook is not only a very inefficient means of achieving the goal, but also very unfair for all those whose rejected hooks are virtually indistinguishable in quality from the accepted ones. Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Our "interesting" problem isn't the occasional substandard hook, it's that most hooks are ho-hum at best. Ideally a hook should be something which, if you were riding in a car with someone, you'd actually speak up and say, "Wow! Did you know...?", not just mutter to yourself, "Oh. Uh, ok...". Most hooks can't meet quite that standard, but maybe we can get close. If you want to adjust the numbers to reject just the bottom 25%, I'd be happy with that too. And what's inefficient about it? Nothing's more lightweight than straight voting. EEng 21:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reading over the parts of this portion that's not bad attitude and vitriol I am still not sure what the improvement this will bring. Looking at it I see one thing "Reduce the number of hooks" - What does that do? I don't see what sort of improvement that would bring? Put 21 gold bars up for vote we would still lose 7 gold bars, put 21 turdballs up for a vote and we'd promote 7 turdballs. I am not seeing how this improves the quality of the actual hooks?  MPJ-DK  00:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The laws of statistics virtually guarantee that there will be gold and turd in any set of 21 being voted on. Reducing the number of hooks lets us offer only the best, and the time and attention that would have been spent on reviewing the worst noms can now be used to make more effective reviews of the smaller set of better ones. EEng 01:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Random people voting does not in any way ensure quality in the ones that are selected. This seems a lot of work to set up and go through without it actually ensuring the quality. Quality is not a numbers game, the review quality of a hook should be increased, no matter if we have 10 hooks sitting in line or 100. This does not ensure that we'd have any less hooks pulled from prep, queue or the front page as far as I see it.  MPJ-DK  03:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The main goal of this proposal is to increase the quality of hooks (in terms of their appeal to readers) by running only the best 50% (or 30%, or 70%, or...) instead of 100% of what arrives on the doorstep. The reduction in the number of reviews required, and likely consequent improvement in review quality, is just a bonus. EEng 03:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait, there would a vote before they're reviewed? or am I reading this wrong? I am all for emphasizing the fact that not everything will run, I have been stating that repeatedly, it is okay to fail a DYK nom.  MPJ-DK  04:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like I didn't make that clear enough (now clarified way above in the original proposal). By voting on "interestingness" absolutely first, before any reviewing, we save a huge amount of work. EEng 06:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Then I am totally against this, there is no quality improvement in this, perfectly valid hooks that meet all other requirements than "boring' could be rejected for hooks that may be "interesting" but fails a bunch of other issues.  MPJ-DK  12:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You seem still to not understand. Once they pass the interesting vote, they'd go through the same review process they do now. EEng 22:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
No I understand that they would be reviewed again - we could end up with 7 hooks for articles that are not long enough, not sourced, up for AFD, in poor English and not actually have any hooks for that day? I see this as an unnecessary complication.  MPJ-DK  22:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
No, you still don't understand. Incoming noms go into a "preliminary pool", and it is from this preliminary pool that, each day, 21 are randomly chosen to be voted on for interestingness. The bottom 7 vote-getters ("uninteresting") are permanently out of the running. The middle 7 ("borderline") go back into the preliminary pool and will someday be randomly picked again to be voted on. The top 7 then go on to a "review" pool (equivalent of the current nominations page) where they undergo the usual review process. But they don't stay together as a set or anything like that -- they just swim around individually in the review pool as they do now, in various stages of review. Prep sets are assembled the same as they are now: way down the line by choosing from among reviewed, approved, noms.
Obviously the parameters (# in each voting set, # passed on to review stage, # thrown out as uninteresting) can be adjusted to change the % of noms passed as interesting, # of hooks appearing on Main Page each day, etc. EEng 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Picking hooks is rather more difficult than picking winners at the races. A recent article that barely survived deletion racked up a record number of page views. Lots of hooks that reviewers have called "boring!" have racked up large numbers of page views. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd love to see an example of that. EEng 22:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 Ping! EEng 21:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

EEng, DYK is not Wikipedia's answer to Ripley's Believe It or Not. DYK exists to remind readers that Wikipedia is an ever-growing body of knowledge and to serve as a sample of the kinds of topics people are currently writing about. It's also there as an incentive for users to remain engaged in new content creation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to feature the best possible hooks, but many of the topics people write about just don't lend themselves to compelling hooks. What we should be trying to do is ensure that hooks are as good as they can be within the limitations of DYK's brief, and that the really bad hooks - those, essentially, which contain no useful information - get weeded out. One ought to be able to achieve that without scratching fully 50% of the nominations, and without such a top-heavy and arbitrary process as the one you have proposed here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass. The hooks represent our new or improved content and the reader can click on any hook they fancy. They can make the choice of what they find interesting, we don't have to do it for them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Look, this subthread started because Gatoclass asked, "I think the problem really is, who decides what is interesting and what is not?". I proposed a way to do that. But based on the discussion above, I think we'd better just remove the "hook should be interesting" rule, since it's obviously not being followed. EEng 22:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I should add that I don't endorse Cwmhiraeth's comment that "we don't have to do it for them", that is not my position at all and I think it very important that hooks maintain an appropriate standard. What I have tried to say is that DYK fulfills multiple functions, it's not just about finding the most interesting facts available and posting them, if that was the purpose we would abandon the "newness" requirement altogether along with most of the others and just be asking people to scour the encyclopedia for fascinating facts. DYK is about showcasing new content, and the hooks are just meant to be a method of presenting that new content in the most interesting possible way. The other point that perhaps I should be making, EEng, is that to achieve the kind of major improvement in hook quality that you appear to want, we would have to ditch not 50% of hooks, but more like 95%, because there are only ever a small number of standouts, and nobody at DYK is ever likely to accept that. What I think we can realistically aim for then, is the weeding out of genuinely subpar hooks, and ensuring that all remaining hooks are as good as they can possibly be. Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Killing even just the bottom 20% of the vote would go a long way toward improving hook quality. It's like when you decant the sediment off the bottom of a bottle of wine. EEng 07:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I certainly agree that some hooks are simply not up to scratch and should not be featured, although I wouldn't put the percentage at as high as 20%. I agree that not enough attention is paid to hook quality, but what can be done about that, I'm just not sure. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass and EEng: surely an easy way to do this (or at least, a step that is easy, should have no ill effects, and might work) is to emphasize the "hookiness" rule. I'm not sure where in the guidelines/rules we would do this, but we could a) make it clear that rejecting a hook due to lack of hookiness is okay, b) suggest fairly strongly that the hook should represent a fact that is odd or unusual. We can't come up with any universal definition of "interesting"; but we can say that some facts are run-of-the-mill with respect to a given subject, and others are not. For instance, saying that a racing horse won such-and-such race: or that politician X served as MP; or that species X was discovered in year such-and-such: these are routine facts, and even if we begin to reject such hooks, we should be able to pare down a good few "boring" ones. Vanamonde (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, the great thing about voting is that you don't have to define hookiness -- people know it when they see it. But I'll try your idea, and start tagging dull hooks. I predict, however, that the response will be, "Well, maybe you don't care, but someone, somewhere might think be interested to learn that John Smith was elected mayor of Smallville in 2012, so who are you to judge?", and we'll be back where we started. EEng 18:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
So I would expect that a person tagging a hook as boring would then also evaluate alternative suggestions? After all if you care enough to tag, you care enough to do the follow up right?  MPJ-DK  20:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, for now I'm just going about grumpily decrying hooks left and right. Maybe that will motivate people to try a bit harder and, if there's really nothing worth offering about a subject, letting the nom slip beneath the waves. The funny thing is, I can hardly recall an article completely bereft of hookworthy content, if people would just make the effort. EEng 21:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@EEng: that's a fair point, I don't expect everybody to jump aboard at once: I just see it as a more palatable solution than many of the others. I too have an issue with voting, but my issue actually has to do with a blind application of "reader interest" as a criterion for how good a DYK entry is. I don't think the worth of an article is closely related to how many views it gets; extending that, I don't think the goal of DYK should be to maximize the number of clicks on our hooks in general: I think we should maximize the number of clicks, after making sure that we have subject matter that has a reasonable diversity and a reasonable importance to Wikipedia. Hence my proposal. Maybe I will break it out into a separate section when I have more time later. Vanamonde (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
But the point of DYK is not to highlight our most worthy content, rather that which is likely to be of greatest interest to a wide enough audience. As for the hook, it's rather like a movie trailer - a good one does not guarantee a good film, but a poor trailer does not bode well. Edwardx (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @EEng: I'm sorry, but I disagree. If we wanted purely to select things that had the "most interest to a wide enough audience," we should stick to entries that are related to western pop-culture and politics, with movies from other countries thrown in for good measure. This is not an approach I am comfortable with. With respect to the example you gave: I think the ALT0 was a half-decent hook. Why? Because the NAACP is for the advancement of colored peoples: and Russians are not commonly seen as people of color. So, within the frame of reference of the subject, the hook is quite intriguing. Perhaps it will not get as many clicks as Tiffany Trump, but DYK is not an online ad agency: we're not trying to maximize clicks to the detriment of all else. We're showcasing new and improved content, so that editors have an incentive to continue to produce new and improved content. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think you're selling our readership short by assuming they're only interested in "western pop-culture and politics, with movies from other countries thrown in for good measure" -- if we voted on hooks like I keep advocating, I think you'd be surprised at how wide are the subjects people are interested in. The boring hooks we get aren't boring because of their topic area, but because the hook's statement says something boring about that topic area. If nominators will find something appropriately interesting to say, the topic area can be anything.
As to the NAACP hook, there's nothing unusual about that at all. Joel Spingarn, an American Jew, was (successively) the NAACP's chairman, treasurer, and president from 1913 until his death in 1939. In a way this is perhaps one of the worst hooks I've seen, now that I think of it, in that it plays into, and reinforces, historical ignorance. EEng 07:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A different branch of the discussion

Perhaps Raymie could be persuaded to move on to politicians in Guatemala or Costa Rica! Or more seriously, he could nominate some multiple hooks such as "... that A, B and C were among the newly elected deputies in X assembly in 2006?". Had MPJ-DK been allowed to proceed with his 70 article hook, there would have been no complaint on the excessive number of hooks on Mexican wrestlers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I have been concerned about the quality of some of these recent Spanish politician hooks myself, and have been considered starting to challenge a few on the interest criterion. It seems I am not the only one whose been thinking along these lines, so perhaps it's time to start subjecting these nominations to some closer scrutiny. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: @Gatoclass: There's a reason I've taken a good break from DYK — the hook quality was honestly starting to dive. It might be time to put a couple of the last political ones to rest and for me to only submit new DYKs where there's actually a good hook to be had. I have three DYKs sitting at T:TDYK - the two politicians can go, but I'd like to see XHLUV-FM stay because it's on a different topic (radio) and the hook should actually be interesting (the station has a substantial and noteworthy history prior to being licensed). Raymie (t • c) 21:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too discouraged by the "interesting" requirement. Some subjects lend themselves to interesting hooks and others do not. Politicians fall into the latter category and BLP issues make things more difficult. I don't think that is a good reason for excluding them from DYK, which is meant to showcase the new and expanded articles being produced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
He's not "discouraged". He's just got the common sense to realize that if an article doesn't have anything in it worth making into a hook, then it's better just to skip it, DYK-wise [5]. EEng 05:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
And you have to really question if you can "showcase" something which is dull as dishwater. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

  • ... that Changes, a 1987 advert for the Volkswagen Golf, is remembered as having "spawned a new era in car advertising"?

