Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 100

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102→Archive 105

QPQ

There have been a few discussions regarding QPQ recently, specifically, the fact that for non self noms, no QPQ is required. This seems to have been (I wasn't around when the rules were written) best summed up by Struway2 in his statement “where someone nominates the work of a creator who already has 5+ DYKs, then the nominator should have to do a QPQ just like a self-nom would”. However, this seems to be failing at present, there are many (myself included) nominators who don't do QPQ because it is not required, but leave a note first on the article creator's talk page asking them for permission. This should be the bare minimum, but personally I feel that something more strict, perhaps QPQ required after 5 non-self noms, would function better, and help with the amount of nominations. I may (depending on the amount of replies) begin a RFC on this soon. Best, Matty.007 19:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You'd want an RFC done correctly, and I'm not the one to ask about that. Except to say what you have quoted above is too wordy. Something more concise like "QPQ is required of anyone who has nominated more than 5 DYKs." Give more than one option in there. It would be good to have an idea of how anybody would keep track of who has nominated more than a set number of DYKs. However, before proceeding with an RFC, I think you should directly solicit some input/advice about how to put it together from DYK editors whom you believe could give you some guidance on the structure of the proposal.— Maile (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
OK. (For people who like wordy quotes, I cut "If someone nominates the work of a newcomer to DYK, and the nominator takes a couple of minutes to leave a note on their talk explaining what DYK is and encouraging them to nominate their own article next time they create one, then that should equate to a QPQ.") Matty.007 20:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Ugh, sorry, I missed the last part of your reply. Please feel free to revert if you want. Sorry, Matty.007 21:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Requiring a QPQ for nominations if you have made more than 5 might be self-defeating, since I know people nominate the work of new authors who might not otherwise be aware of the DYK process. However, I would be strongly in favour of requiring QPQ if the creator has 5 or more DYKs - this seems logical to prevent gaming of the system.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that seems like the best idea. Matty.007 11:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Quid Pro Quo, Hmm.. recently in one of my DYK reviews an article written by a first-timer was nominated by his mentor and per the rules of QPQ it did not require one. That was pretty frustrating as that QPQ would have resulted in one-less DYK. I think QPQ should be made mandatory for all those who have more than 5 noms irrespective of the fact whether its a self nom or not. Soham 12:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
We have delegates now? ;) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that QPQ should be done, but it's not fair to require the noms to do wiki detective work and find out how many submissions someone had. I know that at GAs the number of reviews is counted automatically; could we also display such counts (# DYKs one has authored and reviewed) here? The data is somewhere there... perhaps Wikidata could help us (isn't it supposed to deal with stuff like that?) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Soham: it is already mandatory for self noms, but you have effectively and eloquently summed up what we were trying to get at. Matty.007 12:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I know its already mandatory for self-noms, what I am referring to is the non-self noms. Talking about self-noms one gets to nominate 5 DYK's QPQ free and then do the sixth one with a QPQ? Soham 12:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I support a process that engages serial nominators in the QPQ process more fully, to help decrease any backlog . As I noted on Dec 20, some 50 nominations were done this way by one lone nominator and no QPQ was happening. I believe the serial nominations are continuing. There's also those who effectively game the system with the serial round-robin of individuals in a group taking turns nominating each other so nobody has to do a QPQ. These are holes in the system that need to be adjusted, so the burden does not fall on others to dig out from a massive list of backlog. — Maile (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
When you do the RFC, I would suggest getting all your points in place - the QPQ issues, and whatever else you have in mind. List them point-by-point for a vote. But do it all together. But, yeah, if you could, please include a process fix about the serial nominators. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Each point should have it's own subsection for Support, Oppose or Comment. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ageing three-article nomination

As it's looking like no-one's ever going to review my three-article nomination Frank Macey, does anyone think it'd help if I split them into two separate nominations. One for Frank Macey and one for the 1925 and 1926 FA Charity Shields, each with a new, simple hook referenced to online sources? I realise it won't do anything about all three articles having a fair amount of content sourced to old newspapers, which makes it a problem checking for copyvio/close paraphrasing unless the reviewer has access to the relevant archives, but people might well be more willing to review a single or a double hook than the current triple. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I reviewed them, all checks out fine. Good work on the articles! Harrias talk 14:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, much appreciated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Check the queues

I may be overreacting but I think that Queue 3's order should be rearranged because I don't think it looks right sandwiching a hook about a sex site between two Christian based hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're over-reacting. That Queue is the one that will move up during the Christian observance of Epiphany (holiday). — Maile (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
So you agree there should be some moving around of the hooks then? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Not only moved around, but the sex hook should be moved to appear on a different day so as not to offend during a global religious observance.— Maile (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hear hear. Admins, sort it out! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've rearranged the order of the hooks in the set, but I don't see the need to remove it from this schedule. Pretty much every day of the year is a religious feast of some kind, and while I appreciate that Epiphany is more major than some, Wikipedia is not censored, and I don't think we should feel the need to make such editorial decisions. That said, I won't object if another admin does switch it out of this set. Harrias talk 21:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK Swedish Nuclear Weapons Program

The article itself was moved by a page mover. That individual also moved the nominations template. As a result, when you click on "Review of Comment", it opens to a blank edit window. Here's the history on the template renaming. The move also did something funky with the article in that the DYK Check does not work correctly on it. The editor who did the move, and also had a hand in editing the article before it was nominated, is also the one reviewing it on the new template. I think there's a conflict of interest in the review. — Maile (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The template has been fixed—I was just able to edit it, and made some additional fixes (such as bolding the hook)—and DYKcheck worked on the article when I used it just now. People are reminded that DYK nomination templates should not be moved, even if the article is moved. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

QPQs for non-self-nominations

I appreciate QPQs don't need to be done unless it's a self nomination from an editor who has five or more DYK credits but recently there seems to have been a significant increase in the number of these submitted. Quite a lot of the articles have actually been created/expanded by fairly regular DYK participants who would be required to do a QPQ and I hasten to add in fact do normally undertake a review (so helping to keep a reasonable number of approved hooks). I know there is no rule against it but is it really in 'the spirit of QPQ' for such a high percentage of 'not a self nom, no QPQ required' nominations to be submitted? I think the creators/expanders may not even be aware of the nominations. Am I just creating a mountain out of a molehill or does this need to be addressed somehow? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about the phenomenon that a goodly number of nominations by regular DYK contributors have been nominated by someone else? I've noticed that, also. What we don't know for sure, is if those regular DYK contributors know their article was nominated. — Maile (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I did ask an editor who had an article nominated in a recent batch as I know he usually does nominate his own articles and does undertake QPQs. He did not know it had been nominated and had chosen not to do so himself as he thought it was "too short and pretty dull". I don't think most do know of the nominations - it wouldn't cause watch list alerts as the articles/talk pages are not being altered. I appreciate there are a number of circumstances that a new editor can be encouraged with a DYK nomination (that's how I came to know about DYK in the first place!) and it's sometimes occasionally done for other reasons. It just struck me that there is an exceptionally high percentage of them just now and a very low number of approved hooks, putting undue pressure on those who do review to try and keep abreast of the backlog - it must also make building prep areas difficult as there are so few approved hooks to choose from. edit conflicts on an iPad are horrendous SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
As I just found out when I built a prep set. It's very scarce on the approved nominations page. Part of that also might be the holiday season. Looking at a possible aspect from that nominator's point of view, these are editors whose work is more likely to be problem free than taking a shot on nominating new editors. It helps fill the nominations page. But it does create this glut of un-reviewed like you are mentioning. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I must admit that the majority of my nominations are non self noms, and I don't often do QPQ. I would be willing to increase the amount I do if it would help. (I always ask the article creator before I nominate though.) Thanks, Matty.007 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominations of another editor's work

Hi, I have seen a few instances of where an editor nominates another editors work for DYK, but they do it without asking. This is completely within the rules at present, but I think that a rule change which meant that you had to ask an editor before nominating their work for DYK would be better; often the first editors hear about DYK is when they get a credit after the article has been on the main page. Thanks, Matty.007 19:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Related thread — Maile (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
That seemed to be more about when editors not doing a self nomination don't do QPQ (which is within the rules), and can lead to a backlog. Thanks, Matty.007 19:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Within that thread, it's noted that editors are not being identified their article has been nominated, and perhaps if asked would have said the article was not ready for DYK. The issue of nominating someone else's work is two fold: (1) The creating editor doesn't necessarily get notified; (2) No requirement for a QPQ, even if there are ten or twenty like nominations in a row. If the rules are changed regarding the nominating of someone else's work, perhaps both issues should be changed. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that the idea that you don't need to do QPQ for nominating others' work is that it encourages that practice. How about one QPQ per three noms of others' work? Thanks, Matty.007 20:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
As a note I have never been a fan of the concept that a nomination of another persons article should exempt someone from doing a review.--Kevmin § 23:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I do that a fair bit, but am trying to pull my weight a bit more now. Thanks, Matty.007 08:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I will probably bring this up again after Christmas and the New Year, there are only ~10 people regularly using DYK talk at the minute. Thanks, Matty.007 11:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
If someone nominates the work of a newcomer to DYK, and the nominator takes a couple of minutes to leave a note on their talk explaining what DYK is and encouraging them to nominate their own article next time they create one, then that should equate to a QPQ. But where someone nominates the work of a creator who already has 5+ DYKs, then the nominator should have to do a QPQ just like a self-nom would. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I occasionally nominate articles by newbies for DYK, but I have no intention either of telling them before the DYK goes up or of asking them to participate in DYK. If the hook is accepted then they will get a nice surprise of being told that their article was a DYK, if that provokes their interest and gets them involved in DYK then I'm fine by that, but then I'm a believer in the soft sell rather than the hard sell. ϢereSpielChequers 09:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notification to editors whose work you nominate on DYK

In regards to two threads above, I did a rough count, and of the 200+ nominations currently outstanding, almost 50 of them have been nominated for multiple editors by the same editor. This relates to the QPQ thread above, in that I don't see the nominating editor doing extra reviews. And the second issue Notifying the editor whose work you are nominating. The latter can be quickly done by posting a duplicate of the nomination template on the editor's talk page, Example here. The QPQ aspect, while not required, is interesting given the count of the nominations. — Maile (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What about if you're one of the majority editors too? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Clarify? Majority of self-noms, or majority a different direction? — Maile (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
As in one of the major contributors to another's article and named as such in the DYK nom. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
C of E, different than I just did a count on. I've seen mentioned in the past on the DYK talk page, where maybe another author does the majority of the basic work, others come along later and add some, and one of the lessor contributors makes the nomination and does the QPQ. I don't have an answer for that, but I know it's come up before as being a repeat occurrence. It could be said that either phenomenon might be considered gaming the system, but there's nothing to prevent it. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looking at my nominations, quite a few are not self nominations; and I don't always do QPQ. However, I always ask, and have recently started doing more QPQ, and setting up Preps, so I feel that I am pulling my weight in a different way. What gets me though is that people can simply do drive by nominations by not asking page creators, and not do QPQs, thereby the entire process can take less than five minutes per nomination, so the nomination page can quickly become flooded. Matty.007 19:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to merge the three threads on this onto one? As they are all addressing similar aspects of the same situation.--Kevmin § 20:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

QPQ for nominating other than self

Since things are going to be winding down, holidays wise, would be an appropriate time to re-evaluate the no-qpq needed exception for nomination of others work?--Kevmin § 00:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  • QPQ required for more than 5 promoted DYKs nominated for others
  • To get the discussion going. Verification is a question mark. I ran the QPQ Check on myself, and results all say "Giving DYK credit for (article name) on behalf of (Admin who sends the DYK notice)" . — Maile (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would be for re removal of the exemption for anyone that has over 10 or so nominations. I will admit I missed the initial discussions in which the loophole was agreed upon but I don't see much logic in its existence.--Kevmin § 17:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I suspect that AGF would be needed, the tool for number of DYKs is broken. I would support QPQ requirements for editors with over a set number of noms. Matty.007 17:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't know the QPQ Check tool is broken. Some kind of verifiable tracking needs to be in place. I would support whatever requires serial nominators to help out with the reviews. — Maile (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2014 (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) 14:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

LS3/5A

Currently in Prep2, we have " that there are an estimated 100,000 pairs of the BBC's LS3/5A loudspeaker (pictured) in circulation from its two-decade-plus production period?" Couple of problems; the lead of the article says "Upwards of 60,000 pairs of the speaker have been sold.", only later in the article does the 100,000 figure appear next to the 60,000 one. Furthermore, these speakers have been produced since 1975: it seems highly probably that many thousands are no longer "in circulation" but have been scrapped long since. Can someone take a look and if necessarily change the hook accordingly or send it back for more discussion? Fram (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Well spotted. I was challenged over the "sales" figure, as the source said 100,000 pairs "in circulation", we agreed to use that wording. Nobody can say for sure how many pairs of the speaker had been produced, but these are not just any old speakers. They were and are highly prized, and some collectors are known to have walls of them. So the percentage of non-functioning LS3s is likely to be small. It's also possible that some were cannibalised for parts to repair ones that had broken down. I've now modified the hook to read "... that up to 100,000 pairs of the BBC's LS3/5A loudspeaker (pictured) have been put into circulation during its two-decade-plus production period?" Now that we discount ones that fallout out of repair, does this allay your concern? -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep, thanks! It wasn't important enough to pull the hook, but it's better to have an accurate hook than an inaccurate, outdated, or disputable one, IMO. Thanks for taking care of this. Fram (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Testing a style on my reviews

Sometimes my reviews get detailed. I did one that might have been more so, so I added a collapse feature to it, so editors don't have to scroll through all that to get to another available nomination to review. I would appreciate some input about this collapse feature if I'm messing up DYK in any way. It's this review. Otherwise, I think it saves time for those who scroll the page looking for something to review. — Maile (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me to be an improvement Maile, particularly as your reviews are long/thorough and you have summarised what the result is. Victuallers (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Queue 4 DYKmake and DYKnom credits are completely wrong: 15 minutes to fix

I have no idea how it happened, but the DYKmake and DYKnom credits are completely wrong for Queue 4. I'm hoping there's an admin around who can quickly fix them; here's what they're supposed to be (but please doublecheck me!):