Or, in reality, that one journalist in one newspaper said, that it had "spawned a new era in car advertising". There are so many better hooks that this article could have produced, so why are we going with one based on a single person's viewpoint? There a numerous sources pointing out that this was perhaps the first feminist advert. This hook ignores this completely. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, even the fact it was directed by David Bailey, or starred Paula Hamilton (in particular the bit where it says "Hamilton was styled to resemble Princess Diana") would be more interesting and less dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Something need to be done pronto. Otherwise, it's only going to end up in Errors and get pulled. Edwardx (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So, on the current 8-hook main page, we now have had the above hook changed[6] per this discussion, then another one per WP:ERRORS[7], and I have now changed a third one which had an incorrect quote (needless instead of heedless, plus two more minor transcription errors)[8]. Fram (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram, there are no problems with DYK, no matter what you say. Remember that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
It's like Toyota. Continuous improvement! Gatoclass (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Particularly appropriate given the millions of vehicles they have recently had to recall as as result of errors from bad design and bad judgement; spot on! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
And still the world's most popular brand! Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Remains to be seen. Pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap! Not exactly what we're expecting from an encyclopedia now is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Well clearly we are not meeting your expectations, but for the amount you are paying me I'm thinking they're a trifle unrealistic. Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, as Fram pointed out above, despite all these complaints (multiple reports at ERRORS per set) and suggestions (all across these talk pages), we still managed three errors in a single set. This is not meeting the Wikipedia's expectations. To deny it is a trifle silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Well you know what they say, the man who never made any mistakes never made anything - including an encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
That's true. Some of us have created hundreds of GAs, dozens of FLs, a hatful of FAs, hundreds of ITNs etc. You're right, there are many people who do nothing to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
If that comment is your idea of a "positive contribution", small wonder you are currently at RFAR. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Well that's a fait accompli from the outset with masses of canvassing all of which has been readily accepted by the committee so they can dispose of me, I know that. But no, the comment was simply intended to demonstrate that I am fully aware how to build an encyclopedia, and that having done so on hundreds of thousands of occasions I feel able to note areas of improvement, particularly when it comes to tinkering with the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Progress! Today, only one hook on the Main Page has been pulled and replaced so far.[9] (one other had been replaced in the queue). Fram (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The night is young. I note that the hook just pulled (for being a grammatical mess) wasn't as written on the nom page (where the grammar was right) -- not that the grammar matters, since the fact asserted isn't in the article anyway. EEng 06:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the fact is in the article. I'll have to put up my hand for the "grammatical mess" - I attempted to tweak the original hook to avoid some awkward phrasing but managed to come up with some awkward phrasing of my own. I wasn't happy with my edit either, and probably should have gone back to re-edit it, but having just spent considerable time verifying all eight hooks, was getting tired and decided to pass on it. On the plus side, I think the replacement hook is still quite quirky. Gatoclass (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You're right -- I searched only the string horse but not ride or riding. EEng 07:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I had the same problem, but found the passage by searching for "London". The article uses "nag" for horse :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I can hardly see how anyone participating on this talk page can fail to have the word nag uppermost in his or her mind at all times. EEng 07:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
That's kind of hard to argue with :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
However, those whose first language is not English might not understand the nuances of your comment ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

After the hook that was in the end pulled twice yesterday, so far today we only had one imprecise hook which has now been corrected[10]. With 5 of the 8 hooks selected by me, I hope not too much other problems will surface :-) Fram (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so it was you who put most of that set together Fram? That is interesting, because FYI you missed this and this and this and this. Thanks for playing, Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
[11] is not an improvement. If someone became X in 1967, then it automatically means that it was "then". Worse, the "then" gives the impression that his record has been broken since, which is false. Please don't make hooks worse.
[12] One dish had one egg, but he served more than one egg in total. So he served scrambled duck eggs. Your version is correct, the original is correct as well.
Which leaves your two "corrections" for the terror plot.[13] and [14]. Any indication of why you made these changes? It is easy to say I missed things, but it would be useful if you provided any evidence for this. It looks to me as if you took the numbers for 26 May only (80, in 5 countries), and confused them with the total for the whole operation (more than 100 in 7 countries). So again, while your hook version is also correct, the original one wasn't wrong. Fram (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Other sources routinely use "scrambled duck eggs" (plural) for the dish at Lettonie, including The Independent, The Birmingham Post, and National Geographic. As for the World Cup terror plot, e.g. PBS indicates how there were arrests in March and in May, in 7 countries in total (France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Britain and Sweden). Fram (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
For someone who complains about too much pedantry at WT:DYK, you sure lead by example. Fram (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Fram, the scrambled egg issue is trivial, but no more so than some other issues that have been brought up. I could argue for example that "women's" basketball team was obvious given the player is female. With regard to the "youngest ever" hook, the source given for that claim in the article only says he was the youngest "at the time". The article does contain another source which describes him as the "youngest ever", period, but it dates to 2004, so it may be outdated. Regarding the terrorist plot - it appears you are correct that arrests were made in seven countries, but every source seems to differ on the number arrested in the raids - one says 80 in May only, another says 88 in May and 10 in March, another still says 100 in May and 10 in March etc. I could only see one source that states that "over 100" were arrested so I think that number has to be suspect. On the other hand, I modified the hook last night to "up to 100", when it may be more rather than less, so it seems both of us may have erred on that hook. I am thinking of changing it to "about 100", or even something vague like "scores", because none of the sources seem to concur, what do you think? Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
"About 100" seems the best here. I replied about the "youngest ever" elsewhere, all sources, even ones from 2013, indicate that the record has not been beaten yet; so there is no reason to turn a non-committal original hook into one that strongly suggests that the record no longer stands. Fram (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
On further reflection, I am still not 100% happy about the Stanley Bish hook, because the hook strongly implies now that he is the youngest ever, when we don't know that for certain - which is why I added "then-youngest" in the first place. Nonetheless, I am not going to quibble about it now, though I've seen plenty of similar quibbles turned into opportunities to pillory DYK regulars in the past. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for others, but I have never pilloried anyone for putting up a hook which may purely in theory not be correct but where I have no source to show it is incorrect, and multiple sources to show that it was at least correct until recently (with no reason to believe that it has changed since). You can e.g. check this page (copyright 2016) from PSV, [15], which still lists him as youngest ever. Fram (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Well I think a 2016 reference seals the deal, thanks for going the extra mile. But I can't help but point out, in relation to the issue of pillorying, out that only five minutes ago you were having a snicker about the omission of the word "women's" in a hook the meaning of which was I think plain enough without it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a younger men in the Canadian wheeelchair basketball team at the Paralympics though. There is no younger PSV debut. The change I made removed a possible misunderstanding (and I hardly "snickered" about it). The change you originally made introduced a possible misunderstanding. By the way, considering that e.g. rowing and sailing are mixed at the Paralympics (but not at the Olympics), there is no reason to assume that everyone knows that wheelchair basket is not mixed at the Paralympics. Even wheelchair rugby is a mixed event! Fram (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe they could look it up on the Wikipedia Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram, I have no wish to be unpleasant, but as I neither want to prolong this discussion unnecessarily, allow me to speak plainly for once. You loaded a hook into prep that said Bish was the "youngest ever" to play for PSV. There was no reliable source for that statement in the article. One source only said he was the youngest "at the time", while the other, which did state that he was the youngest ever, was from 2004 and therefore outdated. So you promoted a hook making an exceptional claim which wasn't reliably sourced in the article. That is why I altered the hook, and clearly, I was justified at the time in doing so. Since then, you have managed - after some hours - to come up with a source that pretty much removes any remaining doubt. That is well and good, but it doesn't alter the fact that you erred in originally promoting the hook. Since then, you have gone further and argued that a 2013 source is sufficient to prove the claim, which is a pretty extraordinary position to take given your frequent insistence on meticulous accuracy with regard to hooks promoted by others. A 2013 source is not in fact sufficient for a claim of this type, an accurate hook would have said "that as of 2013, Stanley Bish was the youngest ...".

Moreover, you promoted a second hook which said "over 100" people were arrested, when the sources quite widely diverge on the actual number. So again, an erroneous promotion. You also promoted a hook which said "scrambled duck eggs" when the source makes it clear that the dish is "scrambled duck egg", singular, which though not exactly erroneous is at least imprecise. I could point you to recent discussions where I personally have been castigated for "errors" of similar degree.

So while I'm not about to castigate you myself for the above oversights (especially given that I made a similar error in the same set) I really don't think you're in a position to be nitpicking me about the omission of "women's" in the basketball hook. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

So you still don't see that the original hook about Bish made no claim about the current status? Imagine a hook saying "that in 1935, at the age of 21, Jesse Ownes became the world record holder in the long jump". You would have changed it to "the then-world record holder". While not an improvement in that case either, it would at least have been correct because the record was (obviously) broken again later in history. In this case, there was a hook that exactly described the situation in 1967, and no evidence at all that the record was ever broken. So no, contrary to what you claim, you were not justified at all to alter the hook. You have not provided a single source that casted doubt on the original hook (and with good reason, as it was correct). For the "over 100", as I said most sources (e.g. the "80" one you used) were not about the total amount of arrests surrounding the plot, but only for the arrests on 26 May (the same reason why you incorrectly thought "seven countries" was wrong). The actual sources about the full event do not "diverge widely", they range from "about 100" to "over 100". The egg vs. eggs thing I have explained above, I can't help it if you can't understand this either.
The difference with the addition of "women's" is that there actually is a younger man on the Canadian wheelchair basketball team at the Rio Paralympics (I can give you the evidence, if you need it). And where was I nitpicking you about that change? I have only said that I made that change (plus reasons, no names), and only when you claimed that the meaning of the hook was plain enough did I explain why you were wrong. Perhaps you simply know that wheelchair basketball is gender-separated at the Paralympics, and e.g. wheelchair rugby isn't, and that the hook as presented thus said nothing at all about younger men or not. For me, this wasn't clear at all, certainly not when I found that there was a younger man in the team. You may well claim that the PSV hook wasn't clear for you either, but the difference is that there was nor is any evidence that the record is no longer valid, and that your change made the hook less correct, while mine made it more correct. Basically, of the four problems you highlighted here, after scrutiny at most one remains, a hook wich said "over 100" which isn't supported by all sources. That's a 25% success rate, and a day wasted on discussions to get this through to you. Good going... Fram (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
While it's true the Bish hook wasn't technically erroneous, I still think it was misleading given that it said he was the youngest ever when the sources didn't support that. Not that I ever expect to get you to concede the point. What I can do is note that DYK regulars have been castigated on this page for hooks less potentially misleading than that. With regard to the number of arrests, the sources say anything from 80 to 100 arrested in May, while from memory, 8 to 10 in March, so that's a potential difference of between 88 and 110.
The point here is not to start pointing the finger at anyone, but to recognize that the verification process can be complicated and difficult, that errors are inevitable and that nobody is immune from making them. So while I agree that we need to strive to keep improving, I think we also need to recognize that the growing culture of nitpicking here and the denigration of users that often accompanies it are not only unhelpful, but inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Once again, substitute "quality control for one of the most viewed pages on the internet" for "nit-picking" and seek for competence on the users, nominators, reviewers, promoters and set-builders. We clearly still have massive problems with getting even the basics right here. Fram is right to continue to point errors out, and those who feel too sensitive to cope with the constructive criticism should find somewhere else to vent their incompetence. The main page of Wikipedia is not a sandbox. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem

At the bottom of the September 6 section heading on WP:DYKN the last few nominations are linked not transcluded even though they are all using the
{{Templates:Did you know nominations/XYZ}} format and are not using square brackets which is the punctuation that is normally used for linking. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Intelligentsium The following nominations are affected by this:

Please advise. And by the way, your user page (not talk page) opens to the edit window. I can't edit in it, nor do I want to. Because of big blank white space at the top of the page, I also cannot click on "Talk". It's somewhat of a useless dead end for some, in both Firefox and IE. — Maile (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Dream on. EEng 13:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the ping. I have looked into the issue and I do not believe this is (directly) related to the bot. The page T:TDYK appears to have reach the post-expand include size limit which means the page is too large, likely due to too many unreviewed or unpromoted nominations. Thus, further template transclusions will simply appear as links. While a contributing factor to this may be the bot's reviews, the bot reviews do not contain any information that a thorough human review would not; this probably is more of a reflection on the fact that nominations are coming in too quickly and turnover is not fast enough. A larger contributing factor to this issue is likely the recent transition from four-times-daily to daily DYK updates, which means hooks spend 4x longer at every stage.
A temporary solution would be to promote some approved hooks and attempt to close out the long discussions at the back of the queue, though it may be worth it to create more preps so we don't have nominations languishing on T:TDYK. Intelligentsium 13:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Intelligentsium, we only currently have 191 nominations on the page, historically that is not a lot, IIRC we have had close to 400 in the past and I don't recall the page breaking the limit before. I am concerned that the bot reviews may be contributing to the overload. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, BlueMoonset, Allen3, Intelligentsium I've been going through the page, one nomination at a time. The moment it threw off was this transclusion before the review bot ever looked at it. There's nothing wrong with that template that I can see. And I've deleted it (without saving) and then previewed, and removing it didn't help We are indeed listed on Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. But, the review bot is adding considerable size to each template. Not sure if that affects the transclusion size or not. Prior to the bot, we didn't necessarily have lengthy postings on each review. But the question is...what do we do about this? That is, if the increased individual size is involved. — Maile (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: you can close this rejected nomination to make a little more space. Yoninah (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering whether the new "hidden" and "hidden end" templates in each bot-reviewed nomination (I believe there are two pairs of these) might be adding to the number of templates needing expansion on the page. If it counts as four extra per nomination, or even two extra, they can add up fast. Does anyone know whether this issue is due to the actual length of the page, or the number of templates that need to be expanded? I think we've had longer pages in the past than what we have now. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
That's a possibility; I looked at the source code of {{hidden begin}} and it's larger than I thought (though not "huge"). I have swapped it out in the bot code with a stripped-down HTML version that should be much smaller. Intelligentsium 19:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem seems to be growing. My De laude Cestrie suggestion was definitely transcluding properly yesterday and is now failing, as are several around it I recall seeing transcluded. Can we (1) transfer approved hooks to a bucket prep for now & (2) turn off bot operation? Otherwise this place is going to collapse in a heap. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed 25 bot reviews (where no issues were present) from the page, which seems to have helped some insofar as reducing the page size helps. I have also discontinued use of the {{hidden begin}} template in the bot code in favour of pure HTML, and may do a test run later to see if this helps the issue. The bot is temporarily on manual operation only and will not run automatically until this issue is resolved. Intelligentsium 20:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Intelligentsium: Thanks for doing this. I'm glad it's helping to fix the problem. It took me a while to figure out why the review bot's edits were being repeatedly reverted from nominations. Perhaps reference this problem in the reverts? Thanks again for your good work! - tucoxn\talk 12:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Intelligentsium, wouldn't putting the bot review within <noinclude></noinclude> tags solve the issue without losing the bot's feedback? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Unfortunately, that was tried before and doesn't work, as the bot's noinclude tags conflict with those automatically added when a nomination is closed. Pppery 00:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1

... that a committee of eight Portland, Oregon, residents purchased the Madison Street Bridge in 1891 for over $3.8 million in 2015 dollars?

Firstly I'm not sure why we're using an inflated version of what the source actually says, it's pretty clear that $145,000 was a lot of money in 1891. Secondly, if we insist on this odd approach, why aren't we talking in 2016 dollars? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this went to the main page and was addressed by WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrestling hook pulled from Prep 1

Template:Did you know nominations/IWRG La Hora de la Verdad {ping|MPJ-DK|Cwmhiraeth|MisterCake}}

I have just one tiny problem with this one: there is no evidence that this show is titled "La Hora de la Verdad". The official poster, as shown in the article (and which may need some size reduction to meet our fair use guidelines) calls it Mascara vs. Mascara and doesn't seem to mention "La hora de la verdad" at all (if it does, it certainly isn't in a very large font!). The sites used to report on the results of the evening a blog,[16] and [17] don't seem to use this title either. Neither does e.g. the announcement of the evening[18]. In fact, the only time something close to this title (but actually "Llego la hora de la verdad", not simply "La hora de la verdad") can be found is on one page from the IWRG. [19] They seem to use it as a slogan, not as a title. Fram (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK, Cwmhiraeth, and MisterCake: The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I still say the best mileage will be got from these professional wrestlers by organizing the hooks around the fact that they apparently all prance around wearing mascara. EEng 15:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I will check around on the sources to see if which one stated that name.  MPJ-DK  15:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Okay I found where I got the name from. One of the more recent "Lucha 2000" magazines had a promotional poster for the show a couple of weeks ago, before the rest of the matches were announced. It featured the same picture as on the official poster and had the worlds "La Hora de la Verdad" at the top. Seeing IWRG use the same phrase when they revealed the full poster is where I got the name from around the time I started to write the article, which was prior to the show happening. Looking at all the results reports none of the used that name, so I am not sure if it was never intended to be the name of the show or if the result reports just did not pick up on it. Either way there does not look like there enough source support to use the name. I'm thinking this would probably be more appropriate at IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016) since they had a similar named event in August too. I will move the article, update the hook in the DYK (but not rename the nomination).  MPJ-DK  22:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I will add this to the DYK nom in a moment

Thanks. I have now nominated it for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh goody, when I first saw the error I was wondering if I should reinforce the stereotype and moan about someone finding an error in my work or respond like a mature adult and address the isssue. Since Fram said thanks I am glad I chose the positive approach so that we can maintain an equilibrium. Thank you also for providing me a forum where I can now further discuss my great hobby and perhaps even educate someone who is ignorant of Lucha Libre, it is indeed a glorious day all round.  MPJ-DK  13:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Fram has acted in thoroughly bad faith. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Evidence? Pppery 19:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Well let's put it like this: MPJ-DK has been very helpful around the DYK project, building prep sets, making suggestions for improvements, reviewing articles etc. Fram pulls this hook from Prep, as is his wont, and starts querying whether the article has the correct title. While MPJ-DK is working to respond to this and moving the article to the new title, Fram nominates the article for deletion. I don't know whether the article will or will not be kept, but I think that Fram's behaviour is despicable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Otherwise put: MPJ-DK creates an article with an incorrect title, which you promote to the preps without even noticing this basic fact. MPJ-DK points out that he based this on an early promo poster, fine, no problem. This also indicated to me that it wasn't a case of me doing a poor search and missing a bunch of sources. So what we end up with is an article about a very recent run-of-the-mill event, comparable to a sports event (even though lucha libre isn't technically a sport but entertainment). Perhaps a better comparison would have been with a pop concert. These get announced, and afterwards get reviews, but don't get articles here anyway per NOTNEWS. I don't treat such articles different because the editor who created it has been helpful at DYK or not. Apparently you advocate that articles should be treated differently depending on who created them. Fram (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Nobody has an obligation to nominate an article for deletion and the circumstances surrounding this nomination are particularly obnoxious. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I would never describe you as a "circumstance". Fram (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Given what I see on this page from the past few days, I think the best thing would be to shut down DYK for 6 months, then restart from scratch, starting with a discussion of new rules and procedures. The constant backbiting is unbelievable. EEng 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    Good news although Fram's behaviour is despicable, it's only TRM that's being pushed out of the project as a whole. At least I have reserves to continue my good work here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Now, now let's not give in to negative feelings, feel the Power of Positivity! And hey it's nice for Lucha Libre to be acknowledge as a sport by one of the tone-setters of DYK. Totally worth it just for that.  MPJ-DK  20:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Review standards

Now on the main page, we have

  • ... that Swedish television presenter Lasse Bengtsson conducted the first televised interview with Mattias Flink in March 2009, some fifteen years after Flink committed mass murder?

Template:Did you know nominations/Lasse Bengtsson @BabbaQ, Cwmhiraeth, and MPJ-DK:

I haven't pulled it, as the hook seems to be correct, but as far as I can tell it can not be found in the source. Everything the source[20] has to say about the interview is "och det var han som fick intervjua Mattias Flink också." (Google translate: "and it was he who got to interview Mattias Flink too."). No year or month, no "first", no "televised". While no error was introduced this time, it is this kind of sloppiness that leads to the many errors we have in the queues and the main page (well, this and errors in sources like with the Oxford Blue above, which is harder to tackle). Fram (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The translation loses part of the meaning, I speak Swedish and it basically that he got "the" interview or "that" interview with emphasis on that specific interview being pretty being huge news (like THAT Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric), I am Danish but the news of "that" interview actually made it to our news as well.  MPJ-DK *
  • And if "no error was introduced" how is this an example of "many errors in the queue"? Self-contradictory.  MPJ-DK  11:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Homonormative

Now in Queue1:

Template:Did you know nominations/Russian gay propaganda law @Jujutsuan, ViperSnake151, MPJ-DK, and Cwmhiraeth:

"Homonormative" seems to me not an adequate description of what the law really banned. "Homonormative" is also only used in the infobox (unsourced), not in the article, so it is hard to see what source supports this part of the hook.

From the article on homonormativity: "Homonormativity can refer to the perceived privileging of homosexuality or the perceived assimilation of heteronormative ideals and constructs into LGBTQ culture and individual identity." The law bans much more than either definition, it covers everything that is "[aimed] at causing minors to form non-traditional sexual predispositions, notions of attractiveness of non-traditional sexual relationships, distorted ideas about the equal social value of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships, or imposing information about non-traditional sexual relationships which raises interest in such relationships insofar as these acts do not amount to a criminal offence." Something like "information about non-traditional sexual relationships which raises interest in such relationships" is far removed from being homonormative, even e.g. information that would suggest that homosexual relationships exist and are acceptable (without any claims to equality, marriage, whatever) is banned. Fram (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that if a term has widely varying definitions that are not clear from the context, we shouldn't be using it in a hook in any case, as somebody is sure to flag it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be simpler just to cut out the word. And we should unlink protest, a commonly understood term. Edwardx (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes but if you cut out the qualifying word/statement, it makes the hook even more boring than it is now. Homonormative is the only part that is even vaguely hooky. 'Russia bans stuff to do with homosexuality' - well big woop. It is not exactly news to anyone. 'Did you know the Russian government does not like gay people?' 'Well yes actually, everyone on the planet knows that'. The fact they actually passed a law preventing *any* material that would indicate having a non-standard relationship is tolerated or acceptable is the hook, and one of the definitions of homonormative covers that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Which definition? "Privileging homosexuality" or "Assimilation of heteronormative ideals"? The first one definitely doesn't apply, and the secon one is usually meant for people advocating gay marriage and the like, not for people saying that it is acceptable to be attracted to people of your own gender or either gender. Stretching "homonormative" to mean "any mention or depiction of LGBTQ in a non-negative light" (which basically what the subject of the law is) seems to fall outside the standard accepted definitions. Fram (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
In general usage 'homonormative' is also taken to mean the normalising of homosexual (and other) relationships - of which homosexual marriage is one facet. The law was clearly aimed at that with a broad a brush as the Russian Gov could get away with. I *dont* think it is a great hook anyway, only that without the homonormative aspect (which is indeed a stretch) it is completely boring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO, a better hook would be something like:

Stephen Fry's Out There series included interviews which discussed this and there are references confirming that there are heavy fines on anyone disseminating information about homosexuality to under 18s. Even if there is not something to confirm this hook in the article, there easily could be and I believe this supports a better hook. EdChem (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That hook prompted me to check out the article in some depth, so on that basis I've pulled the nomination from Queue 1 and reopened it. It's worth the wait to get a really catchy hook that entice people in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
This reference stares directly that "Fry met with a lesbian couple who everyday break the law by exposing their 16-year-old son to their love". I think these are sufficient to support something like my suggested hook. EdChem (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added a section to the article supporting my suggestion. EdChem (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And here I thought homonormative was something about algebra, like the commutative law. "The prime twins form a homonormative ring over the integers." EEng 15:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so here's a new list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through the end of August. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 78 nominations have been approved, leaving 156 of 234 nominations still needing approval. The previous list didn't attract many reviewers; I hope we'll do better this week. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the seven that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

Over six weeks old:

Over a month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1 empty entry

Queue 1 is down to six hooks; it should have eight. Can an admin please move two hooks to this queue from Prep 3? (The hook in Prep 4 is a special occasion hook that has to stay there.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've moved in two hooks from Prep 3 (the bottom two). I'm new to this whole admin thing, so please let me know if I've fracked something up. Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 When you move hooks out of a Prep, you need to also leave visible hook blanks, to let promoters know there are slots available. Also I put the blanks in for the hooks, and removed the DYK make for the ones you moved, and replaced them with DYK make blanks. — Maile (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: Thank you. I'll keep that in mind. Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Approved nomination Flag of Trenton

The Flag of Trenton, Georgia has a request to use this as a lead hook with the flag, which contains the Confederate flag. We do not censor at Wikipedia. Neither the hook nor the article mentions what the Confederate flag currently represents in the United States. Please read Charleston church shooting#Subsequent_controversies and Modern display of the Confederate flag#Reactions_to_2015_Charleston_church_shooting. The Confederate flag is currently regarded as a symbol of slavery, racism and hatred. White supremacists use the Confederate flag as their chosen symbol. As a result of the Charleston shootings, and the shooter's posing for images with a handgun in one hand, and the Confederate flag in the other, states are removing the Confederate flag, and stores such as Walmart, Amazon and Sears are banning its sales. Because so many contributors to Wikipedia are not in the United States, I am putting this information here. Use the image, or don't use it, but you should be aware of what it means in this country. — Maile (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. Though one could also argue that the Confederate flag is a symbol of Southern heritage, state's rights and rebellion etc. Plus I will also say that we previously ran the flag of apartheid South Africa in the image hook, which was also on the jacket of the Charleston shooter, and there were no complaints. Plus also the hooks don't really make much sense without the image being used to illustrate them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I've always assumed you're not an American, so you can be forgiven for swallowing the idea that the Confederate flag symbolizes heritage and so on. "Heritage" (in this context), like "state's rights" is nothing more than code language for racism, jim crow, and murder, period. EEng 00:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Uh..."states rights", has much more meaning than that. That's how Nevada first legalized gambling, and how states are able to pass local labor laws, etc. etc. etc. EEng I've always assumed that you're not American, I guess because of your name. You mean you are? — Maile (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I should have been more nuanced. Certainly in the context of the Confederate flag, talk of "state's rights" is undeniably code language for racism. Outside that context, few writers (unless they're tone-death -- think Donald Trump) will use that specific phrase unless they intend to winkingly invoke that meaning within a certain segment of the population. Serious legal writing (unless, I say again, it intends to invoke such echoes) will speak of "rights of the states", "rights reserved to the states", and so on. Yes, I'm an American; would a refined English gentleman have a block log like mine? EEng 01:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I've just struck one of the two hooks, which was not supported in the sourcing given. I'd also like to challenge the assertion that the hooks don't make sense without the image—and also wonder at the desirability of approving hooks that cannot survive without an image, given the scarcity of image slots. Wikipedia is not censored, and the article has images of the flags; that doesn't mean we have any obligation to feature the images on the main page (or not to). BlueMoonset (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I just think in the interest of freedom of discussion, we should show it. It's one of those Marmite flags: you either love it or hate it. Plus I will state we have had hooks that have showed so called "racist" flags but are also viewed by a particular group as being a symbol of their history before and there were no complaints. Likewise when God Save the South ran, the image had a proper Confederate flag in the background and again, no-one complained. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphans and queue 2

Should DYK be promoting orphan articles to the main page? Currently Textile industry in China is sitting in Queue 2 with no articles linking to it, just a template. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It didn't have an orphan template when I promoted it - you have added the tag since. Why don't you find an article to link to it so that it is no longer an orphan? :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
It was a more general question. I check each article for "orphan" status, the tag was just a means of notifying those who are commensurate with the subject matter that it needs to be appropriately linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
It will be linked from the Main Page, and thus no longer orphan, while it's featured. Pppery 13:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not the purpose of the {{orphan}} template, the article should be linked from other articles, not just temporarily via the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x 2 - I've argued before there should be a "no orphan" rule. I have added a link so this is not an orphan, even ignoring the dozens of links through the template. TRM, tagging is one approach but you could try actually solving an issue rather than pointing it out, just once in a while... EdChem (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said before, the tagging is by the by, the question really is should orphans be promoted to the main page via DYK? It's easy to check this before articles are promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
As I've said before, I think the answer is no, and I always check for orphans when doing reviews. EdChem (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
And your cheap passing shot (you could try actually solving an issue rather than pointing it out, just once in a while) is completely unwarranted. A glance at my contribution history to articles listed in queues and preps pays testimony to the vast number of issues I actually solve. But why let the truth get in the way of a good insult? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
TRM, if you wanted to focus on the issue of orphans, the smart approach would have been to say "Hey, I found this orphan in the queue, which I've addressed so it is fine, but can we discuss whether checking for orphans and not putting them into the queues being a DYK default?" By not fixing the issue, the focus turns to the specific article rather than the general principle. As for the cheap shot, your handling of the orange laundry case above more than demonstrated that your work spans the field from finding huge mistakes and protecting the main page (which I value and appreciate) to pettiness and poor people management (which I wish you would learn to avoid). There are many here who are all for higher quality and standards at DYK who should be your natural allies who you continue to aggravate. EdChem (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't want to "focus" on anything, just ask the question as to whether the project should be posting orphans to the main page. As for your rebuttal, I'll leave it as it stands. My objection above was perfectly valid, and yet again demonstrates that even with two or three quality checkpoints, the project continues to promote poorly referenced or simply inaccurate material to the main page. Your personal involvement in defending such inaccuracy has naturally tainted this, entirely independent, thread. Of course there's a spectrum relating to the magnitude of issues I discover. Just silently fixing them all is simply not going to improve the project. Whether I'm here or not to continue to fight against such mediocrity is irrelevant; it appears I will become ERRORS' largest contributor. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we should be adding yet more items to the standard DYK checklist, but if there is a way of automating the "orphan" check, it could probably be added to the DYK check tool or to the new auto-review bot, or both. Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You just hit "What links here" on the tools section. Check for article space links that aren't template transclusions. Easy as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes – orphans, by their nature, are in need of some exposure so that they may be linked in. Putting them on the main page is a good way of giving them this attention. Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't get the argument that putting it on the main page will help fix the orphan issue. Someone clicks on it and reads it won't know it's an orphan unless it's tagged and I'd hate to see tagged content be featured on the main page. It is an easy check to make, totally agree it really should be checked. Perhaps it's something that's pointed out during the review so it could possibly be addressed - and the hook nominator is in a much better position to link it than the admin reviewing it in queue - that should not be their job to fix.  MPJ-DK  21:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Another bright idea

You what I think would be a great rule? A requirement that every nominated hook be immediately followed (on the nom page) by a direct quote from the source supporting it. Usually it would just be a sentence or two.