Thanks! I'm hoping a miracle can happen in 15 minutes. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You've probably already told them, but pinging regular admins: Orlady, Gatoclass, Crisco 1492, Harrias (sorry if I missed anyone). Matty.007 15:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done (edit conflict) - a miracle has occurred!. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 15:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
It's my fault, because I transferred them from the prep area to the queue; I only do it rarely, and I couldn't remember (and couldn't find anew) where to go to change who got credited for what. I must have accidentally retained the credits from the previous time that queue 4 got posted. Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend, I've never done the transfer myself, but aren't you just supposed to copy the entire prep over to the queue, replacing the queue's placeholder line? As in all the code and everything? And then add in a DYKbotdo template at the very top? I believe that's all that's involved in the mechanical portion of the move, although doing a final check on the hooks and the credits is a very good idea, since this is the final opportunity to identify issues that might have been missed in the approval and promotion steps. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I thought I was supposed to replace only occasional bits instead of copying the whole thing, or we'd end up with tons of prep-related stuff on the Main Page when the bot came along. Sorry for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, next time just copy the whole page over. Gatoclass (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviews not showing

I have reviewed Timothy Massad and François Ponchaud but my reviews don't show? 03:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Iselilja (talk)

  • There has been a site-wide caching error for at least a week, so transcluded pages aren't showing edits (use ?action=purge at the end of the URL of the nominations page to reset the cache so that it will show up). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. But frankly I don't understand anything. The reviews don't show at the nomination front page; but I can see other recent reviews there. Iselilja (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, Mr. Bot. Note: I had to complete a set, and promote hooks that I had reviewed myself in order to get this updated in time, so another set of eyes on the hooks/articles would be great. We need to keep on top of the queues, or we may have to change the frequency of the updates. Harrias talk 07:22, 7 January 2014 (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 #1 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) 14:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

New reviewer needed

For Template:Did you know nominations/Rape during the Darfur genocide as Soman has said he is not going to finish it off. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: extend the five day limit to one month for first time self-nominators

Rationale: to increase recruitment of new DYK submitters. It is too tough to expect newbies to self-nominate themselves that quickly; it may take days before we discover their work (I do it through Article New Feed which I check every week), and then days again before they read the message and take action. It is discouraging to them when after learning complex (for the newbie) procedure of how to submit a DYK nom they are told "you were a few days too late". And it's not like we would be swamped - we get such newbie noms every few days at best. So I suggest that we apply the philosophy of WP:BITE and WP:IAR and allow older than five days self-noms from first time nominators (who should be cautioned that next time they have to nominate quickly). I'd like to think that this change will increase the newbie friendliness of DYKs and in the long run result in the much needed increase of active editors (reviewers) here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I can see the logic, a month seems excessive. How about 15 days, or a fortnight? Matty.007 12:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - In reality, we have always been willing to relax/ignore the arbitrary 5-day rule for newbies (and other contributors who give a good excuse). Setting a different arbitrary time limit won't eliminate the need to sometimes ignore the rule. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. As Orlady notes, we're typically willing to relax the five-day rule for new nominators, but having it gives us flexibility depending on length of time and quality of article. I think the status quo is fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

1 meter (3 ft 3 in)

Don't we have some rule against too precise conversions? In Queue 4, we now have " that during the Second World War, the Luftwaffe landed planes on a frozen lake at Trondheim Airport, Jonsvatnet, where the ice was 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) thick?" I doubt that the ice was exactly 3ft 3in, and not 3ft 5in or 3ft 8in. The article Trondheim Airport, Jonsvatnet gives "The ice was still thick on the lake, about one meter (three feet)" which is much better, assuming that we even need the conversion in the DYK hook. Oh, and why has the article "meter" but the hook "metre"? Fram (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I edited the hook in Queue 4. The convert template was inserted into the hook, and this was its default behavior. I also question the need for the English units, but I left them there on the assumption that someone thought they were important). --Orlady (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Fram (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2 hook for Indian cricket team in South Africa in 2013–14

The hook, "... that the first Test of India's 2013–14 series against South Africa saw wicket-keepers from either teams bowling in the same match, making it the only such instance?", needs to be fixed, because "the only such instance" is so unclear. For that matter, while the article says this is the first time wicketkeepers from both teams bowled in a match "in the history of Test cricket", the source isn't as clear on this, saying "making this the first time both teams' wicketkeepers have bowled in a Test"—from the context, it isn't clear to me that this is in Test cricket generally, or in Tests between India and South Africa, or even (and this seems increasingly likely now I've thought about it) that those two particular wicketkeepers happened each to be bowling in their first Test match ever. Test cricket has been around since 1877; I would expect more fuss to be made if wicketkeeper/bowler had never previously happened in 146 years. However, my knowledge of cricket is extremely skimpy, so I didn't want to pull the hook without asking first.

One way or another, the hook needs fixing; the question is what the facts behind it are, and from that how it might be reworded. I'd like to ask that admins refrain from promoting this prep until the question is settled. Pinging Vensatry, who nominated the article, and can probably explain the cricket details; also hoping other cricket aficionados can chime in. The source is the tenth paragraph of this page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was the first time both keepers had bowled in a Test for the first time in the long history of the game, which means not just the IND-SAF encounters alone. Also see [1] and [2] for more clarification. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Vensatry. I've adjusted the end of the hook to clarify the point. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Vensatry: should this article be in prep, there is no description of the second test and I thought obviously incomplete articles should not be promoted... I think this should be held back until a match description for the second test is done. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nom "Express Lanes"

Having a lengthy backlog of unapproved hooks is a perennial problem with DYK always looking for new tools to help alleviate it. QPQ was one options and we're still having discussions on how to improve it but even if the RfC ends up removing the exception for non self-noms, I doubt the backlog will see much relief. So how about a new idea? How about creating express lanes to get your nominations on the front page sooner based on the nominator (self-nom or not) doing multiple reviews of other nominations. Essentially...

Lane A - Nominator has reviewed 7 other articles (First priority to get moved into queue when approved itself)
Lane B - Nominator has reviewed 5 other articles (Second priority)
Lane C - Nominator has reviewed 3 other articles, etc

Answers to obvious objections - Of course this is dependent on the DYK community, as a whole, making an effort to appreciate the work put in by someone who does QUALITY reviews for 7 other articles by making it a priority themselves to review the nom sitting in the Express Lane itself. In the worst case scenario we could hope that the queue builders, who so often have to scour for enough approved hooks to fill the slots, would take the time to vet the nom themselves to move it along.
Secondly, the perennial issue of sloppy reviews will still be present but the answer to this has always been a willingness on the DYK community's part to reject those reviews and not give QPQ credit for subpar reviews. Two solid reviews and one subpar review should knock a nominator out of Lane C and every editor should feel bold enough to challenge the quality of any review especially those put forth by someone who wants to "jump in line" to get their nom on the Front Page sooner. Perhaps this will provide some internal motivation for more critical looks for these noms?
I don't think this will be a silver bullet to our backlog issue but I'm optimistic that it could be a positive change. It is easy to see an editor who is discourage by the lengthy backlog of waiting for their nom to get through being motivated to try and do something within their own power to get it moving. An editor who invest the time to review a significant number of other people's nominations should see some token of appreciation and I think having their own noms move through the process more quickly would serve that purpose well. Just throwing the idea out there. AgneCheese/Wine 19:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I believe many of us believe the interests of readers should take precedence over the desire of contributors to be gratified by DYK credits. When I move hooks to the prep area, my main goals are to (1) diversify and balance the collection of hooks in the hook set, (2) use the "oldest" approved hooks first, (3) use an eye-catching image that (ideally) adds to the interest of the hook, (4) have a "quirky" hook in the last slot, and (5) not "promote" any hooks that I created, nominated, or approved. It can be a challenge to meet all of those objectives (together with the checking the adequacy of the reviews) without also worrying about which article nominators are today's "most favored" nominators. Anyway, experienced nominators should know that all hooks with valid approvals will get featured sooner or later, so early display of an approved hook shouldn't be much of an incentive. --Orlady (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't like it. Some people might not have the time to do all those reviews in order to get a fast track and also if people are expected to be bold to challenge, it just puts more pressure on that person to get everything right. I think it is better to just let the normal procedure take It's course and if you want it fast tracked for a specific reason, do as normal and ask on WT:DYK and le the community discuss the merits instead of giving it to the one who has "paid the most" so to speak. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Orlady above; the best course of action is no action (on a nominator's part) after the nominated article has been removed. The sheer bureaucracy is enough of a reason to avoid adding any more complications. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Older DYK noms needing reviewing

The old list got removed, so I hope no-one minds me putting some here (please strike as reviewed):

Once again, I apologise if I shouldn't be doing this, but I am trying to help. Best, Matty.007 19:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anybody minds, Matty. But it's helpful to put the nomination dates to the left of each one, so we have an idea of how old we're dealing with. — Maile (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for putting the dates on, and thank you for updating this list now that the other one was bot-archived. This is very helpful, Matty. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking in the DYK queue

I've noticed overlinking in the DYK queue:

-- Ohc ¡digame! 02:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ezra Schochet in Prep 3

As this article is about an Orthodox Jewish rosh yeshiva, and this prep is set to air on the main page on Shabbat in his area of Los Angeles, would it be possible to move it to a queue appearing on Sunday, January 12, or later? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Now in Queue 5, still set to run during Shabbat when it will not be seen by observing Orthodox Jews. While Sunday daytime on the west coast would also be nice, it may be easiest to swap it now with a hook in Queue 4, so it runs Friday daytime before sunset (and the start of Shabbat). Can an admin please take care of this? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hook removal

The mushroom hook (Lepiota cristata) currently in the queue should be moved back to the nominations page, as the fact upon which it is based was incorrect in the source and has since been removed from the article. Sasata (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to admin who handles this: this is the lead hook ("Stinking Dapperling") in Queue 4. Please see the suggestion on a hook to move to that queue (Ezra Schochet, currently in prep 3, in one of the sections above), though it isn't a lead hook. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert Pearsall DYK in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

The DYK is now partially inaccurate and has been superseded by events, as noted on Template talk:Did you know nominations/Robert Pearsall (architect) - where I have proposed a slightly amended wording. Hope this can be updated accordingly. Paul W (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I did a further edit, since Pearsall didn't design the station but just the extension. (I also added "1890s" to give a sense of its age, and moved it so it wasn't directly after another UK hook about a building.) BlueMoonset (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Gus Hetling

Tried to enter DYK approval note for Template:Did you know nominations/Gus Hetling, but it doesn’t appear on main DYK nomination page. Don’t know what I’ve done wrong. Can someone who knows DYK format help? Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything seems fine on my screen. If the nom doesn't re-appear on T:TDYK, try this link. (May load slowly).--PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be fixed now. Must have been some kind of input delay problem that resolved itself. Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Promotion bot broken

I've just noticed that the next set of hooks waiting in the queues was supposed to have been promoted an hour ago. I think theres a problem with the bot and an admin will have to promote the next set manually. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Manual update completed. --Allen3 talk 10:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Q6 lead hook looks wrong

I see that the hook that alleges that Rebecca Simonsson is in an all male group who are all glamour models. Last FM does nt agree and neither does the wiki article on the group sunblock. I have to do other stuff so can someone have a look at this? Victuallers (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Im surprised no one has replied here. I have now had a chance to look and there is a source for the three dancers being members of the group. However this is a PR view (I suspect) as other sources acknowledge that the groups electronic music is created by two guys who Last FM says are the only real members of the group. I have added this to the articles but its a bit late to amend the main page now, but Id support anyone who cares to make the change. Victuallers (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Whisper (app) pulled off main page

Whisper (app) just pulled off the main page, article tagged for COI. — Maile (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If it is fixed up, it could be put back. This may take some time because the article appears to have been written by a paid editing service. There's a discussion ongoing at WP:ANI. Jehochman Talk 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, there's only another 3 hours to go before a new queue of articles goes up. Right now, we have a 6-hook set instead of a 7-hook set. — Maile (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
So it's 6 instead of 7 for three hours. No biggie. I checked the home page and the balance looks good. Jehochman Talk 15:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tangascootack Creek

This DYK nom was approved several days ago and can be promoted. --Jakob (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As was Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Gates. Don't worry, it'll get round to being on the front page. Just be patient. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
As a note, if you put things below a tick, I'm not sure if it shows up in the approved counter (and it doesn't look finished at a quick glance). Matty.007 18:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, as long as there is nothing below it in terms of tick alternates, then it should show up but I may be wrong. It is finished for the record. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The tick should definitely show up in the table on the queues page by date as long as another icon hasn't superseded it; however, if it's buried or there are a ton of comments after it, people loading prep areas are less likely to notice it, and may opt to use ones that are more unambiguously ready. (Several extra comments usually means trying to figure out just where the nomination stands and whether there's anything there that needs to be dealt with, whereas a tick on the last entry usually means it's completely safe to promote.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the Copyvio Check from the DYK toolbox

Revisiting a thread from October 29, 2013 that was begun by @BlueMoonset: on the Copyvio Check tool. Since that thread, I have completed almost 50 reviews and/or spot checked other nominations. I have not come across one where the Copyvio Check showed anything. And there were incidents of copyright violations when I manually looked at the sourcing. I have a growing concern that reviewers are using this tool for their one and only check of the issue. The Duplication Detector is not perfect, but it's far more likely to pick up obvious violations. BlueMoonset asked if the Copyvio Check should be in the toolbox. I'll take it one step further and ask that it be removed because it may be giving reviewers a false sense that they have done their job by selecting that tool. I think it is in the best interests of DYK that this tool be taken out. Please advise how we can accomplish that removal.— Maile (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And Dickinson Bishop is the perfect example. Copyvio Check says no errors. However, you can see on Duplication Detector how close the paraphrasing is (the non-bolded text as well as the bolded). And alerted by Duplication Detector, reading the source it became clear that the article prose was largely copied from the source.— Maile (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I still believe it should be removed because it is so misleading. If there was a way to relegate it to a secondary/extra check beyond actually checking against sources, that would be one thing; as it is now, it seems to be the best thing to use when it's anything but. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree - as I mentioned in a comment when discussing QPQs above "I do wonder if the "copyvio" check tool should be removed from the toolbox, just leaving the duplication detector as I've only ever managed to get a result from it once and (cringes with embarrassment at the memory) what it detected was a mirror site that had copied from the WP article". SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. I finally traced down where it was, and I've removed it. We can't afford to retain a tool that doesn't do what people think—based solely on its name—that it does. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. — Maile (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Good work - it definitely needed to go as deceptive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed for queue adjustments