Everyone here is acting in good faith, and most of the errors we get are misinterpretation and slipups in paraphrasing. If the source quotation were right there in the nom, for all to see, I think many, many errors would be caught right at the start. What do you say, gang? EEng 07:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've considered proposing something similar myself, but it adds an additional complication to a process that some already consider too complicated, and it's not always possible to give a direct quote for something. Also, if you have several alts it complicates things still further. An alternative might be to require a link to the relevant source or sources directly on the nom page - that would make it quicker to find any potential error or flaw, though of course reviewers would still have to check the article to ensure the link and source fact were there. Gatoclass (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
How can it be not possible to give a direct quote? If so, where's the hook coming from? If the source is online (as in your idea of giving a link), then it's a simply copy-paste to bring the supporting source text into the nom page. If the source is offline, then it's all the more important to quote the source so that we're not just AGFing one person's interpretation of it. It seems a small price to pay to reduce all the pulling and correcting and kvetching and backbiting. EEng 08:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
As an honorary member of your gang, I'd say that was a good idea. If the nominator couldn't do it, it might make them think again on how to word the hook. However, Gatoclass does make some pertinent points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. If they can't give the quote, then where's the hook coming from? EEng 08:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not quite so simple. Hooks contain more than one fact - when verifying, you may need to independently verify as many as half a dozen different facts and they may all be in separate sources. Or the fact may come from a table or something. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
But each and every fact should be sourced, so while it makes the nomination a little more arduous, it would at least assist reviewers who have to AGF on non-English or non-online sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, very few hooks would be sourced to move than one or two sentences, and I say it's not too much to ask: if the hook's worth featuring, it should be worth it to its creator to paste out its basis. And the more different bits and pieces a given hook relies on, the more important it is to see those pieces together in one place to make sure they're not being inappropriately SYNTHed. EEng 08:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
While I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, it does concern me that it may add more complication for little concrete benefit. Reviewers are missing obvious errors now; is it really going to help them substantially just by putting a quote directly on the nominations page? Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
After all the effort of writing or expanding an article, this is trivial extra work, and the benefit is very concrete. Look at the soup we're in right now about the horseriding bicycle courtier in the garden. EEng 08:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's some bicycling in a tasty garden soup I found earlier. Sorry, no obvious horses. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal that every nominated hook be immediately followed (on the nom page) by the direct quote from the source that supports it

  • Support as propose. I'm serious about this proposal. I'd like to hear from more editors. (If there's consensus for this general idea we can have a separate discussion of the specific rule wording.) EEng 21:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, and remove the requirement that a hook must be cited right after its mention in the article. Much better solution that avoids unnecessary citations. SSTflyer 03:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
That could be a great bonus. Good thinking! But let's leave specifics to a separate phase after (hopefully) we get consensus for the general idea. EEng 06:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea, because reviewers still need to confirm that the hook is supported in the article, and readers who have read the hook may also want to check the source for themselves. Gatoclass (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Qualified support. It's going to add to instruction creep, but I think we could probably trial it for a few months and see how it works out. I think it important to add that the quote or quotes should be accompanied by a link to the source (where available) which would be of assistance to reviewers and hopefully even encourage more reviewing. Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue I see here is an article being written using library print sources, promoted to GA after the library books have been returned, and the editor not having the print sources to quote for the dyk. I think an exception could be made for print sources not currently in the nominator's possession. They could still be required to include the citation(s) in the dyk nom. --JFH (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Voluntarily only during the trial run. The best illustration is what EEng just did. Kai-Tai Fang. It's clear and helpful. Not all editors are alike, however. I can think of some snags, so let's do it on a voluntary basis at first. We have some regulars here who could, if willing, do a credible quote on theirs. Obvious drawbacks getting past the trial stage:
  • (1) New nominators and reviewers who already struggle with just too many rules;
  • (2) Bytes added to each template. Although I'm unsure of the technical aspects on transclusions, the review bot seems to have affected that (maybe);
  • (3) Multiple-article hooks. @MPJ-DK, Hawkeye7, Miyagawa, and Cwmhiraeth: can you offer some input?;
  • (4) Reviewers who will assume everything is answered on the template and won't check the article and sourcing, but rather pass the nomination with something like "hook, article, source all pass". Let's be frank, with QPQ, some reviewers are not thorough, and this is one more layer.
Let's give some thought to the flaws we see in the process, and consider if this would end up being one more. Would we one day have someone yanking all hooks that got past without the embedded source quote, even though everything on the article and nomination otherwise passed? — Maile (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's make it not required (but "strongly encouraged", let's say) for a while, see what the voluntary uptake is, and see what problems we run into. EEng 20:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Support for a trial run. Yes, let's see how it works. — Maile (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
If what you're referring to is that sometimes a hook pulls together two+ plus facts from two+ sources, in that case it's all the more important to see the text of the various supporting sources to be sure the hook fairly combines these facts without inappropriate SYNTH. EEng 20:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a positive suggestion that may help improve quality, it'll definitly help address any issues where the source is misinterpreted. Not sure if it'll work in all cases but it's worth trying it out to shake out what the challenges may be. It would restrict hooks based on book sources that were added by someone else - but I am not sure how many that would actually be (1 in 50? 1 in 500?) not enough to discourage a trial run.  MPJ-DK  20:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Anything to make it easier for the nominators pretty much. Regarding multi-article hooks, there needs to be some specification about whether there's a single source for all the articles or individual sources per article. Simple coding in the template much like the ALT1, ALT2 etc lines should suffice. Besides, it then leaves it open to have multiple sources for a single article hook. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support funniest thing I've seen is that this is a claim to increase "instruction creep". Well if you have 87 instructions, another 1 is not that much of a creep. Deal with it for the improved quality of hook reviews it will bring. Even a 1% improvement will be a net gain. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose We require that articles do not copy text from other sources directly. It would then be absurdly contradictory to require nominators to risk copyright violation by doing so. Andrew D. (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a copyright violation if the small amount of text required to reference the hook is published, along with attribution. Even you know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There's been a misunderstanding. Please look at what I linked above that EEng did. Everything is wrapped in quotation marks and followed by the source link. Editors also have several options to use on Template:Talk quotation. No copyvio is involved if it's in quotation marks. — Maile (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Use of quotation marks does not stop it being a copy. One is then relying upon the usage being considered fair use and that is always debatable. It is not common scholarly practise to quote supporting texts verbatim in this way; a citation is considered enough. To go beyond this would then arguably exceed fair use, especially as we have managed without this for many years. Moreover, editors who have made lavish use of quotations, such as RAN, have been extensively hounded for this by editors such as Fram. It then becomes a Catch-22; quote and be accused of copyvio or don't quote and be accused of making things up. Andrew D. (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Andrew is right that quote marks don't change a copyright violation into not-a-copyright-violation (what they do is convert plagiarism into not-plagiarism), but as you say, Andrew, fair use is always debatable, so we have to exercise our judgment. We routinely use quotations -- even extensive quotations -- on article talk pages in discussing whether and how to use a particular source in an article. The proposed use here is little different, and will disappear into the the dark pit of the archives in a month or two. In Mr. Justice Story's formulation "we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work", and in that light it's hard to see the use we're contemplating here as not fair use. EEng 23:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The example given above for Kai-Tai Fang is an extract from a book supplied by Google Books. The copyright notice on that book has the standard boilerplate, "All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means ... without written permission from the publisher." That means exactly what it says and, if EEng did not get written permission, he has violated copyright. Google itself was sued by publishers for this reason and arrived at some sort of legal settlement. But that doesn't mean that the text found on Google is public domain and we can freely copy it in turn. We might do this informally and get away with it but if we start forcing people to copy such text systematically and mechanically then we're risking trouble. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Andrew, I have great respect for you as an editor, but if you really believe what you just said then you have no understanding of intellectual property law at all. Just because a book displays such a notice doesn't make it true, any more than a sign in a store declaring, "Absolutely No Refunds or Exchanges" makes that true. If you were right in what you're saying here, then every instance of an article quoting a copyrighted work is a copyvio, and obviously that's not the case. As for Googlebooks, the Authors Guild indeed sued Google over its display of "snippets" of copyrighted works – and lost. There was no settlement except in name. (Googlebooks agreed to do something it had always done anyway i.e. allow copyright holders to opt out of having snippets of their works displayed.) But the legality of Googlebooks snippets has nothing to do with what we're talking about anyway.
In Judge Pierre Leval's influential formulation, the "transformative uses" which are a requirement for fair use include (among other things) "criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it." If that isn't bang-on to what we're talking about doing right here, I don't know what is. EEng 08:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW (before anyone asks) my quotation of Judge Leval's text is fair use. EEng 20:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support a voluntary trial run. I see a number of potential drawbacks, including complexities where multiple sources are needed and offputting effect on newbies, as well as the points articulated by Maile especially (4) -- but there are obvious benefits too. Let's see how it works in practice. I don't see that quoting a few sentences in quotation marks with a link to the source would present a copyright problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: One problem that strikes me on this is that it would be particularly useful to quote paywalled material. If editors are accessing this via The Wikipedia Library (as I am) then you are explicitly required to provide full citation details rather than bare url links, so the full reference would need to be duplicated with the quotation in the DYK template page. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Donors of resources made available via Wikipedia Library sometimes ask that care be taken to give full citation details, so that they'll get a bit of recognition for their largesse. For me to believe that this requirement extends to every ephemeral quotation on a talk page, you'll have to show me where that's stated in the W. Library requirements. EEng 03:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, "Editors should always provide original citation information, in addition to linking a JSTOR article" [emphasis added] & "Editors should not provide bare links to non-free JSTOR pages" [21] don't seem to mention whether it's in article space or not. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
What WP:JSTOR#Citation says, in full, is
  • Editors should always provide original citation information, in addition to linking a JSTOR article, per WP:V and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
  • Editors should not provide bare links to non-free JSTOR pages
  • Editors should credit JSTOR and denote the registration requirement by adding |registration=yes and either the |via=[[JSTOR]] or |jstor= parameters to {{cite}} or {{citation}} templates as appropriate, or by using the standalone template, {{Subscription required|via=[[JSTOR]]}}
It's perfectly clear, especially in the refs to V and SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, that this is an insistence that accessed material be clearly acknowledged when it's used in articles. On your theory, if an editor says, in a talk page discussion, "The Smith source already in the article says, 'X'", he's supposed to give a full, formal citation to Smith, right there, even though anyone can see what the Smith source is by looking in the article, and even if there have already been 50 posts in the thread referring to that same source. It's silly. Donors to the WP Library are looking for due recognition that their generosity has contributed to the body of knowledge that is Wikipedia, not a robotic burden dogging editors to gum up their discussions and weigh them down at every turn. EEng 04:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a minor sideline and I don't want to get into an argument, but it seems to me that point 2 precludes putting a bare link in anywhere. So one might say, for example, "per Smith (2012), p. 22" but not "per [jstor non-free url]". The JSTOR metrics the WL are citing include use of links in any namespace. If we're going to make this a formal requirement, it might be worth talking to someone at WL about the case. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The bullet list you're citing (the same one I quoted above) is in a subsection headed Citation; it shows how to properly form citations to this class of material, when you create a citation. On talk pages and discussions such as DYK nominations, "citations" aren't needed -- just enough info to let other editors know what you're talking about. The metrics are just some script someone put together; they don't tell us anything about what's required. I don't want to get in an argument either, but I don't want this new idea to be burdened by a nonrequirement dragged in because of hyperfussy reading of the text above. EEng 06:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and please ignore Andrew Davidson's misguided claims about copyright violations. Google uses random text snippets and can hardly claim fair use for them. In contrast, the quote by EEng (and all short quotes that would be used in this proposal) clearly fulfill the fair use requirement. Fram (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - We often deal with foreign language hooks (Spanish for my subjects) would we want the nominator to post a translated version or the original language version? I have see people comment that Spanish hooks are hard to review despite several translation tools being available. Any thoughts on this?  MPJ-DK  21:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A stab at a voluntary trial run

  • Only because it's much harder to explain than to just show in situ, I've made a bold edit to the nom page "preload" [22] from which every nomination starts. Feel free to modify or improve, or just revert if it's too far off base. EEng 08:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This has an additional benefit, all the way up the ladder. For the promoters to Prep, for the Admins promoting to Queue, and for its run on the main page. If the source quote and a link to that verifiable source is on the template, and if it's a match, there should be fewer issues not caught until the main page. And since promoters to both Prep and Queue are sometimes called out for promoting an error, this definitely helps them. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this is what you're suggesting, but if as the hook goes to prep the source quote is not deleted but rather remains in place enclosed by <! -- --> then it will be available for immediate inspection all the way, as you say, up the ladder. EEng 17:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Even if the source does not go with it to prep at least 2 sets of eyes will have had a better chance of verifying it - the reviewer and the prep builder, it's a quick check to verify the quote(s) actually support the hook - as a prep builder I'd always take a look at that before grabbing a hook, along with the other sport checking I try to do.  MPJ-DK  21:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Worked example

An example of this method is given above from the Kai-Tai Fang nomination.