In Queue 1, the sixth hook was adjusted to reflect the article's move from Transformer Book Duet to Asus Transformer Book Duet, but the two DYKmake templates were not also adjusted—they need to be fixed. The new versions should be:

In Queue 2, the only two bios are the first two hooks. Since hooks are supposed to be varied within sets, bios shouldn't be adjacent; the second, for Maureen Chiquet, should be moved down at least one slot, and other adjustments may be needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Repeat copyvio, no check

Has DYK instituted yet a means of notifying reviewers whose reviews are faulty? After BlueMoonset pinged me to check a medical article, where I found substantial copyvio:

I also checked another DYK by Aleksa Lukic

which also had cut-and-paste, but was passed by BabbaQ. Considering the number of times I've found repeat copyvio at DYK, would it not be time to institute a procedure whereby somebody somewhere keeps a list of reviewers who shouldn't be reviewing and nominators who shouldn't be nominating? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think being banned from reviewing is harsh, we all make mistakes. Matty.007 17:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
You can't just institute a blacklist because someone did that. Yes there may be some serial copyvioers but the majority are probably either new editors or made a mistake (or even their edit coincidentally ended up being the same, I know that has happened to me before) You can't just have a kneejerk reaction, there has to be a carefully considered discussion on what should be done and I don't feel that instigating a blacklist is the right way to do it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Matty, where did I mention "banning"? If records aren't kept, and no one is accountable, how would anyone know if there is even a problem warranting a discussion of potential "banning"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment I am sorry for my violations, and I will never repeat it again. However, I do not agree that all of my contributions are systematic violation of copyrights. I have created as many as 38 articles, and most of them are my own translations, so copyright violation doesn't apply there. I only violate copyrights policy because I still don't speak English at that level so I could choose every word on my own, I tried as much as I could to use different words, as you can see in some SandyGeorgia's examples, but in some places I was unsure. I learned my lesson, and I agree I did wrong at the Intercostal nerve block page, and I will never do that or anything like that again. I can see here that most of the time, SandyGeorgia isn't really friendly, so I don't know the grammar, or don't speak that fluent English, but that's not a reason to denigrate my entire contribution (of whose very small percentage includes content building). Sincerely, Alex discussion ★ 17:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The C of E, the question remains: what processes has DYK put in place for notification of faulty review, tracking, and managing a long-standing serial problem, to help prevent more of same. I know copyvio here is pretty much only detected when BlueMoonset or Nikkimaria do the checking, which allows serial issues to continue undetected until, as in this instance, I happened to be pinged in on a medical check.

Followup on this instance at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 January 13. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Time sensitive DYK linked to RD for Sir Run Run Shaw

Template:Did you know nominations/Tianyi Film Company has been approved and is ready to go. It's time sensitive as it's a tie-in with the recent death of Sir Run Run Shaw. It'd be great if it could be promoted to the queue ASAP, before the RD goes off the main page. Also, I'd greatly appreciate it if the image could be posted, as the RD entry does not include a photo. -Zanhe (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@PFHLai:, thanks for getting it done so quickly! -Zanhe (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of 38 nominations that need reviewing. Five of them are from November, so please take a look at them if at all possible. Thanks as always for your reviews.

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) 23:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Time sensitive question for Fore River Shipyard

Would Fore River Shipyard be eligible for a 5K expansion hook? I have worked on and off on it for the past few weeks due to the holidays and life, but I wanted to know if it is, since I have finished expanding it, and could create a multi hook by expanding a few other subjects related to the yard. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

DYKcheck says "Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 35 edits ago on December 23, 2013," which is (unfortunately) a lot more than 5 days ago. --Orlady (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I expanded Loring Air Force Base in sixteen days, and that was allowed alongside multiple articles, so that is why I was asking. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2014 (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) 14:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

All queues and prep areas are empty

Editors are needed to promote articles into the prep areas. That entire page is empty. — Maile (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

All queues and prep areas once again empty

3-1/2 hours to go until the next update. — Maile (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Doing... I'll make a start now ... lunch hour is about to commence. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:44, 15 January 2014 (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 #1 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) 14:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleared for a week, yet not promoted

Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Gates has had a green tick for a week but hasn't been promoted. I wouldn't normally post something like this but when an article like Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken is able to be created, cleared, promoted and featured on the main page within the same period of time, I would like to ask if the admins could promote it soon, preferably with the image. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not just admins who make preps. Matty.007 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs

A few editors who have passed the 25-DYK mark have not yet received their "medal". I wonder if an admin could take care of this. (I remember how important that recognition was to me, and I had to ask for it, too.) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is it written that only administrators can give out these "medals"? The page says "These awards may be given by any user"; I think that only one of my "medals" came from an admin. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks. I never read down to the bottom of the page! Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

2013 YP139

2013 YP139 should be written 2013 YP139 (with the subscript; see Provisional designation in astronomy#Minor planets). To do that, simply copy the code I've written here. --JorisvS (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've copied your report to WP:ERRORS, as the hook is currently on the Main Page. Any discussion should be done there. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:22, 16 January 2014 (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) 14:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Chain Reaction

Chain Reaction (sculpture) was nominated by @Tentinator: for DYK on Dec 20, 2013, and a review has been in process since Dec 22. The nominator has made no comment on the template other than to nominate it. The article's editor @Viriditas: has requested this be removed from DYK consideration, due to the article's instability resulting from an ongoing dispute over the sculpture at the local level in Santa Monica, CA. The editor has also expressed concern that putting this on the main page of Wikipedia, at this time could appear as a POV by Wikipedia. As the original reviewer of this nomination, I concur.— Maile (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Given that this was one of 93 nominations in a two-week period by this nominator, I doubt it will be missed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow. 93. Don't recall this situation before. It does tend to reinforce the above dialogue about a bot placing a notice on the creator's talk page if nominated by another editor. Only the creator would know if it was a work in progress. — Maile (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK update

I've moved P3 to Q5 and loaded an image to en: and protected it - ready for the next load. Can someone oversee that I havnt missed anything and tell me so I know for next time. Cheers R Victuallers (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

2014 Elk River chemical spill promote???

I would like to promote 2014 Elk River chemical spill to Prep 4. The chemical spill has been ongoing in the US the last few days. The article has been reviewed and approved. Since the situation at Elk River is an ongoing and changing event, can we promote the hook? — Maile (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What's preventing you from putting the hook into a prep area? You didn't create the article, nominate it, or review it, so you are eligible to put it in a prep area. --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I am planning to put it in there myself. The question is whether or not we can promote an article where the events are still ongoing. If there's no problem with that, I'll promote it. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Current items can go up in DYK if they haven't been featured at ITN and aren't likely to go up at ITN. This one was rejected for ITN (see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2014_Elk_River_chemical_spill), so it's fair game for DYK. --Orlady (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Queue 5 credit fix

A credit in Queue 5 needs adjusting. It should be:

* {{DYKmake|St Robert's Church, Pannal|Storye book|subpage=St Roberts Church, Pannal}}

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Edited. --Orlady (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hook for Jan 20, MLK Day

I reviewed and moved a hook to the Special occasion holding area for Jan 20, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Whch is this coming Monday. The hook had been sitting out there unreviewed since Dec 29, so thought I'd mention here. — Maile (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A moe anthropomorphism character?

Currently in Prep Area 2, we have "that Hikaru Aizawa is a moe anthropomorphism character created by Microsoft Taiwan for endorsing Microsoft Silverlight?" I would think that "a moe antropomorphic character" would be better than "a moe anthropomorphism character", but not being a native speaker of English, some input from others would be useful. Oh, and while we're discussing this one: "for endorsing"? I'ld say "to endorse" (or "to promote"), but again, others can judge this better than I can....

Looking further, should Hikaru Aizawa even be promoted? Half the article is not about her but genral info about Silverlight; without this rather artificial addition, the page wouldn't meet the 1500 characters requirement. The only source that is really about the character, [3], is a tech blog. Is this sufficient? Fram (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fram, I've pulled the hook from Prep 2 and sent the article back for more work: I agreed about the preponderance of Silverlight material unrelated to Hikaru Aizawa, and the seeming lack of sources about the character. As important from a DYK perspective, the "moe anthropomorphism" half of the sentence in the article is unsupported, and since it's the basis of the hook it must have its own inline source citation. (I also thought that the article could use copyediting.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2014 (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 #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Orlady (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2014 (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 #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2014 (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) 14:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Lame hooks

Colleagues, what exactly makes the following three hooks acceptable out of what are currently six hooks in prep area 4?

I'm interested to know why these weren't flagged much earlier in the process so that nominators and others could search their articles to find something that adheres to the rules for hook interest.

Tony (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Personally I think it's quite interesting that Stewart Mell was the first man from his club to score a goal in the Football League, and I wouldn't term that a "lame hook" at all. BencherliteTalk 09:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Requires in-house knowledge to "get" it. I still don't get it. This is up for exposure to millions of hits worldwide from people who are not experts. Why is it opaque? Tony (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Just because one doesn't get it doesn't mean that others don't as well. I hardly think it's in house knowledge to know about football. Besides if it was, everyone would need in house knowledge for every hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      • (e/c) What don't you "get"? He was the scorer of the club's first goal in the Football League - of all the goals that the club scored in the Football League, he scored the first of them. Not sure how else I can put it, but if that's not clear enough but your curiousity has been awakened, you can read the article for the full story. No expertise required here, surely? BencherliteTalk 09:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Agree with Bencherlite on the first one. The other two are not that interesting, but I don't have issues with them running. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I agree with Bencherlite et al on this. "Interesting" is one of the most subjective and problematic requirements, I for one think it needs to be removed. Everyone has a different set of interests, and everyone will see a hook with different eyes.--Kevmin § 12:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Agree also with Bencherlite et al. If a topic is specialised, we can't explain background in 200 chars to all who don't know. If it's interesting to some, it's interesting enough. It's desirable to be attractive even to people who don't know the topic but nothing that could be required. Example: the first hook on my user page, BWV 154: trying to attract people not interested in Bach cantatas by a cute quote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
          • I agree with Bencherlite on the Stewart Mell hook; it doesn't excite me, but there is an eager audience for that kind of hook. As for the David Bosco hook, I agree with Tony. It's not particularly interesting -- and I don't find anything in that article that I would consider worth using as a DYK hook. The Gratiot County courthouse hook is also profoundly uninteresting, and the article has some other facts that seem a lot more interesting than the dates of register listings. Neither the Bosco nor the Gratiot article were self-noms, so it looks like we may have some over-eager nominators whose judgements aren't awfully good. --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
            • I find the first hook uninteresting, but that is only because I'm not interested in soccer. Many hooks only interest a specific audience - my DYK hooks are probably mostly only interesting to Pennsylvanians for instance. Right off the bat I can see some better hooks for the courthouse: if the twisted column is so unusual, why not mention that? Can the hook be changed? --Jakob (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No: you are not getting it. Someone had to score the first goal. Why is it remotely interesting that this particular person did? You could just as well say that "DYK that John Smith score the first goal ...". Well, so what? It's a laughably bad hook.
  • Tony (please sign), just like someone woman had to be the first female film director, it's not the fact that such a role was filled, but who filled it. That's the interest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco, it might be of vague interest within the article, but not as an isolated fact on the main page out of all context; there, it's totally flat. But I'm gobsmacked on looking at the sentence from which it was drawn:

    "Mell scored Scarborough's first goal in the Football League,[13] on the opening day of the 1987–88 season, a 2–2 draw at home to Wolverhampton Wanderers marred by £20,000-worth of damage to the ground, fighting on the terraces, 54 arrests, and a visiting supporter falling through the roof of a stand."

    Um, the rest of the sentence is far more hook-worthy than what was chosen, and the hook is only 112 characters long. Who is running this show??? Why not:

    ... that Stewart Mell scored Scarborough's first goal in the Football League in a game marked by 54 arrests for riotous behaviour by the crowd?

    That is interesting even in isolated context. Tony (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good proposed alt hook Tony, perhaps you could consider proposing alts for our weaker entries a little more often? Good hook writing is a skill that not everyone has, the nominations page could certainly use a few more competent contributors in this department. Gatoclass (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
What we need is a series of examples of lame hooks, then a link to the article as it was with hints on how to search for a better hook, then you click to see the revised hook. Tony (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I've been thinking about authoring a guide to good hook writing for a while, it's probably time I got started on it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Gatoclass, do you mean like this? Tony (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly. I'm familiar with your own essays on good prose and I've found at least one of them very useful (haven't read them all) but although I think the "exercise" approach is good in some circumstances, in others I find it a bit disruptive - though I suppose, assuming I get round to completing this essay, that a set of practice exercises at the end of it might not go astray. Gatoclass (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this hook from 7 January 2014 a good candidate for Exercise B (or Z?): ... that Arzu Karabulut currently plays for both German and Turkish football teams? --PFHLai (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It's unclear without checking through the article for better possibilities. But prima face the point that one player plays for TWO prominent teams, one a national team, is in isolation looking more hookish already (could be stronger, but if not, I'd probably pass it, just). It contrasts with the assertion that player X kicked the first goal in game Y ... so what? Tony (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it normal for any footballer good enough to play on a national team to play for a second team somewhere, either professionally or at the college level? It might be hookish if the two countries are at war, or very, very far apart. Germany and Turkey? I'm scratching head. And it was the final hook, which was supposed to be the kicker. Maybe it was reverse psychology? I had to click to find out why such a regular, ordinary thing is hook material. But that's just me.
BTW, I also find those first/last/most/xyz-est hooks interesting. I like reading about those breakthrough moments. --PFHLai (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please consider using ALT1 for the Gary Loveman article instead of the hook currently on Prep 3. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No one had reviewed the ALT hook that you proposed for Gary Loveman. The hook I promoted was the approved hook. Your campaigning did, however, lead me to review your ALT hook and replace the hook in the queue shortly before it was scheduled to go to the main page. --Orlady (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Orlady. --PFHLai (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, Tony, this just looks liks another set of hooks that don't interest you personally. I don't see any problem with them myself. For example, the Stewart Mell hook does draw me to him because I can infer from the hook that he's a very old dude and I'm interested to see what football was like back in those days.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Comment withdrawn. I'm not sure what point I was trying to make. The idea of trying to trawl articles for better hooks than those proposed (such as the one about the 54 arrests) is a good one, although as usual there's a question over how to administer such a thing within an already overburdened community.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Gato et al.: I think your training resources need to be beefed up. To start with, their very existence would send a signal to newbies and non-newbies that we expect good hooks. The page I started I really didn't intend completing ... over to anyone here to do more on my subpage and transfer to DYK space whenever. I believe it should have an effective lead section, perhaps containing the information Gato wants to convey (with good links to DYK rules, other places, etc). Four or five click-and-show exercises could be part of it. I worried that the one I provided is a bit long, and might not be suitable as the first one. Ideas for other exercises are one that links to the article alone and says: find a hookable fact; hint; possible solution(s). And one or two that present only the hook, but need trimming back to the character limit. These are all component skills. Tony (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to side with these hooks wallowing unoriginal, uninteresting yawn-inducing lameness. Almost about as langweilig as that one from a few months ago about a US historic register district being so big that it had to be divided into a "north" historic district and "south" historic district. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The hook set on Queue 5 seems a bit short on my screen.

If the whole set of hooks are all short hooks, perhaps there should be more hooks. Or maybe we should swap in a more wordy hook or two. I worry about left-right balance on MainPage when a hook set is much longer or shorter than the sets before and after. Let's not give admins at ITN and SelAnniv extra work to maintain the layout on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

thx - I'll see what can be done Victuallers (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I've swapped one large one in from Q6, but ITN does look unusually long. I cant see how to balance it without moving quite a way from our routine Victuallers (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Victuallers. As long as DYK consistently takes up roughly the same space on MainPage from hook set to hook set, it should be okay. --PFHLai (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Rejecting nominations

I noticed several nominations were marked as rejected and closed this morning without receiving a {{DYKno}} icon - does this upset the DYKHousekeepingBot (which is currently enjoying an unauthorised vacation)? Should the close be undone or can it just be left? The nominations are:

I only noticed as one of the nominations was on my watch list. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I always thought that the orange X was the thing that led to closure, not the blue /. Blue / In my view is to hold it from being closed to allow changes to be made. Obviously if the nominator doesn't try to fix problems or ignores it, then I would close but otherwise, leave the nomination live. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you are technically correct. Or nominators say "I would like to withdraw this nomination" with the X. If you read above on Chain Reaction, this nominator was a really enthusiastic and (I believe) new participant in this process in December, nominating almost 100 articles in a short period of time. Perhaps the nominator is now seeing some of them as not worth the continued effort and resolving it in the way they thought it works. — Maile (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The "no" icon is not a prerequisite for rejecting an article, nor a requirement that it be rejected. However, nominators should not be closing their own nominations. They can post that they want to withdraw the nomination, but shouldn't be rejecting or adding icons to it (aside from the "review again" icon); that's up to independent reviewers to do. (Sometimes a reviewer will decide the article can be saved, and do just that, so it eventually does appear on the main page.) I was surprised that some of the rejected nominations were simply waiting for new reviews, and would appreciate some commentary from Tentinator on his unprecedented unilateral rejection of 9 of his 93 mid-December-nominated articles this morning. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to help craft a proposal

Surveillance awareness day is a proposal for the English Wikipedia to take special steps to promote awareness of global surveillance on February 11, 2014. That date is chosen to coincide with similar actions being taken by organizations such as Mozilla, Reddit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Feedback from members of this Wikiproject would be greatly appreciated. Please come join us as we brainstorm, polish, and present this proposal to the Wikipedia Community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this different from the above proposal? Matty.007 19:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, as a note, I think that your DYKs would actually have to go through the DYK system, not a proposal page. Matty.007 19:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's the slightly-more-mature child of the earlier proposal-- I just want to make double triple sure not excluding anyone.
I think its entirely possible you are correct that the community would only accept items that have been through the formal DYK process. I hope to be able to present the community with such an option of items that have been through that process. Not there yet, obviously, but babysteps, one foot in front of the other, and hopefully we get there. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Presumably this would not occur if there was not an overwhelming consensus? Matty.007 19:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how we define "overwhelming", but I wouldn't want this to happen unless there was a clear consensus of a widespread site-wide sampling of the community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Still not interested. There's real contributing to be done. Let Reddit protest. Wikipedia remains neutral and is not a vehicle to advocate political agitation. We're here to improve an encyclopaedia.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue – done

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 #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If this can be done in the next 80 minutes or so, that would be great. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The credits fix has been done. Thanks, John. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2014 (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 #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of 37 nominations that need reviewing. Two of them are still from November, so please take them on if you can. We currently have 247 total nominations, of which only 29 are approved. Thanks as always for your reviews.

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) 17:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Special holding for Jan 22

I promoted Coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra to Prep area 3, believing this will move up to Queue 3, and would be 8 a.m. London time on Jan 22. Please feel free to move it if you feel I calculated in error. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2014 (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 #1 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) 14:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Lower to 18 hooks per day?

Right now things are calming down a bit. Currently 240+ nominations, including 40+ verified. Perhaps lower down to six hooks per set? --George Ho (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait until we get below 200, since anything above that is historically quite high. 21 hooks a day seems to be doing just what it ought. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hasn't reached below 200, but the amount of verified is below 20, which is considerably low at this time. --George Ho (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Dirty word

In the third hook of Queue 2, "dirty word" seems unencyclopedic as it is now. I think it would be better to either include the full quotation from the article ("fifteen cent kite that had a dirty word lettered on it"), or simply put "dirty word" in quotation marks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What was the dirty word? Considering this is the hook, the source in its entirety (without a subscription or buying the article) says "Detroit Curb on Obscenity Invalidated by State Court". No details of what the obscenity was. The entire paragraph has only this one source, and it makes me wonder what the obscenity was.— Maile (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Apparently it was "F*** America". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for discussion of DYK template

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 18#Template:DYK topicon is a nomination to delete {{DYK topicon}} which is a template that was created to allow for a topicon to be added to DYK featured pages just like GA pages get {{Good article}} and FA pages get {{Featured article}} DYK pages should be noted with a topicon as well... That is just my thoughts on it, please comment in the discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:DYK topicon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:DYK topicon

So, do we want a topicon, such as on FAs and GAs to be on articles which have been on DYK? This is different from the DYK user topicon, which is used on userpages; as it is potentially to be used in article space. Can we have a vote? Matty.007 12:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • I've got a version in Template:DYK topicon/sandbox that will allow for the template to be hidden 2 weeks after it is displayed automatically and added to a maint category to be removed by a bot. If the date parameter is used, it bases two weeks on that, otherwise it bases it on the timestamp of when the page was last edited (which means it would have to be untouched for two weeks). The two week timer can easily be adjusted at any point. There is also an option to exempt a page from having the template expire for cases like the April fools page mentioned on the main DYK that reoccurs every year. I would think things like that (since it is more of a status than an appearance) should always have the icon. Ping me, and I will modify the template any way that you would like it to work. Technical 13 (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Good work there, I can support that, too; but I really don't understand why people want to have the topicon revoked sometime later... I want it to stay there for as long as it is a DYK article (i.e. indef). Is the speaker topicon similarly removed when an article loses its "spoken status"? —ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Those of you drawing comparisons with FA and GA: wrong choice for comparison. The review processes for both of those are (hopefully) something that takes several hours, and in the case of FAs means at least 3 (usually more) reviewers, plus the delegates. The amount of work which goes into the average DYK review is far less. This would be best compared to ITN. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The permanent nature of the topicon is reflected by the permanent nature of the DYK status itself. The DYK status is permanent, and so should be the topicon. The FA/GA status isn't permanent, and so are their topicons. Arguing its permanency is like saying FA/GA status isn't permanent, though the process is highly rigorous; so why is the DYK status permanent, when the process is not so rigorous? —ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ridiculous. There is no point in awarding badges to every single article which passes through DYK. What would a top icon offer that the current documentation does not, besides sticking out on the article proper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment that I hope will answer a lot of the opposing questions: Readers don't look at talk pages normally, only editors or people who want to changes something (have an edit made) do. This creates a link for our readers back to this achievement and notes that this page was on the Main page recently. What does a little that sits there and offers our readers (this is what Wikipedia is all about, no?) an option to see that a lot of work went into make this article a high quality one. I would venture to say that any page that has been featured on the Main page recently should have some kind of acknowledgment of that on the article. Technical 13 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Readers don't look at talk pages normally, only editors or people who want to changes something (have an edit made) do.
    That's why a talk page is an appropriate location for project information of little or no relevance to readers.
    This creates a link for our readers back to this achievement and notes that this page was on the Main page recently.
    How is knowledge of "this achievement" useful to a reader seeking information on the article's subject?
    What does a little that sits there and offers our readers (this is what Wikipedia is all about, no?) an option to see that a lot of work went into make this article a high quality one.
    That sentence doesn't seem to parse, but I'll object to your "high quality" claim (for the reasons discussed below). —David Levy 18:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    That's why a talk page is an appropriate location for project information of little or no relevance to readers.
    That information is of far more interest to readers than whether or not the page is protected from editing or not, yet the locks still appear.
    How is knowledge of "this achievement" useful to a reader seeking information on the article's subject?
    It indicates that this article has reached a higher level of quality, that is useful to the reader.
    That sentence doesn't seem to parse, but I'll object to your "high quality" claim (for the reasons discussed below).
    Objection to claim of higher quality noted and rejected. These are in fact higher quality articles, or they wouldn't be on the main page. Technical 13 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    That information is of far more interest to readers than whether or not the page is protected from editing or not, yet the locks still appear.
    Please explain why a reader seeking information about an article's subject would care that a related blurb recently appeared on the main page.
    It indicates that this article has reached a higher level of quality, that is useful to the reader.
    A higher level of quality in comparison with what? Newly created/expanded articles tagged due to serious concerns? (To be clear, I'm excluding those recently promoted to GA status, which already contain a special icon.)
    Objection to claim of higher quality noted and rejected. These are in fact higher quality articles, or they wouldn't be on the main page.
    You seem to have an incomplete understanding of the main page. —David Levy 18:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Support

Support: Per my stance here. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. Support Yes, I think that it is right that an article can show that it has been written well enough to feature on the main page same as GA and FA do. Given that some editors use the template to show their creations on their userpage the same way GA and FA are, it seems right that DYK should be done as the same. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support as this is why I modified this template from a redirect to an actual template. See above discussion section. Technical 13 (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Erm, what? Articles already look cluttered enough as is.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    So GA and FA should have them removed then? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Please see False dilemma.
    GA/FA icons are useful to readers. This icon isn't. —David Levy 14:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    GA/FA icons are no more or less useful than a DYK icon. For our readers, this icon is more useful than any of the protection locks though... Technical 13 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    GA/FA icons are no more or less useful than a DYK icon.
    What useful information (comparable to the determination that an article is of exceptionally high quality) does a DYK icon convey to readers?
    For our readers, this icon is more useful than any of the protection locks though...
    Most readers are editors or potential editors, so some of them benefit from the information that the lock icons communicate. —David Levy 18:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    DYK declares that an article is of exceptionally high quality, so your point is noted... DYK icons should be there for the same reasons as GA/FA icons. Technical 13 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    You appear to misunderstand DYK's format. —David Levy 18:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    DYK declares that an article is of exceptionally high quality,
    And the ghosts of copyios past raised their heads with joy. Seriously, that's got to be the worst description I've read of DYK (and, again, I write extensively for DYK... I know the shortcomings). DYK signifies that an article writer went through a ten foot hoop held half a foot above the ground, rather than going around said hoop. That's all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as it currently sits, this is a permanent topicon. That makes no sense, FA and GA topicons are removed when they don't meet FA/GA quality. There's no provision to remove this, because once an article is a DYK, it will always have been a DYK. Further, DYKs do not have to be FA/GA/A-class articles, and the A-class top icon keeps getting deleted. If you required all DYKs to be an A/GA/FA class article that's one thing, but this makes all DYKs seem to be better than A-class articles in quality. The provision for articles elevated to "GA"/"FA" already have GA/FA icons, so the DYK is just duplicating the FA/GA icon in these cases. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Per T13's above draft, the topicon would be on the page for two weeks, then removed. Matty.007 14:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Thereby serving what practical purpose? —David Levy 14:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Linking the reader back to the main page and telling them that this article is currently exceptional. Technical 13 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    So...patting an editor/DYK nominator on the back? —David Levy 18:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Not sure how you get from Linking the reader back to the main page and telling them that this article is currently exceptional. to So...patting an editor/DYK nominator on the back?. can you explain that? Technical 13 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    When I wrote the above reply, I didn't realize that you were under the impression that "DYK declares that an article is of exceptionally high quality". Among Wikipedia articles, an article recently bold-linked at DYK is intrinsically exceptional only in the respect that it recently was bold-linked at DYK. —David Levy 18:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Crisco 1492: "Erm, what?". Harrias talk 14:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. A GA/FA icon indicates an article's current quality designation, not a past occurrence. Main page appearances are properly noted on articles' talk pages, alongside other project information. Even if a DYK icon were to appear for only two weeks, I don't see what practical purpose it would serve. We display icons in articles as a service to readers, not as trophies for editors. —David Levy 14:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Hmm... Only the speaker topicon classifies as a "service" then. The FA/GA or lock topicons are no real "service" to readers. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    The GA/FA icons inform readers that the articles are believed to currently meet specific qualitative criteria. The lock icons inform readers (most of whom are editors or potential editors) of limitations currently placed on editing. (These, of course, are alternatives to banners.) —David Levy 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Then what's the difference with DYK having one letting them know that recently an article has met a specific qualitive criteria? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Except that DYK qualification isn't really a "qualitative criterion" in any meaningful, non-trivial sense (i.e. beyond "it's not self-evident total crap"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    (ec) Simple: DYK's criteria are not high enough to make the average reader care, or make it worth his or her time to know. There is little peer review, and essentially no expectations for things a reader may care about (comprehensiveness, being well written, etc.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    DYK recognizes expansion (to educate readers about Wikipedia's editing process and encourage participation). A recent DYK appearance doesn't indicate that an article's quality is exceptional. —David Levy 15:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Agree with The C of E... What we can do is to put that topicon up for two weeks, so that readers may know that the content is relatively new and up to the mark. (free of plagiarism, thoroughly sourced, etc.) @David Levy: Most new articles are full of tags, so DYK articles are exceptional. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 15:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Such a distinction simply isn't useful to readers. You're basically arguing that most new articles are rubbish, so these articles are exceptionally good for new articles. How is that relevant to the pursuit of encyclopedic information? —David Levy 15:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    No, he's arguing that DYK articles are exceptionally good compared to all articles. Technical 13 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree with that interpretation (which is based upon a misunderstanding that Wamiq doesn't appear to share). —David Levy 18:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. David Levy puts it well. Having been a DYK is not something that tells the reader about some permanent quality of the article, and therefore not something that ought to be marked at the article top. "Service to readers, not trophies for editors". Quite so. If you want DYK trophies, you can have them on your userpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    By that logic, GA and FA shouldn't be noted either. Technical 13 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    A GA/FA icon conveys information about the article's quality (something meaningful to a reader seeking to learn about its subject). —David Levy 18:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    So does a DYK icon. Technical 13 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    You appear to misunderstand DYK's format. —David Levy 18:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - I think the template on the talk page is the appropriate way to acknowledge DYK appearance and more than sufficient; as others have already stated, DYK appearance is not really indicative of a true quality benchmark, which is covered by the GA/FA process. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per David Levy. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. FA and GA icons show that the article has a high level of quality. The DYK ? just shows that the article is new or newly expanded, and has met a minimal set of adequate quality measurements. There is nothing particularly interesting in that and certainly not worth permanent recognition, and I see no benefit from a temporary icon that appears for a couple of weeks and then disappears forever. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose – per David Levy and BlueMoonset. Leave the top icons for WP's finest or good work. I've seen some DYKs that fit neither category. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per above and my reasoning at the TfD. LittleMountain5 19:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  11. Oppose hence my nomination of the template for deletion at TFD. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per everyone else and my comments at the TFA nomination. Events in the article's history belong on the talk page; only icons showing current quality-assessed status of the article should appear to readers (and this does not include DYK, since the article can fail the DYK criteria at any time during or after its appearance on the main page - and many older DYKs wouldn't pass current standards anyway). BencherliteTalk 22:38, 19 January 2014 (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 #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Less than 30 minutes remaining... George Ho (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Jammu-Sialkot Line