ALT2: ... that the statistician Kai-Tai Fang designed experiments to improve Tsingtao Beer (pictured) during the Cultural Revolution? Quote: "When did you learn orthogonal design and start conducting experiments with this method? ... In 1972 I had the opportunity to go to the Tsingdao Beer Factory and other factories. I supervised the engineers there to apply orthogonal design to industrial experiements." [23]

When I looked at this, I immediately noticed how poorly the quotation supported the hook. I'll detail the issues below but it's interesting that, even though a variety of editors have looked at the nomination, the issues have not yet been commented on. Maybe it's because the focus has been on other issues, like the meaning of orthogonal design. Or maybe it's because the quote is superficially impressive and people then suppose that it supports the hook, without thinking it through. Perhaps trying to make the checking process easy will discourage editors from fully understanding what the hook and the source are talking about. Anyway, working through this systematically, here are my objections:

  1. The hook says the Kai-Tai Fang is a statistician. The quote doesn't say this.
  2. The hook says that he designed experiments. The quote doesn't say this. Instead he says that he supervised engineers. This suggests that they designed the experiments.
  3. The hook says that the idea was to improve Tsingtao Beer. The quote doesn't say this. Maybe they were doing experiments in some process technology such as printing or cleaning that was used by the company. Or maybe they were trying to cut costs and were making the beer worse as a result.
  4. The name of the beer is spelt differently in the source and quotation. I suppose that this is a different transliteration but it's dangerous to make such assumptions (c.f. Xu Lili and Lili Xu which have been confused recently elsewhere).
  5. The hook says this was during the Cultural Revolution but the quote doesn't say this. One could try working it out from the circumstantial details but it's much better to look at the full source.
  6. The quote is a reminiscence by the subject. This may be an unreliable source because people sometimes exaggerate or otherwise distort their achievements – boasting, for example. I thought that Dave Bald Eagle might make a good DYK but gave up on the topic when it was suggested that he was a spinner of tall tales about his past deeds.
  7. The word "experiments" is misspelt at the end of the quotation which indicates that it has been copy-typed. Google Books doesn't make it easy to cut/paste text from its extracts and I suppose that this is deliberate – they don't want to make it easy for people to copy other people's copyrighted work. There are technical ways round this but they require some type of OCR which can also introduce typographical errors. The more quotes that are required to support the detail of a hook, the more hassle this will be. It's simpler and better to refer to the original source so that such transcription errors don't arise.

Andrew D. (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • To the extent you're saying that various things aren't adequately supported by the quotation then you've quite nicely illustrated the need to force such questions front and center, right from the start, by quoting the source. On the particular point of the subject being a statistician, it wasn't my intention in proposing the quote-the-source idea that the quote(s) support hard-to-get-wrong stuff such as that the article subject is a statistician, or a male, or a human being.
I'm sorry, but your continued talk about copyright issues is complete nonsense. What facilities Google does or does not provide has zero meaning for what constitutes fair use. EEng 20:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You know those questions actually support why this would be a good idea. After two minutes there are 7 questions asked - some of them can easily be verified in the full article and thus covered, but the sheer fact that questions were even asked can only help the cause. I actually see those questions as a good thing, we'd want those answered BEFORE they end up in a prep or queue. If this helps getting less things pulled, more scrutiny while it's still on the nomination page and not here on the talk page that is a GOOD THING.  MPJ-DK  21:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. I just used the technique in helping a novice editor rework a hook, and I have to say that the discipline of finding and copying out the source quotations smoked out some problems -- really forced me to conform the hook to the precise sourced facts (and most of you know me to be a very careful editor to begin with -- part of the problem here is that I'm personally familiar with the subject material, so I was unconsciously importing my own OR-knowledge into the hook). I encourage my esteemed fellow editors to walk through my 4 edits starting here [24] to see what I mean. I'm more convinced than ever of the salutary effect of requiring source quotes right there with the hook. EEng 21:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The name of the beer is different in the article than the source because....please pull up Tsingtao Brewery, and you will see its name in mainland China is Qīngdǎo píjiǔchǎng, and that Tsingtao is on the company's logo. Let's not get overly-dramatic about this - there's nothing "dangerous" about using one over the other in this case. Anymore than it is for Hellmann's and Best Foods to be the exact same product but sold under different names on different sides of the Rocky Mountains. The source material was published in both New Jersey and Hong Kong, so who knows why they picked one variation over another, and why is that important? EEng mistyped experiements? - what's your point? That's not going on the main page or in the article anyway; it's just a reference on a template. Dialog is good for all nominations. Not even trying because it's hard, or because we might trip over ourselves the first time or two, gets us nowhere. DYK didn't pop out of the box as a perfect system, and it's not perfect yet. This is a work in progress. I'm all for trying. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Olympic first hook pulled from prep 2

  • ... that Snowbound was the first horse to win Olympic gold for the United States?

Template:Did you know nominations/Snowbound (horse) @White Arabian Filly, The C of E, and MPJ-DK:.

Only true if you ignore Jenny Camp and some 5 other horses. Fram (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a case of the hook being written incorrectly. As far as I can see, the previous horses (including Jenny Camp) were all team gold's, Snowbound was the first to win an individual gold as the article and the source make explicit. From a quick look at the Equestrian at the Summer Olympics medals, Snowbound was indeed the first individual. So slotting in 'an individual' in front of Olympic should fix it. This is a *basic* reading error however, so I am surprised it was overlooked. Obviously anyone unfamiliar with the less popular olympic sports might not be aware there are team and individual equestrian events, however I would have expected someone nominating horse articles to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the incorrect hook. I was in a hurry when I wrote it and my grandfather is also apparently dying (in his 90s and has heart problems), so I've been in a confused state of mind. How about this hook, per Only in death:
"...that Snowbound was the first horse to win individual gold for the United States in the Olympics?"
For the record, there are three horse events in the Olympics, show jumping (what this horse did), dressage, and eventing. Each country typically fields a team of 3 or 4 riders and horses per sport, and they don't overlap like in gymnastics; each person/horse combo focuses on one of the three disciplines, and competes only in that sport. I guess I was thinking of jumping only when I wrote the hook. Snowbound was the first show jumper to win gold for America, individually or not. Bu the way, there are so many different sports and disciplines in the horse world that even a person familiar with horses probably won't know them all. I have extensive knowledge of one or two, middling knowledge of several, but only basic knowledge of all the rest. I've never done any of the Olympic sports, so I don't have extensive knowledge of them. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Not to worry White Arabian Filly, and sorry to hear your circumstances. We can work on the article in slower time now it's been pulled, just to make sure the sourcing, formatting and presentation are up to scratch. Take your time, I'm happy to do some tinkering while you attend to your real life concerns. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. My main concern was getting an article out there for a notable horse. Barbara Worth Oakford and Sir John Galvin probably deserve articles as well. (We have several articles on John Galvins, but none seem to be about this particular one.) Thanks for your well wishes. We're really just happy my grandfather has lived this long--he's the family record-holder for longevity. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Grobbelaar pulled from Main Page

Template:Did you know nominations/Zimbabwe national football team @The C of E, Coin945, and Cwmhiraeth:

Grobbelaar played on 28 August 1984 (Egypt-Zimbabwe) and 16 August 1992 (Zimbabwe-South Africa), so no decade but just shy of eight years.[25][26]. The source used for the hook did say "a decade", and it isn't easy to find a list of his national team appearances (or the squads for specific games), but it looks as if the "decade" was an exaggeration. Fram (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

A simple fix is either change it to "around a decade" or 8 years. Or you put the original hook in (which personally I had preferred but) rather than pulling it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Addressing an Elephant in the room

Hello Jumbo (sorry had to). But seriously I see a lot of good, constructive discussion on how to improve the quality, rule adjustments, addition, removals etc. but there is one thing that no one has brought up (at least that I've seen) and that is that one of the fundamental challenge is that a lot of the reviews here are done by people who have to do a review, not because they want to review a hook. when you have to do a review there may be instances where you try to get by with the minimal effort. I can compare to to asking my son to clean his room, it may look clean but there are things crammed in weird places and stuff swept under the bed. I don't know exactly what can be done and I am sure that QPQ was introduced for a reason - I am just wondering if there is some sort adjustments that can be made qith the QPQ portion? I mean right now you can do a poor job of doing a QPQ, it can end up in the queue and get yanked but the reviewer gets credit and in reality does not have any accountability in this.  MPJ-DK  21:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I object to your use of the "Elephant in the room" heading as promotional of a certain US presidential candidate. See [27] (noting the text "Totally unpredictable and out of control, charging through the landscape, laying waste to all before it"). EEng 21:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I object to your objection, dragging a majestic animal into the savage and dirty world of American politics *tut*tut*.  MPJ-DK  21:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Tut, tut
I reject to your abject objection, dragging a majestic Egyptian boy-king into the savage and dirty world of Wikipedia. EEng 21:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Plus it's not very nice to call President Trump an elephant, especially given we seem to have agreed not to mention the electoral war. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you just say "President Trump"? Did something happen the week I was comatose? Anyway, elephants trumpet, so it makes sense, doesn't it? EEng 22:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
We haven't said anything about donkeys in the room (to say nothing of jackasses), so this is a biased debate! (lol) Montanabw(talk) 23:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Aaaaany way back to the topic instead of the distraction.  MPJ-DK  22:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Party pooper. This has been discussed many times before -- you lose your QPQ credit if a hook you passed gets pulled -- but it never got anywhere. Part of the problem is that there are too many guilty parties -- article author, nominator (if different), reviewer, prep builder, promoting admin. Personally I think they should all be disemboweled. EEng 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
But the nominator is allowed to try to fix the issue and actually has something at stake. The prep builders are the least involved in this and is not a full second review, the promoting admin is hopefully the one that found it while in a prep or queue and actually has to deal with pulling the hook and whatever attitudes that can spark so they have something at stake too (their sanity for one). The reviewer seems to have the least skin in the game.  MPJ-DK  22:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
For the sake of this thread, 2011 reform proposals is up in the archives box. They discussed QPQ, but apparently kept it. Just FYI, if it's of interest. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
More. Here's the Nov 2012 QPQ discussion. Apparently, I was in the discussion, as was BlueMoonset, Poeticbent, Cwmhiraeth, Schwede66. Maybe any of them can offer suggestions here. It's so many years ago that I didn't even remember this discussion happening. And keep scrolling down on it. It starts off discussing multi-hook nominations. But there's a subsection below that on a proposal to change QPQ. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been wondering about this. When I first became involved with DYK back in 2007, most reviews were carried out by a relatively small group of dedicated DYK regulars who, on the whole, were relatively experienced at DYK. As I recall, we rejected hooks as boring, encouraged authors to lengthen borderline articles and often got involved in improving articles or brainstorming better hooks. I've seen much less of all of this since the introduction of the QPQ requirement. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
When a small group of dedicated DYKers rejected hooks as boring, encouraged authors to lengthen borderline articles and often got involved in improving articles
That was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. See right. EEng 02:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you insist on characterising QPQ as Satan... :) Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I remember creation of qpq, it was due to an overwhelming backlog (not unlike the current situation at GAN today). I became a DYK reviewer because of the qpq requirement, and, oddly enough, I also now submit more of my new articles to DYK than I did in the past, perhaps because I now understand the criteria better than when DYK was inhabited by a mysterious inside group of gnomes. (hugging all gnomes). Frankly, we do have two in-house review checks, plus the crew who pulls approvals, pulls hooks from sets and so on. I don't see an enormous problem. I would suggest that the main onus be on the nominator to write and improve their articles. I think that the "problematic reviewer" situation is best handled with the reviewer's own articles; if they write them correctly, they are pretty likely to also review correctly. I see it as an education problem more than ill-will. Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Bringing the bot back online