Apologies for this, but the above nomination may need a further review - I queried the article length but did not do a full review - it has subsequently been OK'd by someone and moved to P4 but I am worried that the further reviewer may have assumed I had done a full review - could someone check it over please, I don't have the time at present for a full review. Bcp67 (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Pulled from the prep area. Thank you for catching. — Maile (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. This was your nomination. Wondering why you made that comment. Well, nobody is questioning your most excellent abilities and input. And I see someone else stepped in and reviewed it, so your issue is resolved. — Maile (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, The Rambling Man, in response to your question on that template itself, it's not just you. Has nothing to do with you personally. It's about a whole batch of these so-called "reviews" by the same editor over the last few days, one who has been participating in DYK for a year or more. And, no, I couldn't have done a review on yours in the same time as I was catching the rest of this reviewer's series, including the related templates where they have already been used as QPQs, so we don't have to catch them after the fact one-by-one. Rather than have DYK go through another round of something being pulled from the main page, I just put that notice on all the half-dozen or so. And it took me about 90 minutes to catch it all. So, I'm a little ticked off about so-called "reviewers" who try to slide by for a QPQ, and then leave the mopping up to everybody else. If it had not been me, it would have been somebody else catching this stuff. @Matty.007: and @BlueMoonset: have also been leaving notes on templates where the reviews are little more than a "good to go" sentence. — Maile (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a chance that someone could review my nomination for the Jammu-Sialkot Line? It's been unreviewed for a few days. --RaviC (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin input needed

Same reviewer as mentioned above. Queue 1 contains the hook from Max Hermann Maxy, a nom submitted by this same reviewer. Valley, West Virginia was used for a QPQ and now appears to be an incomplete review itself. Does this matter? — Maile (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Maxy is now on P4, allowing an extra 8 hours to get the noms re-reviewed as you see fit. --PFHLai (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I've pulled it and asked for a new QPQ. If anyone else thinks it should have been otherwise, they are welcome to say so. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2

Shouldn't Sugar Todd in Prep 2 be in the Olympic holding area? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I have moved it there. — Maile (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Herm

Hi, my nomination was passed, but does anyone think the hook is dull? Thanks, Matty.007 21:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The hook is pretty interesting, but I would change the sentence structure a bit; it reads somewhat awkwardly as it is. How about something like "100,000 tourists pass through the one and a half mile long island Herm (flag pictured) in the summer"? -Well-restedTalk 23:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Electronic surveillance and the day we fight back proposal

There is a proposal, gathering support, at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#The Day We Fight Back in which the main page on 11 February is devoted to articles related to the subject of electronic surveillance. This would potentially include DYKs. If there are any on the subject pending review, it may be worth holding back publishing them, as we do for April Fools. If this proposal doesn't in the end go through, there's no harm in such articles appearing later. A draft discussion was set up at Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back. CMD (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Came here to say what CMD said-- The Wikipedia community needs the expertise of the veteran DYKers over at Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back#Did You Know, where we are soliciting good global-surveillance-related DYKs. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, DYK is not to be used for political campaigns. We maintain neutrality on all issues. Iselilja (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    Please do be neutral. What we are trying to do is coordinate a variety of neutral articles related to a timely topic to appear at a similar time. The issue will be in the news and at the front of people's minds. As a good website, we try to anticipate what information people will be interested to know, and give it to them. Jehochman Talk 04:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    The campaign obviously isn't neutral. What do you expect a neutral article to look like? Even if it only describes the campaign, that's promoting it, and therefore not neutral. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
This proposal for DYK is related to Wikipedia taking part in a protest against electronic surveillance. Featuring a lot of articles on the topic as part of a political protest on Wikipedia's part will indeed violate the neutrality of Wikipedia. The protest and the handling of content on Wikipedia, including choosing what shall be chosen as featured content, must be kept totally separate. Iselilja (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
While I sympathize with HiLO above, the logical extension of that argument is to ask something like "What's up with T:TDYK#February 7 through February 23 (2014 Winter Olympics)? That's promoting the Olympics and is therefore obviously not neutral." Which is obviously ludicrous. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The Olympics is not a political campaign. Your analogy is ludicrous. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course it isn't, but by holding hooks for the event, we're promoting it and therefore not neutral.
Don't get me wrong, I'm playing devil's advocate and don't personally believe what I'm saying. But where should the line be drawn? How promotional does it have to be before the line crossed? How do we define that line? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Three major differences with the Winter Olympics
  • The olympics is a much begger events in ordinary media than this surveillance protest guaranteed will be, so there are more «journalistic» reasons for Wikipedia to cover it extensively
  • The core of the olympics is not political and the event is meant to be polical neutral (allthough not without some political connections)
  • Wikipedia is not linked to the Olympics or any protests against it. We are an independent source for the olympics, while we clearly can not be an independent source for a protest we take part in.
Iselilja (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • They are starting to making neutral hooks over at Fighting Back. Here at the two first nominations, to get an impression of what their idea of neutrality looks like
  • ... that the current Director of National Intelligence James Clapper falsely testified under oath that the NSA did not collect data on hundreds of millions of Americans?
  • ... that during the 2013 Papal Conclave, the NSA reported targeted Cardinals choosing the next pope? Among those spied upon was Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis.
  • Laughing my behind off, here - honestly. Iselilja (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
And HectorMoffet added it to the 2014 article here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I copy-pasted most of that content from the April Fools Day pages on the same topics. So obviously there will be some things worth changing - things that don't apply anymore for this particular project. We have s friendly all-hands-on-deck approach, so if you want to contribute your own ideas or help us decide the rules of how dyk should be orchestrated, please go ahead. We welcome your help with open arms. :)--06:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Coin945 (talk)
  • I strongly oppose this idea. It fails NPOV and gives undue weight to The Day We Fight Back. I looked at some of the DYK hooks and they appear to kind of attack the NSA. This could be OK under normal circumstances, but running seven NSA-attacking hooks at once, with an NSA-attacking article and other anti-NSA articles? No. If we want the main page to have a theme on certain days (which is not inherently a bad idea), the selected articles should cover both the good and the bad. --Jakob (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Remember the media storm about Gibraltarpedia and that should tell us not to accept this proposal. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Response to King jakob: "I looked at some of the DYK hooks and they appear to kind of attack the NSA". Yes, those are some of the suggestions on that page. And yes, I agree with you - they could be interpreted as pointed, editorialised, and even attacking. So I will not be voting for those. And neither will you (I'm assuming). If you have an idea of how it sshould be done, then please help us out. We are a bunch of random people coming together to try to sort this project out. I have no experience in DYK and neither do many of the others. We are throwing stuff at the walla dn seeing what sticks so of course some of the ideas will be rubbish. But that's part of the revision process. If you think "the selected articles should cover both the good and the bad", and have some great ideas for what those articles should be, please please please add them to the page.--Coin945 (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
      • @Coin945: I still think that filling the main page with NSA content could be undue weight. A single piece of NSA-related content on the main page (not an attack page please) could be appropriate. --Jakob (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
        • It's not about strictly about *NSA*. We're going for anything even remotely relevant or connected. Something to do with freedom of speech. An espionage story. Something to do with censorship. Privacy issues. Use and abuse of power (like the Magna Carta). There are so many different places this could take us - such a wide range of topics that can be explored under the umbrella of "NSA-related content". But having a loose theme on the main page, I think, would be pretty cool and we should do it more often. At least then all the fractured taskforces that work for the main page will finally be forced to collaborate on a weekly basis as opposed to be completely seperate and often opposing.--Coin945 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the key proposal wording DYK needs to consider

Below is the wording on the proposal linked above. (Bolding is mine). I don't know if this can be orchestrated, or not, without approval here on DYK. But DYK people certainly should weigh in on this one. The question also arises as to what kind of precedent this sets for any future dialogue by an individual, or group of individuals, who want to toss the DYK rules and use year-old articles to promote/make a statement about one thing or another. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: this proposal was mostly copy/pasted from Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know, which was the template for the DYK section of this project.--Coin945 (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK articles are typically allowed to be taken from the year prior to February 11th, as long as they have not previously been featured on DYK. The normal "5 day" rule for expansion and nominating is not followed. The article generally must be created between last February 11th and next February 10th, or have been significantly expanded since last February 11th. (flexible?)

All other Wikipedia rules and guidelines still apply. Pay special attention to Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons guidelines if your hook relates to a living person.

Oppose - DYK process is misrepresented by the above statement from the proposal. I don't know of any incident where a DYK hook is taken from a year-old article that was not otherwise recently expanded, or recently passed Good Article status. In fact, DYK rules that ARE followed state: DYK is only for articles that, within the past five days, have been either

  • created
  • expanded at least fivefold
  • newly sourced and expanded at least twofold (only if the article was an unsourced BLP)
  • promoted to good article status

The proposal needs to be be accurate and truthful on how the DYK process works. — Maile (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: It seems to me that this wants to twist the DYK rules in order to make a political point on a particluar day. I do believe they need DYK consensus to change the rules for a particular reason and for the reason it wants to be changed specially, I have to oppose. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As Coin945 mentions, for April Fools Day, we actually accept articles that have been created or expanded at any point in the year leading up to the day itself. As stated on the AFD page: "The normal "5 day" rule for expansion and nominating is not followed." My biggest issue with this personally is the PoV aspect: if we can maintain a NPoV, then I don't see a major issue. Harrias talk 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I already explained this above. Take that proposal with a pinch of salt. I copy pasted the content from the DYK section of the April Fools Day Main Page project, and edited it slightly, in order to have at least *something* there. I know it is non-applicable to the current project. And as a non-DYK editor I have no experience in this field and it would be wrong of me to try to fix it. If you have an idea of how the rules should work, simply click the edit button and change them. Like seriously, go ahead. No discussion required. Noone will get mad, I promise. Consider it a place holder until it is replaced by something better by you guys. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith on the part of the people who want this coordinated effort to happen on Feb 11, everything at DYK is consensus. So, it's good you ran up the page proposal. But the very nature of DYK requires consensus here of a structural nature:
1) A vote on whether or not they want to do it;
2) The structure of how DYK would work it. It would have to be very, very coordinated. And part of the normal process takes Admins to approve prep areas and move them up to Queues, like this:
a. Hook is proposed in the normal nature on the nominations page
b. Hook is reviewed for content and newness and references, commented on, ALT hooks proposed or not, passed or failed (in any normal hook, some have been out there for weeks or months) This is also subject to other editors weighing in after a "pass", and the "pass" can be rejected based on criteria met or missed, and a new review called for.
c. Hook, in this case, would go to a holding area for a specific date
d. Any volunteer promotes the hooks, one by one, to a prep area
e. Admin reviews and approves prep set to move it to a Queue
f. Queue moves to main page appearance according to its place in line
g. Main page hooks can be pulled by an Admin if errors are found and reported
Note to Coin945: Did you leave the "tagged" pings below? I saw it when I came to this page just now. But just so you know, Notifications has not been working for me since the beginning of the month, with the exception of letting me know "thanks" and what it left on my talk page. I'm guessing it's not working for a lot of people, because when I've pinged people over the last few weeks, nothing happens. I've left a message on the Village Pump, as I suspect it's something in how they're revamping something or other. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of the validity of the project or how much DYK wants to contribute to it (there is already strong support for the idea so I can say with an educated guess that we're going full steam ahead), the DYK section is already filling up with ideas. So step A is underway. I'm sure the DYK veterans and come up with amazing ones in ten seconds flat, so I can't wait to see it pile up over the next few days with quality content. Then the review process, i imagine, will be relatively swift and painless. I know I for one will not be overly protective of a hook. If I nominate 20 and they all get beaten to a pulp by a reviewer, so be it. (I havent nominated any just yet, and dont plan to). The date is already set, and the hooks can obviously be removed if down the line less US-bias, or less editorialisation or whatever is required. There may be 7 steps, but most of those steps are quick and harless. Having a quick peek at what's there right now, you could use checkY and ☒N to get the show on the road - and perhaps even give some constructive criticism on how to improve mediocre hooks on good article topics.--Coin945 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
And yes, I did ping DYK people. I hate the fact it's so unreliable. *sigh*...--Coin945 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Tagged: User:The C of E User:Maile66 User:IseliljaUser:HiLo48 User:The ed17User:King jakob c 2--Coin945 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
April Fools Day and this are completly different things. April Fools Day is to make amusing hooks and hold them until the day. It is intended to stop any desperate rushes a few days beforehand. Whereas this is just aiming to push some political point that came from an issue that doesn't really affect users outside the USA. You cannout use the rules of AFD as an excuse to try and twist the DYK rules to fit some sort of agenda. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not. And considering I have already explained myself - twice - I find that comment rather weird. In any case, I've blanked the guidelines section for you so you have a clean slate to work with. :D--Coin945 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Noone is promoting anything. The idea is to have content which is (however remotely) connected to the vague theme of the NSA, which involves anything from privacy to espionage, to free speech, to whatnot.--Coin945 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Noone is promoting anything.
Nonsense. Even if the content is written from a neutral point of view, the idea is to compile it specifically for the purpose of supporting an organized protest occurring that day. Jehochman, who proposed the plan, noted an objective to "send a strong message". This is not a neutral endeavor, let alone one consistent with Wikipedia's mission. —David Levy 00:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the reasons cited above. —David Levy 00:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC*)
  • Oppose. Neutrality requires more than neutral articles. This proposal would give us a thoroughly non-neutral choice of articles in order to push an agenda. Let me quote a basic policy page: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. We have broad community consensus in favor of enforcing a policy page whose intro says All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view and This policy is nonnegotiable. Discussion here isn't able to overturn community consensus on neutrality. And finally, go read product placement and tell me how this is at all different from a non-commercial variant of it. Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that's it. It is not a vehicle to promote ANY political agenda, at all, no matter how nice or nasty it is. If the WMF wants to jump on the bandwagon for this campaign and they feel it is line with their goal to promote free knowledge, then fine, they can issue statements and do interviews etc., but they're encyclopedic projects must remain neutral. I opposed the SOPA action, and I will oppose this for the same reason: we must not stray from our original purpose to provide a compendium of neutral free knowledge into some kind of internet activist group. It's an insult to our donors, we promised them that we would not be like all the rest of the internet wikis with clear POV's (e.g. Conservapedia), and would be genuinely neutral on political matters. Please stop. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 11:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Treat this like a "special occasion"

A standard practice at DYK is to consider requests for hooks to be displayed on a "special occasion", such as a holiday or an anniversary that it relates to (or the Olympics). The standard DYK protocol for "special occasions" is that:

  1. The nomination must be made according to normal DYK procedures, no more than 6 weeks before the requested special occasion.
  2. The nomination must be reviewed according to our usual rules.
  3. Once it is approved, it can be moved into the special occasion holding area for the requested date -- but the person who made the date request should not be the one to move it.

I propose that we treat this "Day We Fight Back" as a "special occasion", according to the above rules. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

At special occasions we have only one or two, not an entire set, or multiple sets dedicated to the topic (unless it is a truly worldwide, major event with massive news coverage). Matty.007 17:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Times are a' changin'. What would you say to more frequent one-off days on the main page? Like a maths-themed day, or a space-themed day, or an animal-themed day? I think it would be rather fun.--Coin945 (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
There are precedents for theme based days. May 3, 2013 for example had hooks related to the 100th anniversary of the Indian Film industry in all three DYK sets with items at both TFA and SA/OTD.--Allen3 talk 17:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but a theme with a political message? Matty.007 17:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no political message. But the entries will be based around a very general theme, as has been stated numerous times already. Any proposals for hooks that editorialise or are anti-NSA or anything like that will be shut down immediately. It will be things like "Did you know that freedom of speech originated in Ancient Greece in yada yada", or "This episode of X files revolves around government phone tapping", or "In this year, person was arrested for speaking about abortion in a lecture".--Coin945 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if it isn't based on a political message, people will catch on that it is quite political, given the short amount of time since the NSA revelations. Matty.007 18:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The number of hooks included in special-occasion hooks set is generally limited by the number of nominated hooks that meet all of the criteria. I'd be very surprised if there are enough qualified nominations to fill all (i.e., 21 or more) of the February 11th slots with hooks related to this topic. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
So Coin, you there's no political message, but Wikipedia is having a special day to protest about the NSA. You have no idea. That simply IS a political message. Just telling people that Wikipedia is organising such a protest is political. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, based on Orlady's proposal of treating this as a "special occasion" I'm starting to see it from Coin945's point of view, as he has explained above.(It will be things like "Did you know that freedom of speech originated in Ancient Greece in yada yada", or). I'm not saying I agree or disagree. But I suddenly get the overall picture on this. Whether or not this is workable with DYK, it would certainly get global attention. It's not so far removed from hooks we've had about genocide and other brutalities around the world. Internet snooping and government prying is also a brutality of sorts. I vote for keeping Edward Snowden's name out of it, because I'm sick of hearing about him. Oh...that was a POV.— Maile (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
"There is no political message"? The whole thing is intended to serve as part of an organized protest occurring that day. The plan's proposer (in the discussion that led you to create the project page) described it as a way to "send a strong message". This was part of a post on the subject of when "a message is most effective". Do you see what word was used repeatedly?
I want to assume good faith on your part, Coin, but the above claim is making it difficult. —David Levy 01:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Let me jump in to defend Coin here. One of the things you're noticing is that different proposers have different proposals. Coin seems to be proposing JUST a "Special Day" on mainpage, but with no message from the Community, e.g. April Fools.
Others have considered something closer to our SOPA initiative-- an Editorial Day; Where our community actually is making an editorial statement of some sort. In this version, we're have a banner on every page that links to a community statement. That statement might be superficially similar to a normal day's main page, but disclaimers and other visual cues will make it clear that we're using our editorial voice in a way that we almost never do.
Since we cannot anticipate what the wider-community will decide, we're preparing for both eventualities simultaneously and in overlapping ways. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware that other ideas have been proposed. I'm not referring to any of those. I linked to a specific proposal by Jehochman, which I'll now quote in its entirety:

I'll pipe up as a marketing guy. A message is most effective when it matches the format of the media. We're an encyclopedia. On Feb 11, I suggest we fill our front page with articles, blurbs and news about mass spying and privacy. That will send a strong message, and help educate people. It's sort of like what we do on April 1, except serious instead of foolish. Jehochman Talk 02:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, there's no mention of a banner or anything other than what Coin945 advocates. Coin945 explicitly cited Jehochman's proposal as the basis of the current endeavor ("Created Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back in a similar vein to the April Fool's Day Main Page campaign, due to the already-overwhelming support for Jehochman's brilliant compromise."), so his/her subsequent claim that "there is no political message" is incredible. —David Levy 05:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, it would "send a message" that we feel the subject is important, but nothing beyond that. I wouldn't call that a political message-- we don't say if it's good or bad, we don't say if it's right or wrong. The only "message" is that we feel the subject is important enough to feature on Main.
Of course, I actually do want to send an actual message, assuming there's consensus for one. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Whether it entails displaying a banner or merely running special main page content, the idea is to express solidarity with advocacy groups and draw attention to their cause by participating in an organized protest occurring on that specific day. Coin945 has posted messages referring to the endeavor as "part of the [The Day We Fight Back] campaign". The notion that the intent isn't to convey a political message is absurd. (At least you're entirely upfront about your desire to do this.) —David Levy 05:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
On the "Day We Fight Back" website, it says surveillance "undermines the Internet". If SOPA was important enough to cause a blackout, an 'awareness day' doesn't seem out of the question. The protest is meant to honor Aaron Swartz as well. * petrarchan47tc 07:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
As for me, I am agnostic on whether Wikipedia should take part in a protest or not. But a protest must be separated from the ordinary encyclopedic work. Use the whole front page to the protest if you want to - we can cancel DYKs for a day or days - but make clear it's a policial message from the community, separate from the encyclopedia itself. DYK, ITN and the other ordinary main page sports must never be turned into a political soapbox. I can't believe we are ever having this discussion. Iselilja (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I would regard even that as an abuse of site. The Wikipedia community exists for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. When it was believed that legislation threatened this mission, the community reacted in a pragmatic manner. At the time, some feared that the blackout would set a dangerous precedent, with calls for protests in support of other causes with which most of Wikipedia's editors agreed. I was skeptical that such a slippery slope would arise, but here we are. —David Levy 08:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I just want to bold that quote from you: a protest must be separated from the ordinary encyclopedic work. Use the whole front page to the protest if you want to but make clear it's a [editorial] message from the community, separate from the encyclopedia itself.
Absolutely ESSENTIAL. If we do it, content displayed at Main must be instantly recognizable as "different than usual" and "not part of the encyclopedia". A banner at minimum, but ideally changing the CSS. Our readers should recognize it's not really a "Main Page", it just happens to be stored there at the same address. And obviously, extensive community support is necessary before actually doing this. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
1. It was believed (rightly or wrongly) that SOPA and PIPA threatened Wikipedia's very existence. For that reason, I supported the English Wikipedia's blackout. Many others opposed it on the basis that even that circumstance didn't justify engaging in political advocacy at the encyclopedia level.
In this instance, the connection to Wikipedia is tangential at best. This probably isn't even the greatest threat that the Internet faces right now, let alone one directly impacting Wikipedia. We mustn't transform the encyclopedia into a soapbox on which to protest everything that we happen to dislike.
2. Yes, I'm aware that the protest is meant to pay tribute to Aaron Swartz. This, too, is a non-NPOV position. It isn't Wikipedia's place to take anyone's side in the legal controversy that preceded his suicide (and the fact that he was a Wikipedian doesn't change that).
3. All of this, of course, has no bearing on Coin945's claim that "there is no political message". —David Levy 08:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Points taken. Although, anything that threatens the Internet is a direct threat to Wikipedia. According to this article, "The general idea is to use Feb. 11 as rallying point to get people online to discuss the NSA's various surveillance programs with the same passion that they discussed SOPA in 2011-12." That simply doesn't sound out of alignment with Wikipedia's general mission, except that we normally aren't focused on a particular issue, making this indeed a "special occasion". I wonder too if the slippery slope argument is being invoked prematurely. petrarchan47tc 19:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The belief that surveillance "threatens the Internet" is inherently non-neutral. So was opposition to SOPA and PIPA, but attorneys who analyzed the bills' actual language concluded that they stood to directly impede Wikipedia's operations. I've read no comparable credible statements regarding surveillance. The connection to Wikipedia is tangential at best, relying entirely upon the unproven premise that the activities in question will cause great harm to the Internet.
Also, there's a major distinction between opposing pending legislation and condemning a government agency's active policies. A very real controversy exists, with many asserting that the NSA's surveillance is essential to the prevention of terrorism. Taking sides in this debate is not within Wikipedia's purview. It's one thing to defend the encyclopedia's ability to exist and quite another to exploit our goodwill as a tool for attacking things that we simply dislike. —David Levy 21:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see "awareness raising" as attacking. For instance, it's possible that many people support the current global surveillance apparatus because they are unaware that it hasn't been successful in its stated purpose: stopping terrorist attacks 1 2. It's been suggested that the program "makes us less safe". SOPA required a blackout, the novel, detailed revelations of global spying deserves an awareness day, imo. petrarchan47tc 00:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
And there's another non-neutral post. Every time I see one of those it makes it more obvious that this is a political campaign, something we must avoid at all costs. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see "awareness raising" as attacking.
Use whatever terminology you prefer. My point is that the protest's purpose is to side against (and draw negative attention to) the surveillance operations.
The remainder of your reply can be summarized as follows: "But don't you see? The surveillance is bad, and this is our opportunity to take a stand!"
The campaign's righteousness is immaterial. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. It isn't a platform for the advancement of political causes. "But this one is good!" isn't a valid argument. —David Levy 02:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My views towards this thing have evolved and been adapted as I've thought more about what we are actually trying to accomplish here, and the steps that need to be taken to ensure the doubts that you have brought to our attention are addressed. When I first created the page, it was based on the vey basic notion of "there is a thing called TDWFB, this user has a proposal based off of it, lets crate a draft proposal page of te same name to avoid confusion, and hey presto". I'm quite baffled that random thins said at random times while we were all still trying to figure out what the hell we wee contributing to, are now being taken by gospel. A copy-pasted section from the AFD page amused an uproar with you DYK guys... When it was simply a matter of quickly adding a placeholder to the page with little thought or energy put into it. You knew this draft of a proposal was in-progress.. And yet it caused *such* an uproar...... Anyway, I have changed my view now from what it was before. I consider it to be inspired by the project, nothing more. We are using a protest as an excuse to have themed content on the main page. Our political message, if we have one, is that NSA-related issues are noteworthy. We will then use our editorial judgement to ensure the actual hooks don't focus too much on the negative or positive aspects of any one thing.--Coin945 (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm British, but to me the NSA is a US government department so in my view anything that focusses the project on NSA related issues is turning it into a political POV. Now if you can balance it so that for every negative hook about the NSA, there must be a positive one to go with it, then I might be more amenable to it. Otherwise its a NPOV violation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That would be the general idea, yes. But I actually want to go a step further than that and make the majority/entirity of the page only vaguely related to the topic of the NSa - so anything to do with privacy, censorship, espionage, whatnot. So it wouldnt be a case of pro-NSA and anti-NSA content. It would just be content that happens to have some sort of link to something that the NSA is associated with. "The NSA was accused of phonetapping" - WRONG. "The first reported case of phonetapping occured in ___ at ___ where [this happened]" - RIGHT.--Coin945 (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
And the scheduled protest inspired you, but this plan has nothing to do with supporting it. You (along with others, including the person who came up with the idea) originally said that the purpose was to participate in the protest, but you've changed your mind, so that's no longer the case. Now it's purely an opportunity to present a specially themed main page, and this just happens to be the subject selected. That's "what we are actually trying to accomplish here".
We could run, say, a Winter Olympics-themed main page on February 23, but no. We're going with the NSA, and not because we support the protest occurring against the NSA that day. Even though that's what we said in the first place. Right. —David Levy 11:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I have changed my view now from what it was before. I consider it to be inspired by the project, nothing more. We are using a protest as an excuse to have themed content on the main page. Our political message, if we have one, is that NSA-related issues are noteworthy.
Saying that doesn't make it so. If Wikipedia presents main page content with the suggested theme on February 11 — the exact day on which the protest "inspiring" it occurs — this will be widely interpreted as an expression of support. And rightly so. Why else would we be doing it? The idea that we're using this particular event as inspiration and "nothing more" — with our opinion of the underlying activism playing no role — defies all logic.
And that would be true even if editors (including you) hadn't unambiguously stated that the intent was to participate in the campaign. But you did, and it's hardly petty to quote these posts. They aren't "random things said at random times". They're explicit explanations of the motive behind this plan, written yesterday and the day before (when you were forthright regarding your desire to use Wikipedia's main page for political advocacy). —David Levy 11:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The distinction is that instead of being an NSA attack page, it is instead bringing the general issues revolving around the protest to peoples attention. People may or may ot know about this protest. The point is *why* such a portest would conceivably be made in the first place. What is the context that would make one group hold a protest against another in such a way. We are bringing issues such as phone tapping, freedom of speech etc to people's attention so they can understand the context without actually making a statement. I made an analogy on the ITN talk page about doing a similar thing on the day of a Pro-Nazi rally. Having the main page filled with Holocaust, germany, world war II, jews, hitler etc. would give context to why they hold the views that they do, and why some may disagree with them. But like always we will only be presenting the pieces of information, and not making a judgement about them. Saying "6 million people died in the holocaust" or "Hitler believed that the Aryans were the master race" is not "nazis are evil scumbags" or "hitler was an amazing guy". It's explaining WHY the modern day event is occuring and the context behind it. But it is not editorialising it AT ALL.--Coin945 (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Presenting very specific pieces of info, which often will get skewed towards one way, in filling all of the main page is still leading towards an NPOV violation. I feel I must point out what happened in the Gibraltarpedia controversy when loads of Gibraltar related hooks appeared in DYK at the same time. The media storm that happened then will no doubt happen again once they catch on to what this proposal is attempting to do if it gets implimented. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a major difference though, of course. Rather than having multiple hooks bringing Gibraltar to peoples attention (for the record I never really understood what all the fuss was about...), we may have one hook that explains "snowden was convicted of ____", and another that says "since the post 9/11 security measures on planes, [this many] terrorist attacks have been foiled". One that says "_____ said that freedom of speech is a basic human right", while another may say that "swear words are considered a form of obsenity in [this culture]". One may say "location services on facebook make it easier to charts your and your friends travels" while another may say "location services ahve been shown to be used by robbers to know when people are out of the house". These are the sorts of things the page will have (obviously with much better hooks). Both views. Every view. On these complicated and controversial issues.--Coin945 (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
...all compiled for the express purpose of drawing readers' attention to a political protest that we seek to support. —David Levy 12:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... I see your point. In any case, this isn't a cause i feel strongly enough to fight for (i know ive already overstepped that boundary by getting way to caught up in the discussion of how this could conceivably work). I feel like I have gotten in way to deep into a heated discussion and can't really be bothered continuing. Reading David's comment made me realise that even my view of the project was pointed in its own subtle way, and the more I think about it the more I question if it is actually a good idea at all. And if i am not 100% behind an idea I cant continue to endorse it. And so I think I will now withdraw from the conversation and let the other more passionate people battle it out. I am merely a helpful bystander after all. I never meant to become a torchbearer. But alas I got a tad too swept up in trying to solve this brain teaser of keeping everyone happy. I would still like to see themed days on the main page, and perhaps this has opened up the discussion for that. but for now, my role int he discussion ends. the :side" i was arguing for is still alive and well. Sit tight and someone from Wikipedia; The Day We Fight Back will be sure to come a'knockin'. Peace Out.--Coin945 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
And why would we have decided to bring this protest (as opposed to any of countless other scheduled events) to readers' attention? To promote it, of course. We came right out and said so. That's the reason behind the idea.
You keep stressing that the individual pieces of content will be neutral/balanced. That isn't sufficient when we're compiling them to generate publicity for political advocacy that we support. —David Levy 12:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:SOAPBOX, we're not in this for political advocacy. Focus on building the encyclopaedia and spare me the nausea of tolerating partisan protest politics and agitprop. Thank you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@ColonelHenry: You appear to have gotten the third end to a stick that only has two ends. Please read this conversation to get a better understanding of the actual proposal being made, rather than dismissing it as activist claptrap.--Coin945 (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Less than a day ago, you posted on multiple pages to advertise the proposal as a means of participating in the protest. Now you're complaining about editors' hasty assumption that the intent is to participate in the protest. —David Levy 12:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That is correct. Your point being..? Participating in a protest (margianally, mind you) is very different to shouting an agenda to the world.--Coin945 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
My point is that you're criticising editors for basing their views on your words (and those of the idea's other proponents). The proposal was devised for the express purpose of supporting a political cause, which you openly acknowledged until substantial opposition emerged (at which point you suddenly began claiming that no such motive exists and condemning interpretations to the contrary). —David Levy 13:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want to do protest, go write for Pravda and spare me this crap. Nothing says "this isn't political, fellas" like saying "hey guys, let's have a protest against the political abuses of the regime/illuminati/NSA/CIA/KGB/Stasi" while proposing to make Guy Fawkes (cue Anonymous) today's featured article... If you want to do politics, get in the street and throw rocks at cops. Turning Wikipedia political no longer makes it a neutral provider of information--it undermines the brand, would undoubtedly anger some readers, and apparently (given the opposition) angers some contributors. Such feckless and ultimately useless agitation is inherently dangerous. Wikipedia is not a political actor and shouldn't be seen as a political actor. Sure, I hate the NSA bullshit too, but I'd rather throw rocks at cops when the time comes. Save your intifada for the streets. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a battleground, nor is it a stick to beat back the problems of the world. And harassing people who disagree with you when you ask if they support or oppose is poor form, dude. Get a life--actually, focus on the encyclopaedia...how novel.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ColonelHenry and general problem with hypocrisy of proposer (not Jehochman, the original one) first wanting to WP:OUT Snowden and now portraying himself as the great defender of the privacy rights and supporter of the "hero" Snowden. He shouldn't use Wikipedia to promote his own position when it suits him. Fram (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@Fram: This proposal is quite different to that of the "original proposer". You oppose that proposal? Guess what? I do too. Unfortunately for you your Oppose is meaningless in this discussion, which is for something quite different.--Coin945 (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I oppose this specific proposal, and the general reason / guiding force behind the proposal. Fram (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support We often have special days, including elections, sports events, national days, world something-or-other-day. Not editorialising. And since we once blacked out the whole encyclopaedia, we explicitly and officially tolerate and allow protest related events. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    As discussed above, that particular protest (which I supported) pertained to legislation believed to threaten Wikipedia's very existence. Many editors opposed it anyway, on the basis that even that circumstance didn't justify engaging in political advocacy at the encyclopedia level. Some feared that the blackout would set a dangerous precedent, with calls for protests in support of other causes with which most of Wikipedia's editors agreed. Evidently, we've now reached that slippery slope. —David Levy 12:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Hawkeye7. FWIW, Cybersecurity scholar Peter Singer claims the NSA revelations have "hollowed out the American ability to operate effectively in ensuring the future of the internet itself, in the way we would hope it would be." petrarchan47tc 19:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget though, this is not a site catering for americans alone. Why should the rest of the English speaking users on Wikipedia be dragged into this clearly politicied event that is just based around an american government department? It is a definate WP:NPOV violation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
True, it's unfortunate I couldn't find a quotation regarding the globe, but here we are. The spying revelations have been coming from international media such as The Guardian and Der Speigel, and have exposed the fact that the American NSA works in tandem with the UK's GCHQ and its other Five Eyes partners, in cooperation with most other Western nations to surveil everyone who uses the Internet and computers/devices. The latest revelation from the UK is that all of your texts are being stored: "the UK spy agency GCHQ has made use of the NSA database to search the metadata of "untargeted and unwarranted" communications belonging to people in the UK" petrarchan47tc 20:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A non-US-specific quotation from the Executive director of campaign group Demand Progress, David Segal: "Today the greatest threat to a free internet, and broader free society, is the National Security Agency's mass spying regime." petrarchan47tc 20:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Those two posts are obviously presenting a non-neutral POV on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Please don't tell me that surveillance is not of international interest. What is called NSA surveillance in the United States is actually being carried out by a consortium of agencies from five English-speaking countries (Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States). In Australia Snowden's documents revealed that our Defence Signals Directorate has been spying on Malaysia and Indonesia, listening in on the phone conversations of the Indonesian president and first lady. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
And nobody with any real awareness of how the world works, and has worked for thousands of years, was surprised. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the controversy is international. That isn't a valid excuse for Wikipedia to engage in political advocacy. —David Levy 02:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - All governments in all countries spy on anybody and everybody. Maybe we could broaden this special event to include articles about "intelligence" operations in other countries and/or other "military intelligence" operations. Anybody who thinks this is strictly of interest to America might need to ask Angela Merkel — Maile (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, governments DO spy on people, and have for thousands of years. So what? HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No one has asserted that Wikipedia shouldn't provide coverage of known intelligence operations around the world. The problem is that this "special event" is designed to take a stand in opposition to some of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an activist group. —David Levy 02:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I wrote this proposal primarily to point out that DYK has established protocols for dealing with content that somebody wants to feature on a particular day (often including commemorations of interest to only a small fraction of our users), and to say that this idea could be accommodated under those established protocols (one of which is that Wikipedia policy, including WP:NPOV must not be violated). I was envisioning that we could expect to run several DYK hooks on the broad topic of government surveillance, by no means limited to the U.S. government or to modern times, and that they likely would be commingled with other hooks on the Winter Olympics and other topics. After reading the continuing discussion, I do believe that this is the right direction for DYK to take.
It appears to me that none of the suggested hooks that have been proposed at Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back#Did You Know would qualify for DYK (for example, because the articles are too short, or aren't qualified as newly created, newly expanded, or new GAs). I don't think it is productive to continue arguing about the politics of "The Day We Fight Back" (or Surveillance Awareness Day) when we could be telling the supporters of this event: "Here are our standard rules for DYK and special occasion features in DYK. If you want DYK to commemorate February 11th, you need to do it within the constraints of these rules." Unless somebody comes up with content that meets DYK criteria, there's no purpose in arguing about whether it should be featured on 11 Feb. --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You've noted that "DYK has established protocols for dealing with content that somebody wants to feature on a particular day (often including commemorations of interest to only a small fraction of our users)". But when has this ever been done as part of a political protest intended to advance a cause? The proposed "special event" goes far beyond the highly controversial Gibraltarpedia items, whose purpose was merely to promote tourism. Heck, it even goes beyond 2012's blackout in the respect that it entails using articles to convey the message (as opposed to suppressing them for a day, which kept the actual encyclopedia separate from the protest). —David Levy 03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Gibraltarpedia is irrelevant here. That was not an implementation of DYK's "special occasion" protocol; rather it was something that happened to Wikipedia without prior discussion, and later had to be managed. It's not relevant here.
Real examples of DYK "special occasions" include the hooks currently in the special occasion holding area, commemorating the 1902 coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, commemorating a 1968 Beatles concert, and featuring the Winter Olympics. In the recent past, other DYK commemorations have included Christmas, Boxing Day, New Year's Day, the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, Halloween, the International Day of Peace, the date when Lübeck martyrs were guillotined for opposing the Nazi regime, basketball games between U.S. universities, the Alfred Russel Wallace centenary, the Swami Vivekananda 150th anniversary, the first no-hitter at Yankee Stadium, and the birthdays of some long-dead classical composers and of a historical Princess of Wales. These hooks are never labeled or advertised as being related to a particular occasion. Furthermore, it should be clear from the diversity of this list that there is no particular bias toward royalty, basketball, peace, the Eurovision song contests, Christianity, Hinduism, or any other topic. DYK simply runs special-occasion hooks on dates that DYK editors are persuaded to regard as special occasions. --Orlady (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Gibraltarpedia is irrelevant here. That was not an implementation of DYK's "special occasion" protocol;
And that, in your view, was the problem?
The controversy stemmed from allegations that Roger Bamkin (a Wikipedia editor and Wikimedia UK trustee) accepted consultancy fees from Gibraltar's government in exchange for using Wikipedia (including the DYK section) to promote the territory — a conflict of interest.
In the current situation, monetary compensation doesn't appear to be a component (so if you want to point out a material difference, that would be it). Instead, we have editors working to compile special content (at DYK and other main page sections) for the express purpose of informing the world that Wikipedia supports an organized protest occurring that day. This, in my view, is a greater conflict of interest. In the case of Gibraltarpedia, the worst-case scenario is that someone got paid to ensure that content otherwise meeting Wikipedia's normal standards appeared (with questionable benefit to Gibraltar's tourism drive). In this case, we have a concerted effort to use Wikipedia's main page to advance a political agenda. Labeling this a "special occasion" doesn't somehow make it okay. The underlying motive and real-world impact matter very much.
rather it was something that happened to Wikipedia without prior discussion, and later had to be managed.
Prior discussion doesn't negate bias. We can't vote away our responsibility to maintain a neutral point of view.
Real examples of DYK "special occasions" include [list snipped]
Yes, I agree that those are real examples of legitimate "special occasions" at DYK. That's because none are/were part of a political protest intended to advance a cause. I ask again: when has this ever occurred?
DYK simply runs special-occasion hooks on dates that DYK editors are persuaded to regard as special occasions.
Yes, and these are documented holidays, anniversaries, etc. Conversely, February 11's only special significance is that it's the date of an organized protest — one in which some editors wish to participate by running related main page content as a show of solidarity, thereby promoting the campaign. —David Levy 08:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
To pick up on Orlady's point, there seems to be widespread support that the closer we come to meeting status quo criteria, the better. In the interest of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, we're accepting nominees that would not pass our status quo criteria. But when we're done nominating, I suspect the nominees left standing will be those closest to our usual status quo standards.
So please don't pre-judge a proposal before it even exists-- instead, help us create good solid relevant NPOV nominations that we can all be proud of. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
To Orlady, What you are proposing is not some special occasion like a major sporting event or annual anniversary, it is a political protest that should not involve Wikipedia because it suggests that the project favours one view over another. Gibraltarpedia is a very good reason why we shouldn't do this. People will complain and also it will lead to another media storm once people not involved understand what this is trying to do. Also I notice that most of the !supports come from people involved in this proposal and not DYK regulars who have to live with the consequences. Something that we've already had happen with GA (democratically) invading the DYK spaces. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Whether the supports or opposes come from DYK regulars or not is irrelevant, DYK regulars doing something against the wishes of the wider community (or nor doing something despite the wishes of the wider community) would be a bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyhow, such a bold proposal would need near landslide consensus, which it doesn't have. Matty.007 19:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
When people say that this protest event is "not like the Olympics" (or the Queen's birthday, etc.), they are distinguishing between a "universal and accepted point of view" as opposed to a "controversial point of view" So, for example, the idea that athletes from all nations should come together to make IOC bureaucrats rich on bribes and inducements in the name of world peace is simply uncontroversial, something everyone should accept, but the idea that we shouldn't take it as "Manifest Destiny" that our toilets will someday soon be connected to the Internet with government webcams recording our 'movements' is something so beyond the pale that Wikipedia can't be associated with it. Them good, us bad. Well I say that is a political bias itself. But the bottom line is that people can and will write these articles, because these are important topics. Are you going to delete them? They can and will file for DYKs. Are you going to say those DYKs are ineligible because they have the "wrong political implications"? Which leaves you to decide whether you want to just go with the editors and have the DYKs in a normal special day, or try to space them out over a few days or weeks. Which is just petty, and it's not going to matter. Wnt (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a special day of support or advertising for a specific political protest through Wikipedia content placement. The claim that this is like any special day is absurd -- it is obviously an attempt at highly organized political editorial actions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I never was fond of some of the extreme parts of the proposal, but I'm not asking for any "special rights" here. I just want each DYK proposer to have the same ability as any other DYK proposer to request that his or her hook be saved up for a few weeks after they're submitted so as to appear on a day that seems relevant. That's not a collective right or decision, but an individual one. I am unaware of any policy saying what "special occasions" are too political to allow and which aren't -- that decision itself would be political bias on Wikipedia worse than any proposed by the surveillance project people. Plus I should emphasize that the point of creating any such articles is not "political advocacy", but political education, i.e. to make certain issues that people on that day may want to look up more accessible to whoever wishes to see them. There's no need to bias the articles or try to leave out one side of the story - the right and wrong of the matter is apparent in and of itself! Wnt (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – I read this whole discussion, and I say, why not. The whole "it's political so it shouldn't be done" argument is kind of silly in my estimation. First, there's the SOPA example: some kinds of political expression are okay (albeit with broad consensus, which here hasn't really been given a chance to manifest itself). To respond, "this isn't the same because SOPA threatened wikipedia's existence" is inadequate because we aren't talking about, for example, making the main page's theme about how poor Americans need food stamps but the Republicans are trying to take them away. This is somewhere between "threatening wikipedia's existence" and "an irrelevant political issue" and just repeatedly arguing that mass government surveillance of internet activity is completely irrelevant to wikipedia is unconvincing at best. Second, following along with what Wnt said, I fail to see the fundamental difference between theming the DYKs about internet surveillance on a day of protest and theming the main page after an old king on the anniversary of his coronation. Either way, aren't we just saying, "here's some informative articles relating to something that's going that we think you would be interested in?" Taking it a bit further, the existence of the royal family actually is a political issue, and isn't including a bunch of DYKs about them at least on some level a rejection of republicanism? I don't think that it's so easy to figure out what is an isn't an impermissibly "political" theme for DYKs, even if all "political" themes are prohibited. I think that regardless of the agenda for advancing awareness of a particular issue – which is the purpose of theming DYKs, right? – that it's perfectly appropriate as long as it's done in a neutral manner without editorializing. AgnosticAphid talk 03:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Want to change the contents and purpose of the main page? Start a sitewide, well-advertised RfC!