Hi, I think the previous issue has more or less resolved itself (with thanks to the users who manually removed the offending templates). I have also changed the bot's code so it will no longer use the {{hidden top}} template and use pure HTML to achieve the same effect instead, which should not cause any problems with the transclusion limit. If there are no objections I'm going to bring the bot back online in the next few days. Intelligentsium 01:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Intelligentsium, why not start with a batch of five or ten reviews, and then wait five or seven days to see whether any unexpected issues are found? If nothing unusual happens, then the bot can be placed online and left to do its thing. Does that make sense? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Intelligentsium: as far as I can tell, the bot has not restarted yet. Worth mentioning that, even without the bot, we are having some really funky stuff happening at the bottom of the nominations page, down in the special holding area. So whatever causes it, the bot does not seem to be involved. — Maile (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Maile, that funky stuff is because there are too many templates being transcluded on the page (including those internal to the nomination templates); there's a limit per Wikipedia page. As we get more noms, we hit the limit sooner. Removing the hidden templates from existing noms helps a bit, but not as much as I would have expected, oddly enough. What will help is promoting more hooks; filling an eight-slot prep will allow all the remaining transcluded hooks to show up in full; they were all showing up about eight hours ago when I checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I've filled up through prep 6 and put some in 1-2-3 to spread them out a bit too. Hopefully that'll help? If this is the issue I hope everyone will pitch in and get the preps filled and keep them filled daily.  MPJ-DK  19:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that makes sense; this is a page that by its nature will have a lot of templates transcluded so there might not be a lot that can be done, but in its more recent form it doesn't use any templates so should not contribute to that issue. Intelligentsium 21:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • All prep are now filled, hopefully this starves off the transclusion problem for a little while, we just got to keep on top of the preps and we should be okay.  MPJ-DK  01:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Gentleman (prep 4)

Template:Did you know nominations/Swords in courts-martial @The C of E, Bobamnertiopsis, and Cwmhiraeth:

The source doesn't mention "as a gentleman". Considering that there have been female British officers for a while now (about 25 years), the hook seems at least outdated (or sexist), and is in any case unsupported. Fram (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I trimmed it, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
While its not backed by this source, its historical from when all commissioned officers were 'Gentleman' in the landed Gentry meaning of the term. From when they had to 'buy' their commission. So in that context sexism does not apply - women were not in the military. An explanation of a historical practice is not required to be inclusive in that sense. I would be very very surprised if there are not sources (current or historical) that do support the hook however. I have plenty of 'Historical Fiction' that comments on it explicitly. But you cant really use an episode of the TV Series Hornblower as a reference ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Pulled another one from Prep 6 (third one so far)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dennis L. Riley @Alansohn, The C of E, and MPJ-DK:

Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria 4a: "[...] hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." Fram (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram, this is an event that occurred in 1981, so it doesn't appear to be ongoing; the incident is hardly unduly negative and is properly balanced in the hook and the article. I'm not sure what the issue is here. Alansohn (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A hook which states that a politician is kicked out of casinos for card counting seems to me "unduly negative" for a BLP (the "ongoing" part is not applicable here). Fram (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I am actually not sure what would fall in the "duely focus on negative aspects" category really? Is this perhaps too vague since the general interpretation of this seems to be "anything that can be construed as negative", if that is really the rule I think it should state that.  MPJ-DK  16:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a particularly negative hook. Getting kicked out of casinos for card-counting is not a disparagement. If anything, I'd think it would make casinos look bad.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No one seems to agree about it being negative (or unduly so), so I've put it back. Fram (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an international news source

I don't know how this is in other countries, but in the US, the international news outlets are more tabloid magazines than anything vaguely resembling NPOV news. And many, many times I have heard a news anchor say, "According to Wikipedia..." And I've never heard them refer to an FA quality article. It's usually articles that need improving. In at least one case, I went to the article and it was slapped with tags. The media doesn't care. They use Wikipedia to support whatever point of view they're pushing on any story. And they quote Wikipedia as though its accuracy is a given. I believe we should discuss first and pull as a last resort, but it doesn't always work out that way. So, while the process here to get it right is frequently contentious to the point of painful, any of those articles could be quoted on international news. They never mention DYK specifically, but the main page is the first thing they see.— Maile (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

A terrifying thought that other sources would use an article featured on DYK. Even more power to those of us trying to ensure the error rate is reduced to as low as practiably possible. Imagine DYK publishing an error that is then propounded by lazy news hounds. Who would be blamed? Wikipedia, of course. Even more justification to pull errors or even dubious hooks from the main page and queues as soon as they are spotted for a more detailed analysis. The Rambling Man (talk)
I can't wait for Donald Trump to quote a DYK item -- maybe the one about 1967 being the first time a black person was on a magazine cover. EEng 19:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Jordanian election hook in Prep 4 set to run on the day of the election

Prep 4 will become Queue 4 and be the next set for the main page. Template:Did you know nominations/Elections in Jordan was a special request to run on election day, which is September 30. But since DYK doesn't run election hooks on the US election day, should they do it for Jordan? — Maile (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5, Jude Flannery

When you say "... that in 1997, Jude Flannery became the oldest woman ever to be named Master Female Triathlete of the Year", you really need to say how old. I had to go to the refs to make it 57, but since that's not explicit in the article, I didn't change the hook. Awien (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Awien (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
No worries. Next time, it's £20, or $20, whichever happens to be worth more at the time of posting (not requesting, fluctuations are strong). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

First photograph (prep 6)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gösta Peterson @Yorkshiresky, Headbomb, BlueMoonset, and MPJ-DK:

Pulled. This hook is sourced to [28], but it is obvious nonsense. Even ignoring "black" magazines like The Negro Digest (with e.g. a cover with Odetta in 1965) and Ebony (magazine) (a Barbara McNair cover in May 1958 is also just one example), we also have e.g. Dorothy Dandridge on the cover of Life (magazine) in 1954. I don't know which was the actual "first" American magazine cover to do this, but definitely not the 1967 one by Peterson. Fram (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Then I guess this is a case of sources being flat out wrong because they are (likely) ignoring 'black' magazines, either because they don't think of them as 'mainstream' magazines, or because they never checked the claim and are simply repeating it from whoever they've heard. The only way this hook can survive is to tame it to "...first African-American woman on the cover of Fashion of the Times." or similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, the hook I submitted is clearly incorrect. I appreciate Headbomb's efforts to rescue it, but suggest we move onto a less controversial but more accurate hook e.g. ...that Gosta Peterson was the first photographer to photograph English model Twiggy in America.yorkshiresky (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively and more in keeping with the original hook, ...that Gosta Peterson was the first photographer to photograph African-American model Naomi Sims?. As per New York Times Obituary.yorkshiresky (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Please avoid repetition of "photograph..." in the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The sources doesn't say he was the first to photograph her though. But he was photograph her for Fashion of the Times, and that was the first time an African American appeared on the cover of that magazine. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1:...that photographer Gösta Peterson met his wife when watering flowers at a cocktail party?
That one is pretty boring I'd have to say. The Twiggy hook checks out though, and I'd put it over ALT1 or anything else suggested so far. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, I am requesting that someone review an article I just nominated so its DYK can run on the Main Page on an anniversary: Robert Donati, a Boston mobster whose body was found in the trunk of his car 25 years ago September 24 (yes, tomorrow) and is increasingly believed to have pulled off the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft, the largest-value theft of not only art but any private property ever.

I know, I know, this is extremely short notice, but the article proved more complicated to write a coherent narrative from several spaghetti bowls of sources from and thus took more time than I thought it would. These requests have been accommodated in the past. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Just an FYI, that would mean be ready in three and a half hours. 20:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think that this request is going to get through, considering that the queue for tomorrow has already been filled and there and two filled preps scheduled before it. Pppery 21:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I reviewed this nomination a couple minutes age, and it seems good (with book souces accepted in good faith), other than the fact that the QPQ review does not mention copyvios. Pppery 22:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
        • only an hour left! Pppery 22:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
          It might have been possible for an admin to swap the hook into Queue 2 in place of one of the hooks there, which could in turn have been swapped out to a space in one of the preps, but submitting a nomination less than five hours before the hook needs to run is well under the five day minimum specified in the special occasions section and it's unsurprising that it didn't make it. It probably wouldn't have even if the nomination had been approved, given the low general activity level of DYK admins this time of day. (I see that the QPQ not only doesn't mention a copyvio/close paraphrasing check, but other "policy" checks do not appear to have been done, including neutrality.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Leftover Paralympics hooks

The Paralympics ended on September 18, but there are currently four hooks remaining in the Paralympics section, all of which were passed less than 50 hours before the final hook set was promoted to the main page for the 18th. The question is what to do with these hooks: should they be left there and prep set builders urged to promoted them as soon as feasible while memories of the Paralympics remain, or should they be removed from the special occasion section and put back among the rest of the hooks. I'm happy to do either, depending on what other folks feel should be done at this point. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think they should be moved back into the main noms area. I came across other para hooks in the main noms area when I was doing some prep building earlier today. Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It is what we typically do once an event is over, and it especially makes sense to do so if other Paralympics hooks are in the main list. Unless I hear objections in the next few hours, I'll move them back. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK review request for Timber Sycamore

If anybody has a little time, am requesting a review of Template:Did you know nominations/Timber Sycamore. Many thanks, -Darouet (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Darouet: Is there a reason this is urgent? I notice you nominated this yesterday. Vanamonde (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
No @Vanamonde93: - not urgent - I'm just excited about the article :). And now that I can't figure out how to improve it, I guess I'm a little fixated on the DYK (which I haven't done in a while, because I was afraid of QPQ, though it turns out that's not so hard at all).
I'll take a chill pill and come back to it later. I'm not very familiar with DYK scheduling and was thinking, "maybe no one will ever review it..." Thanks for note. -Darouet (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
No worries. The way the system is set up right now, every nomination will get a review: a wait of a couple of weeks is common, though. Vanamonde (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

Thomas was very upset. Annie and Clarabel had been involved in a hit and run and he didn't have any grapes for them in Railway hospital....
... that the oldest Railway hospital was established in 1927 before the zonal hospital?

I don't know where to start here. We have two easter egg links for a start. We have an oddly capitalised "Railway hospital". I'm not even sure that such a thing as a "railway hospital" exists, even if it does, Wikipedia doesn't have an article about it. Then when have "the zonal hospital" which links to a different type of "Railway" hospital. Some tenuous reuse of words there too (e.g. "erstwhile"). The claim appears misleading, as the "Railway hospital" is actually the oldest hospital in the "Southern Railway zone" and not necessarily the "oldest" "Railway hospital". On top of all that confusion (for me), the hook isn't even interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with The Rambling Man. The hook gives no indication as to what country or part of the country we are talking about. This hook should be returned to the nominations page for a better hook to be selected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The trouble with sending hooks straight back to the nominations page is that they end up not getting looked at by anybody. Given that it's still several days before this hook will run, I'd prefer to leave it in Prep for the time being to see if we can't get the issues straightened out in this discussion. We can always pull it in a day or two if there are still outstanding issues. Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Indian Railways does maintain a large network of hospitals - 56 divisional and 9 zonal, according to this source. So that's a start. Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

An alt something like this might work:

Pulled. Hook is obviously utterly wrong, WT:DYK is not the place to suggest and approve new hooks. E.g. for QPQ purposes it is important that the nomination is reopened. Fram (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WT:DYK is a better place to discuss hooks than the nominations page, since there are far more eyes on this page. For someone who claims to care about quality control, this is a very strange attitude to take Fram. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Then why not discuss all hooks here? As long as you let it in prep, there is a deadline, and we have relatively recent examples from issues being raised here when hooks were still in prep, where the problematic hook appeared unchanged on the Main Page anyway. I pulled the hook because I care about quality control, and because I seem to have a better memory. Your reason to kep it here, "The trouble with sending hooks straight back to the nominations page is that they end up not getting looked at by anybody." is truly bizarre though: you could just as well have proposed your alt hook there as here, which would mean that at least one person was again looking at it. Fram (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It's true that some hooks under discussion here ended up making it to the main page Fram, but when I said the hook can be pulled if the issues are not resolved in a timely manner, I was signalling that I intended to take responsibility for ensuring that. Apart from which, the hook was at least two days away from being featured, in that circumstance there's a ton of time to discuss it, it's much different than previous occasions when IIRC there were only a few hours to promotion. Gatoclass (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
And instead of two days, you now have all the time in the world to get the articles up to scratch and a good hook from it. Fram (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the glaring poor English in the first linked article (I'm just about to go and fix the first paragraph which has four words and two commas missing), and the lack of sourcing for much of the second. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Which proves my point Black Kite. Because the hook was under discussion here, you took a look at the nom, saw some problems and fixed them. Once these things go back to the nomination page, they fall off the radar. Gatoclass (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, nothing stops us from mentioning every problematic hook in prep and queue here (like, you know, most of us already do most of the time), but at the same time to pull it and reopen the discussion. The mentioning here draws additional attention, and the discussion there removes the deadline (among other benefits). Black Kite replied here after the hook was pulled, so it doesn't really prove your point, now does it? Fram (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Well that's not what you said earlier, but regardless - the reason I suggested leaving the hook in place is because I felt it would add a note of urgency to the debate and thus invite more engagement; I can see people ignoring this thread now they know that the hook is tucked safely back on the nominations page. Gatoclass (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
What's not "what I said earlier"? Have I ever advocated not mentioning pulled or problematic hooks here? This hook is not more urgent than any other, and adding artificial "notes of urgency" to a debate and having it here seems not very logical. If you see a good reason why this hook would warrant urgent treatment here, which all other hooks don't get, then feel free to enlighten me. So far, you haven't given any. Fram (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Well it may not seem very logical to you Fram, but it seems very logical to me because I am finding in recent weeks that I am constantly being left alone to try and sort out the issues with nominations after a hook has been pulled, which is what tends to happen once a nom goes back to the nominations page. I actually have things I would like to do on Wikipedia other than trying to fix other people's broken nominations all day long. If the issues with problematic noms in Prep can be resolved here, it greatly eases the burden of the small number of users who work on a daily basis to keep the overall project running. Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The project of course also keeps runninng if these hooks don't return to the preps and queues. If the people involved in the original nomination can't be bothered to try again, and if it takes up too much of your time, then too bad, close the nomination after a while and move on to another. "I actually have things I would like to do on Wikipedia other than trying to fix other people's broken nominations all day long." No one is stopping you. Fram (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Fail the hook. Notify the nominator, reviewer and prep builder that they overlooked fundamental issues. It's a fail case. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I plugged in the gap in prep 6 with a hook from the prep the furthest out (prep 3) to allow full preps to be reviewed when someone has time.  MPJ-DK  11:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The hook was written was not wrong. Fram Still is the oldest Indian railway divisional hospital and that continues to be sourced. If the source is wrong I wouldn't know, and you might want to give us some guidance in that regard. If you have another hook, propose it. There was no issue with the WP:QPQ. Nominator had one prior WP:DYK. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Strange, I can't see "Indian" anywhere in that hook. It wasn't even the oldest Indian Railway hospital, before 1927 there were Railway Hospitals in e.g. Kharagpur, Bhusavai and Lallaguda. Fram (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Proposed ALT3 & ALT4.
ALT3 ... that the Divisional Railway Hospital, Golden Rock was established in 1927 by the then South Indian Railway Company to treat active and retired railroad employees and their families?
New reviewer needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Note "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." are any of these hooks genuinely interesting to a broad audience? Alt 3 stands the best chance, I've never heard of a hospital inaugurated to treat its workers and their families. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The direct antecedent was South Indian Railway Company, whose workers and retirees were to be treated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the real point I'm making is that to ensure this hook is interesting, it should talk of the fact such an organisation exists and its longevity, rather than comparing it with another very similar organisation in the same geographical entity with no context for unfamiliar readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Added word "railroad" to ALT4 per your suggestion.
So we are clear, I really don't have a dog in this fight. All I was trying to do was edit the article and help out a WP:DYK Newbie, who works in a different dialect. No good deed goes unpunished.
I thought we should encourage new contributors, but maybe I'm misinformed. Feel free to beat on him. User:Balablitz. As Pontius Pilate may have said, 'But it's on you.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
So I'm clear, I have no problem with the nominator or his/her motives in any way. I have not one jot of interest in "beating on him". I do have a problem with the process that allowed this to get to a hare's breath (or hair's breadth if you prefer) of featuring on the main page. As demonstrating by the preceding discussion, it was in no way suitable in its accepted form or hook for the main page. Nothing is personal, it's about the integrity of the main page. As you say, no good deed goes unpunished. More of that soon, I'm sure.. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hair's breath Hair's breadth would be correct. I added a section to that article and am well aware. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Apparently not! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm Corrected. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Proton radius puzzle (prep 5)

Template:Did you know nominations/Proton radius puzzle @Silver seren, Yarikata, and Cwmhiraeth:

As far as I can tell (admittedly, much of what I read was a bit beyond me), no "radius change in a proton caused by swapping in a muon for an electron" was seen or postulated, the thought is that the "radius change" was caused by better measurements which were made possible by the muon swap, and that the muon swap in itself caused no change in radius. Or at least that there is no agreement at all that an actual radius change happens (some studies do seem to postulate an actual change). E.g. this source from the article cautiously discusses "the current discrepancy between determinations of the proton radius". This soure, also from the article, gives a good (and understandable) overview of the current situation.

I also note that the article seems to have other scientific errors in it: "A followup experiment by Pohl et al. in August 2016 used a deuterium atom to create muonic deuterium and measured the proton radius again." is sourced to [33] which makes it clear in the abstract that this experiment did not "measure the proton radius again", it measured the deuteron radius which is related but not the same. If we want to feature such highly scientific articles, perhaps we should check with some resident experts (not me!) first to get the basics right. Fram (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Pulled, because I don't have time to look into it more closely right now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: Fine on the deuteron radius, but that's not a part of the hook, so is irrelevant. Feel free to clarify in the article about that. You are, however, completely wrong about the radius change. The author postulates that the difference in measurement is due to the original measurement being wrong, but there is no evidence for that and it is a clear fact that the radius measured from his experiment does not match the official proton radius by more than 5 sigma of confirmation. Thus, by current existing measurements, the radius when using a muon is different than when using an electron. There was nothing wrong in the hook. SilverserenC 15:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
That's a difference in measurement accuracy rather than an actual difference in radius. The articles sources either agree/dont agree with the former rather than as the hook implies, the latter. "that the proton radius puzzle is an unsolved problem in physics relating to a recorded difference in radius in a proton when swapping in a muon for an electron?"? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

How about these? EdChem (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't know how accurate they are, but alts 2 and 3 make me want to go and read the article! Gatoclass (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
2 is the most accurate (and better than the original tbh). 3 implies the measurements are inconsistant - that they vary - they are consistantly inconsistant (if thats a thing). Although it should be proton rather than nucleus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
3 is meant to note that there is an inconsistency between the measurements of muonic and regular hydrogen, and the article bears that out; this could be because one of the measurements is inaccurate or because there is an actual change in radius, both possibilities are mentioned in the article. I used "hydrogen atomic nucleus" because a proton is the nucleus of a regular 1H atom (which avoids using "proton" twice in the hook) and because Fram noted deuterons (2H atoms) have also been used in some experiments. I have a PhD in chemistry and have read the article, and believe these reflect what the article says, though I haven't checked the underlying sources. I would avoid any direct mention of deuterons as the deuteron radius will be bigger than a proton radius as a deuteron has a neutron in it. EdChem (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Potentially better grammar, though more wordy... EdChem (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
A bit too wordy IMO, I prefer alt2/3. Gatoclass (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I would wikilink "atom nucleus" to atomic nucleus, but otherwise I'm fine so long as the grammar is considered ok.  :) EdChem (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, wikilink added. SilverserenC 20:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_129&oldid=1137319356"