The problem is that we have no idea what the wider community wants, this is so far a proposal made by a small incrowd, originating on one user talk page (which is used as a restricted community discussion board when it suits the user involved). Before this gets discussed here, this should get a community discussion (preferably an RfC with a general site notice). Those proposing and supporting this proposal probably shuold start on it, as there is less than a month left until the proposed date for this. Fram (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This should have been listed on Centralized Discussion, and that was mentioned on JWales' talk page. What actually happened is This List of Notifications. And except for a smattering of opinions at ITN, not much dialogue has happened. The only continued action has been here at DYK. Regardless of the heated discussion on this page, and how it started on the JWales talk page, this isn't going anywhere anyhow. — Maile (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
As an added thought, if there is not a united consent by the other interested areas of the main page, I don't think DYK should go it alone, not even as a special occasion. And it doesn't look like that's happening. I understand the proposal above from @Orlady: as merely suggesting it be handled through the usual DYK process/format if it were agreed upon. But if there is no united front by the other main page areas, DYK would indeed look like they were promoting a political POV if they alone devoted one entire day to these hooks. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Well the majority of DYK contributors seem to be against it anyway. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The entire proposal seems to be the pipe-dream of a handful of five editors. Sorry, I care little for using Wikipedia as a bludgeon for political partisanship. I just wish the effort they put into this stupid idea (and continue to waste on it) was better spent getting one of the articles on their list to FA status. Screaming about politics is just wasting air. Using Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for a political position is wasted time typing. I still oppose this, will continue to oppose this, and will now get back to polishing the draft of a poetry article I've been working on--something useful, and not likely to alienate the readers and editors who don't being subjected to ideology and agitprop.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I've spent some time over there expressing the opinion that the editors can be effective in delivering relevant content within the rules - provided some people here making a knee-jerk reaction to some attempted overreaches don't try to change those rules. The rules allow for all sorts of politically relevant educational expressions: starting new articles, getting DYKs for them, holding your DYKs for a relevant day of your choosing, starting and reactivating WikiProjects, starting or updating Portals, creating and putting up userboxes, and, yes, getting articles up to FA status. I think that so long as people put in the work to merit these rewards, they should have a fair right to them just as everyone else does for their own preferred topics of interest. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment. We've missed the big issue here. With all this minor pedantry about some local demonstration about a topic that only concerns local people, and whether it is worth mentioning in passing at the front of an amateur encyclopaedia, we have let slip past without comment (except this one) a travesty to all English-speaking people: someone (above) has used "surveil" as a verb. Even more horrific, it has crept almost unnoticed into Wiktionary. This is very sinister and I think it is probably the work of a secret Government organisation, to damn ourselves all out of our own mouths. Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2014 (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 #1 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) 14:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Abandoned review

I've noticed that the reviewer of Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Garnett has said that it meets the criteria but doesn't want to give it the green tick. Can someone please finish the review of this nom? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Abaondones reviews more generally

This is a problem here and its happened before. All queries have been answered and yet there is nothing more in reply. Then suddenly there is a claim its been here "too long" when it is not the fault of the nominator as everything is answered. Even that closing needs more of a review, perhaps the closer can review it instead when its all ready. For example, ive waited 10 days now at Freedom and Unity Front after the latest answer(Lihaas (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2014 (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 #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We are about to miss the update in half an hour. Prep area 2 is ready, but nothing is in any of the queues. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2014 (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 #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2014 (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) 14:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Never mind: the update began seconds after I posted the above. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Jan 26 special occasion hook for Audie Murphy filmography

Audie Murphy filmography has been requested for special occasion hook tomorrow, January 26, Texas time zone (inbetween New York and Los Angeles zones) Looks like queue times are still being adjusted. Whatever queue it is, and right now that's Queue 2, where this will appear during the daytime hours Texas time on January 26. And as it stands right now, that would be Prep Area 4. It's my nom, so I can't promote it. So, hopefuly, someone here will not forget. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  • It looks like the queue was set, though you hadn't cleared out Prep 2, which I've just done. But someone appears to have set the promotion to the main page to be 12 hours rather than 8, so the next promotion, instead of occurring six minutes ago, won't happen for another four hours. I didn't see anything announced here, which is quite odd. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: I've just moved the special occasion lead hook in P4 to P3 so it will run at the correct time (00:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)). If someone decides to go back to 8 hour intervals from 12 hour intervals, please do so effective with a 00:00 UTC slot; if you don't, the bot software will automatically correct by moving 15 minutes per promotion until 00:00 UTC is achieved. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Is the bot sleeping? --76.64.180.9 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To answer this question, the bot was confused by the comment suggesting an alternate image if the current lead hook was removed for any reason, and noticed that said image file was unprotected—if an image is unprotected, then the bot won't move the set to the main page. So the bot was awake and doing its job, but encountered something it wasn't programmed to handle. It should be fine for the next set, assuming one is assembled and promoted to queue in time. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Well there are plenty of ready nom's waiting for someone to reply for weeks. See Above, for one there is Freedom and Unity Front..Lihaas (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Asia Bibi blasphemy case

I feel uncomfortable about this being on mainpage but will bow to consensus. Input there please? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible source for DYK noms

Hi there, I used to nominate all my new articles and almost all expanded articles at DYK, but have become much more selective these days. Only if there's an interesting hook possible, or if I think the article is particularly good, do I come here. There's lots that is DYK-suitable that doesn't make it to here. If you are interested, you can watchlist my contributions page, where I list new stuff and major expansions. If I intend to nominate myself, I will do so before I add the item to the contributions page. Be warned, though, as I mostly work in political history, and that's not everybody's cup of tea. Schwede66 09:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with a DYK nomination please

Could someone please help with this nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Kanako Momota?

I believe the nomination is under attack. When it had been already approved and added to the queue, an editor removed it from there. Then he tried to remove the fact that was used in the DYK hook from the article several times. Now he continues to vote with red crosses, he has already voted two times.

I am willing to improve the article if everyone calms down. I have been working on it, but I don't know what I should do now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer won't answer

The reviewer on Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Dougherty seems to have disappeared after our initial conversation. Could someone else pick up the review and decide the minor dispute there? Thank you. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had the same problem at Template:Did you know nominations/2014 Football League Cup Final. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The original reviewer doesn't WP:OWN a DYK review. In general, if you want to attract a new reviewer, a "re-review" icon might help... --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of 38 nominations that need reviewing. One of them is still from November and three from the first half of December, so please take one of them on if you can. We currently have 244 total nominations, of which only 42 are approved. Thanks as always for your reviews.

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) 08:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Prep area 2

When the current set on the main page was moved up from Prep area 2 to its queue, the blank Prep area 2 remained in the top position. Is it my imagination, or do those positions change when a prep area is cleared when hooks are moved to a queue?— Maile (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I got it. I updated the queue count. Was that supposed to be only admins who do that?— Maile (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You mean the prep count, right? No, I do it all the time, when admins forget that step after they promote prep to queue. Thanks for noting and taking care of it, Maile; after preps are promoted, the count needs to be changed to the next prep that should be promoted, so it appears first of the four preps on the queues page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK QPQ credits

I have reviewed a double hook nomination. Assuming that one article fails to be listed, can I obtain two QPQ credits, or just one? -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You reviewed two articles, so you get two QPQ credits. So long as you did a full DYK review of each article, you've done your part, whether they are eventually promoted or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Magnificat

Magnificat (Schütz) is now approved. For private birthday reasons (not mine), I would love to see it today. Any chance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, we're on a twice-a-day schedule, and you're making the request for a 27 January promotion here after 12:00 UTC on that day, when the second set of 27 January hooks is already on the main page. That strikes me as the definition of impossible. Since it is too late, I imagine the hook should be promoted in the normal course of things. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I asked in the nomination, didn't want to push a review, could only ask to take it to prep once it was approved. When I asked that set was not filled. - I can take no, but will always ask if there's the slightest chance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Gerda, as you know well, special requests are supposed to be made at least five days in advance. That aside, I'm not sure what you mean by "that set was not filled"; you asked at 13:27 after a 13:19 approval, but the final 27 January set had been moved to the main page at 12:00, over an hour earlier. When you made your request, it was simply too late—we're currently promoting twice a day at 00:00 and 12:00 UTC, and the final set for the day was gone. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ethel Sands

I'm a little confused. The Template:Did you know nominations/Ethel Sands was reviewed stating that there was no citation for the hook in the article. At first I thought the reviewer wasn't seeing it, but it is cited (as is the entire article).

I thought that maybe the reviewer wanted to see the citation mid-sentence (of 2 cited sentences) where the quote was, so I added an additional citation tag right there... but it doesn't seem so far that satisfied the user.

Can you take a look, please. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The Beatles' rooftop concert

In the holding area for Jan 30 is The Beatles' rooftop concert. I'm calculating it should either be in Prep area 3 (00:00 UTC), or Prep 4. Looking at this, it has no image. The Beatles were a global cultural force. Shouldn't there be an accompanying image and this be a top hook? It is hard to believe that the only image in the article is a photo of the building. Don't we have anyone among us who could upload an image from that concert that can be licensed on Commons? Whatever is the top hook now in Prep 3 or 4 could be moved to another set. — Maile (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Considering people who scan and upload their own photographs have been accused of copyright violations by overzealous editors before (see: Colonel Sanders), it doesn't surprise me that nobody's uploaded an image of the concert. That and the fact that it's been 45 years... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Eligible?

Hi, I asked a couple of editors (Hughesdarren and MacRusgail) for their blessings to go ahead and nominate Minderoo Station and History of rugby union in Wales for DYK. However, one slipped through my watchlist, and the other was replied to a little outside the 5 day limit. Is it acceptable for me to nominate them 6 days after creation? Thanks, Matty.007 19:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You can always try, if you can take to perhaps have it rejected, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Abandoned review, again

I've received a message from the initial commenter on Template:Did you know nominations/2014 Football League Cup Final‎, that he didn't want to continue the review. Can someone pick up the ball on this one? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the initial commenter never attempted a full review, so can hardly be accused of "abandoning" it. They just pointed out that your original hook was neither supported by the cited source nor accurate. Struway2 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
There isn't really a rush on this one, since it's a special occasion hook for March 2. I've put a "review again" icon on it, and I expect it to be picked up in due course, with plenty of time before when it needs to run. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_100&oldid=1189653161"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

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


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy