Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

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

Numerous threads moved to the Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals subpage:

• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Good articles redux
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal - minimum character requirement increase from 1500 to 2500
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Some thoughts from a semi-regular
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal to replace DYK with new Good article DYKs and demote the current system to a sub page
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Multiple RFCs confusing, simply remove DYK from the mainpage
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Brainstorming related to RFC

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

Just a note to say that the separating out of the reform discussions to Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals. is not yet finished. If no-one else does it, I hope to carry on doing it tonight. But it is possible the archive bot may sweep up some sections and dump them in the archives if this is left too long. The sections can be retrieved from there, but it would be better if the moving of various sections from here to there carried on. Also, note some people are starting to edit that other page, so people here need to watchlist that page as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turned out I had no time this week for anything on Wikipedia. What do people here want done with the threads at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals? Currently, some of the threads that I had intended to move there have ended up in the archives (due to the archive bot). If you want those threads that I moved to the subpage to be archived in the archives, I'm happy to do that. I do think that some list of the reform-related threads should be made and a summary written to help keep track of all this. But what I want first is to get everything in one place, rather than the half-moved stuff (which is my fault really, for starting and not finishing, though that was because I underestimated how long it would take and how much there was). There is a partial list of the reform threads at the top of this page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one replies before this section is archived by the bot, I'll do my best to tidy up what I started, probably by just adding the subpage to the archive box above (along with the partial list at the top of this page) and making clear that it is incomplete, and that other reform discussions are present in the archives. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B didn't work. The archive box is one of those auto-generated bot ones and I can't work out how to manually add a thematic archive link like Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals to the numerical list of archives. So maybe it is time for plan C, which involves dumping the subpage threads into the main archives and then using the subpage to link to all the reform discussion threads once archived. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I read the discussion above, I want to cut to the chase here. If I import and translate (probably machine assisted) an article from another subdomain wikipedia, the article is eligible of DYK as a new article, right? Questions of sourcing and copyvio are no dfferent than for an English work, although they might be harder to identify; but the bottom line is a translation is fine. I intend to import some articles so there will be no attribution issue at all - the entire non-English edit history will be present as well as the import log entry.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. cmadler (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eligible for DYK is a low bar to set for your editing; the bigger concerns are 1) are you importing plagiarism or copyvio because you didn't check the sources, 2) are sources accurately represented, 3) are you concerned about importing text from a non-reliable source (that anyone can edit), 4) do you know if you're importing POV, 5) are you fluent in the language you're importing from, 6) if you're not, how do you know if the sources used in the other Wiki are reliable, and 7) are you concerned about all of the potential WP:V (policy) violations of writing articles when you haven't read the sources? That DYK may allow this shouldn't really be an experienced editor's question; is it in line with our core pillar of WP:V, not to mention COPYVIO, is more relevant. Anyone reviewing a DYK hook or article from a foreign language can ask for a translation of the original source per WP:NONENG, and they well should, to check for copyvio and correct representation of sources. By the way, I speak fluent Spanish and I have *never* even encountered a machine translation of anything that was even remotely accurate, so even if there is no other WP:V or COPYVIO breach, how do you know the translation is good? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I've just discovered the "index" function on the talk page archives here (hurray !!!!). Do an index search on "translat" and you may agree with me that the lax attitude displayed on the current talk page here has not always been the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding machine assisted, I have often found that Google will render German or French in an intelligible manner that can be used as a base point. I would never go the other way as I would be sure to create unintelligible output; but I am knowledgeable enough in German and French grammar to be able to untwist what the machine spits out and get the same meaning in English. Obviously, the result needs complete rewriting; but it's often a lot quicker than translating direct from the source without a guide would be. For example (though irrelevant to DYK), I imported a portion of Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany and all of United Grand Lodges of Germany from de.wp and used Google to assist me in my translation. I wouldn't try the same with es.wp as I don't know more than two dozen words of Spanish and don't know enough about the grammar to be able to untangle what I get. The sources there are poor to start with. Checking for copyvios is relatively easy, since the German text that was translated is in the en.wp edit history as I imported the whole history. I find the machine translation is a guide in the same way that an alternative translation can be; but I would always check back against the source.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy is correct. Past discussions have raised issues with blindly using machine translations of articles from foreign wikis. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 37#Translations as "new" content from 2008 and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 16#Translations from 2007. Cbl62 (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Just in case you wish to know my experience :). Google translations always require copyediting, but save time. Language is easy to fix, most problems came from errors in facts and references. I have regularly had those problems with FAs/GAs from German and Russian wikis, which are among the strongest for factual/referencing standards. Other wikis often don't even source the texts, even at FA level. German wiki is often Ok, but their prose standards are somewhat different from en.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a series of questions about the current state of play at DYK in response to a query by Dr. Blofeld at my talk page. I suppose I didn't put them here because I wondered whether they were too wide-ranging, inappropriate, or numerous, to be useful or appropriate at the moment. Do they need to be asked, and should they be pruned or filtered? Tony (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of fixing the link to the questions, as it was pointing to another Talk page. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put them up here for wider discussion. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Tony (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've spelled out these questions without prejudice so that the community might consider them. I haven't formed clear opinions on some of them, and I haven't formed strong opinions on most. Tony (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a number of these are valid questions that I too have had on my mind, but I haven't raised them yet since I've been waiting for Rjanag to finish his alternative checklist. I'm still not sure what the status of that is ATM.

In relation to the last, however, I'll respond to that now - we don't have the manpower for a directorate such as the one you are suggesting. That's why I suggested an enhanced process for admins loading updates into the queue as an alternative. It's the most we can hope for IMO, but even that has been queried by Yomangani as possibly too demanding. Gatoclass (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've informally asked around about this and it appears that most administrators are too scared or bewildered to touch DYK. I think that putting together an official proposal for a directorate which clearly outlined the responsibilities of administrators moving hooks and gave a shared responsibility amongst them would help solve the manpower issue quite rapidly. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an expectation that a single person review every aspect of a nom?

And specifically, now that the expectations of DYK have risen—both in explicit scope and intensity—if the QPQ reviewing system is to continue should it be modified to recognise that an entire review to promotion or rejection by a single (QPQ) reviewer is impractical, given the goals of DYK? Is an explicit set of aspects the way to go for QPQ reviewing?

• The problem now is that the checklist is taking DYK reviewing into territory that is not the domain of DYK, and is too burdensome, while there is as yet no assurance that DYK *is* reviewing for things within its remit-- specifically, that the expansion is based on reliable sources. I have yet to understand how reviewers are determining that the expansion criterion is met if they are not checking (minimum at least) reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Sandy. I think we need to take a step back and consider, item by item, exactly what should be included in a DYK review. Personally I favor something like Yomangani's suggestion, but I'm open to discussing it. The proper order to do things is first to figure out what is to be done, and then devise a checklist or automate it. Creating a checklist while there is ongoing disagreement over what is to be checked has just created chaos. cmadler (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding my comment in support of Sandy. We especially can't expect new users (and there can be users with under 200 edits who still have more than 5 DYKs) to be able to sufficiently check for the trickier aspects of copyright violations and source reliability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So who is going to do it? There are very few people who want to check for copyvios. If we don't insist on QPQ reviewers doing all aspects, we are going to end up with dozens of hooks that are only partially verified. Additionally, many DYK contributors do have plenty of experience and should know how to check for copyvio like anyone else. Those who don't know can learn, and DYK can help facilitate that. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to do it? The idea that you *must* insist on QPQ reviewing is wrong on every level, as is the checklist, as you have no assurance any of it is being done *correctly* by unqualified, inexperienced reviewers (but we do know that this template checklist is placing an additional burden on DYK). The solution is what it has always been: reduce the volume at DYK, and allow for experienced editors to review for what matters (copyvio, reliable sources-- crappy prose is not a DYK issue, it can be solved by letting others edit, and it is not a policy violation). There is no rationale for this sense of entitlement, that every new or expanded article *must* be on the mainpage, and it has resulted in DYK being a breeding ground for faulty editing. Find a way to limit nominations, and then qualified reviewers will be able to handle the reviews needed, and give them the attention they deserve. A checklist only means unqualified QPQ reviewers are ticking boxes that they don't understand (and some very esteemed qualified reviewers are doing same as we speak, btw). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why is it so strange to expect that some people will be interested in reviewing DYKs whilst not being interested in submitting them? I mean, look at Tony for a start. Maybe having clear roles for people means they'll find a niche they're good at and like, rather than thrusting people into a role they're not suited to. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange to expect it because it goes against the history of the project. I've been working at DYK longer than most, in all the time I've been here we have rarely had enough reviewers. I can't see that more reviewers are going to magically appear just because we have a snazzy new checklist for them to play with. Gatoclass (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking as someone who has reviewed a lot of DYKs over the years, the snazzy new checklist is likely to deter me from doing reviews -- particularly if the checklist takes as much vertical space on my screen as it does now. I have often done partial reviews of hooks. For example, I might determine that article length is insufficient and leave a quick note to that effect. In another case, I might visit the article, read the sources, add some citations to the article to support uncited content, edit text to eliminate content that is too close to the source, and suggest a couple of "ALT" hooks, but leave the DYK unapproved because a large part of the article doesn't cite any sources and I can't figure out where it's from. A template, particularly the more complex templates discussed here, actually would discourage me from doing those kinds of reviews, partly because they make it so hard to skim the list of nominations and partly because they create the appearance that I "own" the review and need to be on call for the next week to monitor the nomination. --Orlady (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there's that problem now, I mean look at the backlog! I don't think we've fixed it by making newbies review articles to a level they can't possibly be expected to achieve. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gato, you say "It's strange to expect [partial reviewing] because it goes against the history of [DYK]". Well, some things need to adapt to new circumstances, and in terms of QPQ, that history isn't very long, is it? There are compelling reasons that QPQ should be retained as only part of the checklist: (1) induction/training of newish editors; and (2) the advantage of having some of the more straightforward aspects done. So why not require for QPQ:

(a) the top four items in the checklist for the original hook (surely nominators need to have a stab at that; they're hardly burdensome—I'm happy if they can suggest why a hook needs to be updated by an ALT, even if they don't say what the wording of the ALT might be); plus

Article length and article vintage.

That leaves space for specialist reviewers to go through filling the gaps. Tony (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having no problem doing the full monty, as it were, but then again I've got a lot of reviewing experience. I do like the idea of bifurcating the checklist into essentials and non-essentials.

I'm sort of pleased and surprised to see that Sandy feels we went too far with this, and that we now have some clarification as to what she thinks is really necessary. However, part of the reviewing ambit has always been whether, as a whole, this was something we wanted or didn't want linked from the Main Page (I remember once rejecting an otherwise OK hook from an article on some road in Saskatchewan because it was so poorly formatted and written that I would have been embarrassed for us to have it get even one more click than it would have if it had never been linked from the Main Page). I still think reviewers need to keep that in mind. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Tony: I don't think having straightforward aspects of reviewing (e.g., article length and age) checked by QPQ is a huge benefit. That aspect of reviewing is so quick and easy it was never a major burden on reviewers anyway (in a crunch, I or any experienced reviewer could check 50 or more noms for article length, history, and whether the hook was cited, in just a couple hours). The part of reviewing that takes a longer time is checking for text issues (by which I mean plagiarism/copyvio/close paraphrase) and other potential cleanup issues, as well as sometimes getting into lengthy discussions over the hook. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think having straightforward aspects of reviewing (e.g., article length and age) checked by QPQ is a huge benefit." That is just about all that QPQ reviewers have ever done. How will you ever know that the other aspects have been checked out unless there's a checklist to expose this with blanks or comments or signatures? This is what the community has demanded: see the RfC. If you want to persist with this "one reviewer owns each review", you can't have QPQ, since it defies a central notion of DYK that every nominator be able to review for all aspects. Tony (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say QPQ reviewers were doing a good job of doing more than that; I just said I don't think QPQ reviewing of that stuff is alleviating a huge burden anyway. I also didn't say there shouldn't be a checklist (I didn't mention the checklist issue at all in my above comment). Also, I don't think anyone here said that "one reviewer owns each review". The question above is should a reviewer be expected to finish a review he starts, not should other reviewers not be allowed to comment on an article someone else has started reviewing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it should be expected that a single person conduct a full review. For most articles (short articles with a short history) this is not difficult; even checking for plagiarism can usually be done within a few minutes by sampling a few sentences and a few sources (I never check every single sentence, I just either check until I'm confident that the nominator knows how to write without plagiarizing, or I check until I'm not—and then I tell them they need to get someone to rewrite it). In the past I have spoken in favor of people being able to do partial reviews on things they are interested/knowledgeable in (similar to at FAC, where some people specialize in image reviews, link reviews, etc.), but have found that in practice that doesn't work well here. Often, once someone reviews one part of an article, other reviewers are afraid to touch it (unless a juicy dispute arises, in which case everyone suddenly wants their hands on it). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Rjanag; yes, it is perfectly possible for a single person to conduct a full review at DYK, which does not have the same remit as FAC, but it is not yet clear that the correct things are being reviewed for here. DYK should be putting articles expanded from reliable sources that correctly represent the sources without plagiarism or copyvio on the mainpage-- anything beyond that is getting into GA or other territory. Prose, for example, is not a DYK issue, although it should be possible to fix glaringly gross typos and grammatical errors on short(er) DYKs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that a single person should always be expected to conduct a full review. Just as no one owns an article, no one owns a review. If I find in my initial review that the article does not meet minimum qualifications for DYK (for example, it's an insufficient expansion), it's not worth my time to see if the hook is adequately supported, etc., etc. If someone later fixes the issues with the article that disqualified it (this often happens), maybe I will stop by and review it again, but any reviewer should be able to pick up where I left off, and there should be no expectation that I will make myself available at instant notice to finish the review. (In particular, I don't want to feel like a DYK review obligates me. In the past, I felt that I could help out by doing some DYK reviews the day before I'm heading off on holiday, as there would be no obligation for me to be available to follow up. Lately, it seems like a DYK review creates a longer-term obligation.)
  From a practical standpoint, some of the DYK submitters (both newbie submitters and some DYK veterans who never previously did reviews) who have done reviews because of QPQ have been lousy reviewers, so it is important for someone else to check their work (or do it over). However, I think that it has been beneficial to have those people doing reviews because it may make them more clueful in the future. --Orlady (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you don't have to finish a review right away, I'm just saying that there's an expectation on QPQ reviewers (or indeed any other) that once you start a review you will finish it. This doesn't mean someone else may not come along in the meantime and finish it for you, but if you start a review you should obviously keep an eye on it to see what responses you get, because it often happens that once you begin, other reviewers will avoid it in the expectation that you have taken charge of it, and it's not fair to nominators to have them waiting an extended period for someone to realize that's not going to happen and finish the review for you. Gatoclass (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the role of the pre-existing system of icons? Should another system be developed?

The question is somewhat premature IMO since we dont have Rjanag's alternative checklist yet. Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the watchlisting system working well?

• Too new to say, since editors are still getting accustomed to it. In principle, it's a good idea, but it's possible that we may need to tweak the implementation. cmadler (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really know what this question means. Just like any other page in the encyclopedia, people can choose to watchlist nominations or they can choose not to. I don't know what you mean by "is it working"—what's it supposed to be doing? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the subpages and watching them for my own noms. I miss seeing the activities on the noms of others unless I make an effort and mark them. Of course I mark the ones I reviewed. But in general, the page is less interesting than before, its history doesn't show areas of interest anymore, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is possible to follow changes on a page that transcludes items by using 'related changes' (should be on your sidebar under the toolbox heading) and selecting a particular Wikipedia namespace. In this case, template talk namespace. This method works at WP:FAC if you click related changes and select "Wikipedia" namespace, and it works here as well. Use this link to follow changes over all the transcluded DYK nomination subpages present on the nomination page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, learning. Thanks also for pointing me here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does make it easier to check on the status of noms, and communicate with the reviewer when there are issues, when the nom subpage is transcluded onto the talk page. We lose an incidental benefit of making people go over to the main nominations page in that might see something in another hook that needs to be noted while they're looking, but I don't know how much that actually happens/ed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Being able to add a DYK nom to one's watchlist is a big improvement. I now do that with those that I'm interested in and find it to be very helpful. Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are nominators advised in the instructions to watchlist their nom? Tony (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do the instructions need to be revised in the light of 1–3?

Assuming that some of the recent proposals are adopted, I think the answer is an obvious yes. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Which instructions? DYK has a lot of instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• DYK has too much instruction creep and too many pages, and as far as I can tell, the point is being lost (expansion or new text based on reliable sources), so that we sometimes see only non-reliably sourced text padded so that the crit. is met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our existing guidelines could do with some rationalization, so the problem of "instruction creep" is not IMO insurmountable. Gatoclass (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think instruction creep is insurmountable, I just think we need a good amount of ruthless chopping and design prioritisation to fix it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should a review template be integrated into the nomination template at DYK?

(Section title shortened from "Should the template—or an equivalent template that does justice to the community-endorsed RfC result—be integrated into the automatic nomination template at DYK?")

• I'm not aware that there was a "community-endorsed RFC result"; my memory may be faulty, but it seems to me that the template was put into place only a few days after the launch of the RFC, and based on "voting" not "discussing", which isn't the way RFCs should be run or interpreted. Perhaps someone can verify time from launch of RFC to implementation, and I believe there were less than 40 respondants. I consider the template to be a very big step in the wrong direction, a wrinkle on top of the last step in the wrong direction (QPQ reviewing). I think the template should be scrapped, as it's already giving a false sense of security while creating too much of the wrong kind of work. Reviewers should be checking that expansion is based on reliable sources; checking the boxes without knowledge of RS or COPYVIO isn't helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, DYK rules say the article and hook must be "based on" RS. There is no DYK requirement to eliminate from consideration (as part of expansion) information that WP policy permits as per WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, so long is these aren't the basis of the article or the source for the hook. Sharktopus ^talk 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you're clarifying, since SPS and ABOUTSELF are not unreliable when used correctly. I'm talking about the grossly marginal sources we regularly see at DYK, even in BLPs-- things like blogs, non-medical sources for medical text, tourist webpages, and the like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As per above, I agree with Sandy on this. The entire RfC process was malformed. First we must reach agreement on what reviewers should be checking, then can we consider any kind of checklist (template or otherwise). cmadler (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If we are going to have a checklist, it should probably be integrated into the nom template. One possible argument against doing so is if we decided to have a choice of templates as they do at GAN for example. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no basis for this assertion: the community voted overwhelmingly in favour of the explicit checklist in the RfC text. With the sole exception of the last bullet ("Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting"), every single item is in the DYK rules, which leave open no doubt. Sandy, you appear to be coming from the angle that DYK should be terminated—throw the baby out with the bathwater—but the community clearly !voted against this. I say, make DYK live up to its own rules: find a way, even if fewer hooks are exposed on the main page for longer as a result. The community has recognised that the checklist is the only way of ensuring that DYK rules are followed. Tony (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As both Gatoclass and Sandy have repeatedly pointed out, the RfC was malformed for a variety of reasons. Further, as several editors have repeatedly pointed out, the RfC asked whether reviewers should explicitly confirm that they had checked a list of items. The specific form of the template was not part of the RfC, and we've wasted an absurd amount of time debating this because you refuse to "get the point". cmadler (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What we have now is a checklist template by fiat. Malformed RFCs also got us into the current mess of ArbCom; I must commend editor Mike Christie for making sure that no RFC has ever been launched at FAC without a thorough discussion *before* so that we knew what the RFC was supposed to measure, the wording was clear, and clear outcomes were obtained. We do not have that here: we have a template by coup, that no one has appeared willing to revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A review template should eventually be integrated, but not until there is consensus about which one to use. There are several threads above discussing the checklist issues, and my reading of them is that, while most people agreed in the RfC that a checklist should be used, not everyone agrees on what the format of it should be. The fact that Tony has been adding his checklist to almost every nom in spite of that lack of consensus doesn't mean that it has been adopted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I also think it's a good temporary measure to let people know what they should be checking for. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has the role of the queuing admins changed?

Who should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring policy compliance and quality on main-page hooks? Should this be shared among the admins, the reviewers, and the nominators? Should anyone still be permitted to load noms onto the prep pages?

I think that not only should everyone be allowed to move noms to the prep pages but that everyone should be encouraged to do so. It spreads responsibility which can only be a good step towards ensuring that more mistakes are caught (even questions of taste and grammar can be solved quite easily). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality control must be shared between reviewers and admins - admins certainly can't be expected to be responsible for every aspect of every DYK, there aren't nearly enough of them active on this project. Gatoclass (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The role of the queuing admins has always been a janitorial one, not a filtering one. They happen to be able to edit the queue whereas other editors can't. The point of reviewing, and the prep areas (where usually an article is passed to the prep area by someone different than the reviewer) is to be the filter. Queuing admins never were expected to be fully responsible for what articles go to the main page; that responsibility belongs to every editor who participated in the process (writing, nomination, review, promoting). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We may have a difference of opinion here. I think the queuing admin has some responsibility for quality control, although they can't be expected to check for everything. This may be due to the fact that when I started at DYK, the queuing admins often moved hooks to the main page within minutes after assembling the set, so there was more of a sense of responsibility in that role. I have always thought that the queuing admin was responsible for at least a superficial review of the hooks -- looking at each linked article for obvious issues, checking the eligibility of the image and making sure it will be protected when it goes to the main page, checking the hook wording for clarity and potential controversy, reviewing the hooks for balance within the hook set, checking the main page appearance, etc. I generally think it unnecessary to look at the review history for the hooks, but I have done that on occasion when I had concerns about a hook. Once I found that a hook in the prep area was basically an advertisement that had been reviewed and moved to the prep area by newbie users who probably were in cahoots with the article creator; IMO queuing admins need to watch for things like that. --Orlady (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blatant advertising yes; but there have been some things in the prep areas with regards to controversial topics like fringe psychology which anyone not familiar with the field wouldn't be able to pick up on. That's an issue. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They need to take on more reponsibility. Tony (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? Their names are already plastered all over everything. I really don't understand. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a normal limit on the number of DYKs in a single hook?

(Original title was "Should there be a normal limit on the number of DYKs in a single hook? It seems that each DYK article in these noms needs to be examined separately."

• Not only should there not be a limit on the number of qualifying articles in a single hook, but where practical, we should encourage nominators to combine related articles into a single hook, since this reduces complaints about having too many related articles on the Main Page within a limited time. Yes, each qualifying article needs to be examined. cmadler (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Per cmadler, I would add however that while every article in a multi should be checked, I think only one should be checked for copyvio, and if checklist templates are used, one reviewer should be able to use one template for multiple articles, although more than one reviewer may help check the articles, ie one template per reviewer rather than one template per article. Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand Cmadler's point "since this reduces complaints about having too many related articles on the Main Page within a limited time". There are three strong reasons to resist multi-hooks, especially those with eight (or 11, perish the thought):

    (1) it adds significantly to the burden of reviewing, which people are already complaining about (especially Sandy); (2) it dilutes the likelihood that any one DYK article, prepared and reviewed with considerable effort, will be visited; (3) a huge tranche of bolded, linked text looks visually awful and overbalances the neighbouring DYK hooks. I'd hate to have my DYK article hooked in a set that includes an exploding supernova. Tony (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • For discussions on the most recent occurance of this sort of complaint, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 66#Dan_Savage, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 67#Removed some of my self noms, and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 67#DYK with hypothetical COI, the latter of which you (Tony) participated in. This was less than two months ago, speaking of lack of institutional memory! cmadler (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tony: Like Cbl62 says below, what "reduces complaints about having too many related articles on the MP within a limited time" means this: suppose I just wrote 30 boring cookie-cutter articles about roads. At 6 updates per day, I could have at least one road article on the MP for five days nonstop (and soon people would come a-running saying, "Why does DYK have such a thing for boring road articles?"). Or I could make, say, 2 hooks with 15 articles apiece, or 3 hooks with 10 apiece, and get them out of the way much more quickly, without giving the idea that DYK has a "thing" for road articles. (Or, if the articles are terribly boring I could just not submit them, but a lot of people seem to feel this is not an option—I think some people think any article that meets the objective criteria is "entitled" to a DYK. At the moment I have no comment on that issue, it has been discussed elsewhere.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "if the articles are terribly boring I could just not submit them, but a lot of people seem to feel this is not an option—I think some people think any article that meets the objective criteria is "entitled" to a DYK." This is at the root of the malaise in the DYK culture. People need to stop thinking of their main-page serotonin surge as a right. Tony (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there is one complaint I do have with DYK since I backed off active reviewing, it's that we have way too many dull hooks. I like to find something interesting or unusual that can be reliably sourced in every new article I create or expand, but that's not a given. For example, I couldn't find anything in W.E.B. Du Bois Boyhood Homesite that would have been interesting enough, so I just did the minimal expansion I could. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue of limiting multi-article hooks has been proposed elsewhere.[1][2] The consensus has repeatedly been that they should be allowed. On the other hand, practically speaking, reviewers are probably more reluctant to review a multi-article hook, so nominating one almost guarantees your "new content" will have to wait in line longer to get reviewed. Sharktopus ^talk 16:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As cmadler mentioned, multis serve a useful purpose in minimizing overload on a particular topic. I recall one where there was an outcry about 15 or 20 cookie-cutter articles being submitted on a closely related topic. The issue was resolved by combining into 2-3 multis. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's often not much more effort to review multi-hooks as they tend to use the same sources and duplicate text. I don't believe there should be a limit. That said, I also think nominators should ask themselves why they are putting forward huge multi-hooks. Most of the time I think it is for the benefit of something other than the encyclopedia, the readers, or the articles themselves.Yomangani^talk 22:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A great many of my submissions have been multis and the reason is twofold; firstly, that in researching one topic I often find a bunch of related topics to write about, and secondly, putting them in a multi saves space. I'm quite sure that many of my submissions would get a lot more hits if I submitted them on an individual basis, if only because I could usually come up with better hooks for individual articles, but I submit multis as a space-saving measure. Gatoclass (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a space-saving measure if you think it necessary to submit every article to DYK. I don't blaming you for doing that - it's in the tradition of DYK - but when articles are closely associated and interlinked I don't really see it serving any purpose to put more than two or three up. Anyway, that's a minority view, it's never going to be a rule, and it wouldn't be enforceable if it was, so I'll shut up. Yomangani^talk 01:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should DYK encourage more work on articles, after main-page exposure?

(Original section title: "Does DYK have a role to play in encouraging further work on articles, after main-page exposure? Should there be more official support for a trajectory from DYK to GA to FA/FL?"

• Not directly. To the extent that suggestions are made during the DYK review, that may form the basis for next steps. But once an article passes through DYK, we are generally done with it. I'm not aware of GA having a post-review role with articles either (beyond periodic GA review) to push them toward FA. I can see a potential value to some sort of organized article trajectory project to help editors with WP:Article development, and DYK would have a role in that, just as GA and FA would, but that goes beyond DYK itself and should be organized separately. cmadler (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't see any point to this. If someone is not working to improve one article, he's working to improve another, there is nothing special about DYK articles that they should get priority. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The role is to expose the article to wider views, and get it on some watchlists. That's it. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Plus, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, some things can't get to GA or FA. That's ok! They can be good DYKs instead. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A fine idea for somebody's separate project, as cmadler says. There is a contradiction between claims that DYK is not doing enough to watch out for xxx and claims that DYK should be expanding to promote yyy. Sharktopus ^talk 15:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No, this is not the purpose of DYK. Do ITN, OTD, or TFA do this? They don't. Continuing work on articles is nice, but DYK's job is not to do every single nice thing that is possible in the entire project. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Rjanag. Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not the purpose of DYK but it's a cool idea. Maybe not getting it to GA standard but maybe informing the relevant project that it's gone on the front page? Or is that too complex? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all articles have a relevant project. For something like tracking articles for a given project that have been on DYK, the best way to do this would be to add something to the WikiProject banners that go on talk pages (I assume there's a "meta" template for those; someone would have to first edit that to add some sort of |dyk= parameter, and then we would have to edit our bot to fill that in when giving credits). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a directorate?

What would be the disadvantages and advantages of having one? If the community decided the latter outweigh the former, presumably it should be elected; how big? What roles? For example, should the directors number four (my guess) and be admins (almost certainly). Should their role be:

(a) to keep all aspects of DYK running well, including nominations, reviewing, archiving, promotion/rejection, transfer to prep rooms, queuing, exposure, and archiving?

(b) to liaise as necessary with other editors who run the main page and its forums to ensure that the needs of the main page remain the primary driving force?

(c) to encourage article improvement after DYK main-page exposure?

(d) to advise if ever necessary on programs in which DYK might participate that benefit the project, whether prompted by WP editors, the WMF, or Foundation chapters?

[I relocated this point from above so I can respond to it. Hope you don't mind. Tony (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)] In relation to the last, however, I'll respond to that now - we don't have the manpower for a directorate such as the one you are suggesting. That's why I suggested an enhanced process for admins loading updates into the queue as an alternative. It's the most we can hope for IMO, but even that has been queried by Yomangani as possibly too demanding. Gatoclass (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gato, I had in mind status and responsibility more than a significantly increased workload for directors. A directorate might bring the potential of DYK together into a cohesive whole more easily. Tony (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've informally asked around about this and it appears that most administrators are too scared or bewildered to touch DYK. I think that putting together an official proposal for a directorate which clearly outlined the responsibilities of administrators moving hooks and gave a shared responsibility amongst them would help solve the manpower issue quite rapidly. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wary of the "directorate" idea, though frankly I don't think it's sufficiently defined to form a solid view. Tony posits that the role should be one of "status and responsibility more than a significantly increased workload." What does that mean? The (b)-(d) points above don't seem particularly compelling. Point (a) goes to the core of what DYK admins do, and I'm not sure what the role of a proposed directorate would be in performing/supervising those tasks. Over the past three years, many admins have been heavily involved in DYK at various times. The ones who have remained consistently active in doing the point (a) tasks over the long haul have been Gato, MatSci, and Rjanag. More recently, others like cmadler (if not an admin, should be) have been more active. People come and go as their time and interest levels permit. I do believe there is a leadership role that can be played, and is played, by the long-established DYK admins. For this reason, folks tend to give greater weight to the views expressed by Gato, MatSci and Rjanag -- which I find appropriate. But in the end, decisions are made by consensus with all voices being heard and counted -- which I also find appropriate. My skepticism about a "directorate" is that it seems to run counter to the democratic/consenus orientation of Wikipedia. If a "directorate" were to be proposed, there are many details that would need to be fleshed out before it could be considered. Are there other examples of "directorates" within Wikipedia? If so, can someone provide a link to the by-laws (or whatever they may be called) governing those directorates? What powers and responsibilities would a directorate have? Would they have the power to change DYK policies? Would they act only as a group and by consensus of the group (as in the case of a corporate board of directors) or would directors have power to act individually? How would they be chosen? How could they be removed? For how long would they serve? The latter points may be best addressed further down the road, but there needs to be a clearer picture of the core purpose/powers/responsibilities of the proposed directorate. Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I just don't see how a directorate would work at DYK. Directorates work fine where there is unlimited time to ponder and work to improve articles, as with FAC and GAN, but for a process where you are fielding dozens of articles a day, there simply isn't time for prolonged discussions. I think at best we can do what I proposed earlier, which is to have, in effect, a more detailed checklist for individual admins to sign off on as the hook goes to the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree with that. I'm just not sure how else to solve the problem of fear, and I think it is a very real problem. We need more manpower! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Problems with a directorate idea -- DYK covers a lot more articles and goes faster than GA. Isn't that too much of a workload for four volunteers? Who would be willing to do it, if the main role of a director is to take blame for failures? If Panyd, Gatoclass, cmadler, Rjanag, MaterialScientist, Khazar, etc. wanted to put on a hat that said "director", I would be fine with that. If we get people with plans to remake DYK "running" for election, with their friends popping by to vote for them, I would not be fine with something like that. Sharktopus ^talk 15:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support some of the admins above putting on the director hat. I was more thinking that we outlined a specification and people could then register interest for a trial period; maybe with 4-5 administrators sharing the role of 'director'. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with the current crop of admins who are doing the job. I just think the system is multilayered if it's going to work responsibly and be accountable (e.g., proper archiving, please), and the process needs to solidify around a directorate that will gain respect in WP. FAC and FLC have solid, very successful directorates: they've kept complex mechanisms running properly, they make their systems accountable, they respond to queries where they haven't been solved otherwise, and they represent the process in the project at large. Don't forget that these processes resemble DYK in many ways, including main-page exposure, adherence to rules, nominators/reviewers, promotions/rejections. Tony (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at Tony's list above a, b, c, and d. Item a is about directors who use the mop, as admins do. That would be great. Item b is about directors who liaise with others about Main Page issues. People claiming to speak for the needs of the Main Page speak with many voices. We just went through months of complaint that DYK hooks were too boring for the Main Page, but we also get complaints that DYK hooks are too sensational. We got yelled at yesterday for a hook that did not include a metric conversion and we got yelled at today for a hook that did include a metric conversion. Let the instructions say our directors listen and respond, but not that our directors promise to please every spokesperson talking about the Main Page –that's undoable.
• Items c and d are proposals wrt starting new programs at DYK. Item c demands that directors plot a trajectory for post-DYK articles. Item d asks that directors advise on unspecified new programs that might be suggested for DYK. These seem unnecessary demands to put on directors. If new programs are suggested, including the recent one about post-DYK articles, directors will or won't express an opinion like anybody else. Would we fire a director who was doing a great job with the mop because xe didn't advise yes or no one every single DYK-modification somebody dropped by this talk page to propose? Let's keep it simple. Sharktopus ^talk 18:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing as people appear to be going here anyway, I wrote a draft of the directorate proposal here, based on Tony's suggestions. If people could please edit it with their thoughts that would be awesome. Deleting things is fine, as is adding them. Getting something built by consensus would be brilliant. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me as premature. Cbl62 (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely for a) (there was already an informal directorate for this anyway) and maybe b), although as I've been arguing the time has come, the walrus said, to have some sort of overall Main Page directorate or, if you will, czar, and that would work only in that context. c) and d), as noted, are separate projects. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Could someone link to whatever rules, mission statement, guidelines, by-laws (whatever terminology is used) for the other "directorates" that have been referenced above at GA and FA? It would be helpful to see what has been done elsewhere to see what might or might not be appropriate in the DYK context. Cbl62 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no merit in this suggestion. The only purpose it would serve would be to add a layer of bureaucracy and perhaps make 4 (or another equally random number) admins feel like they had a higher status. a) and b) are done already - successfully or unsuccessfully, there is no reason to believe the competency standards would change as a result of having DYK overlords - and c) and d) recast the role of DYK. Let's be careful this discussion doesn't go the way of the checklist RFC. Yomangani^talk 22:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again I go back to my fear and bewilderment point. I mean, how many new admins have you seen here? Or casual administrators for the matter? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But how does a directorate help with that problem? Cbl62 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand why you think appointing a Directorate would solve that problem. Responsibility for running DYK would inevitably coalesce around the Directorate. Yomangani^talk 23:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think clearly laying out the responsibilities involved for potential adminsitrators would help. I could be wrong but I honestly believe that. Does anyone have other ideas? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds like an excellent idea. The question posed here is very different. Yomangani^talk 23:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we twist it into being that? That was sort of my aim. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (I'm sure there is probably a dingbat for an arrow pointing down, but just imagine it)Yomangani^talk 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the first question (late into this, again): I think if as many people as possible would carry out the four functions described, DYK would be better off than with a few selected ones with a title. This includes the ones aspiring to the title, smile, just do it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I originally pushed the idea of a directorate, or panel of capable and experienced admins, there is no evidence that such a panel exists among the regulars at DYK, so I no longer think my idea workable. An acountable panel would have to, at minimum, understand sourcing and the gravity of copyvio and sourcing breaches here, and I don't think we currently have membership to make up such a panel and assure mainpage integrity of DYK articles. I don't know what the solution is, but since DYK doesn't seem able to get its house in order, the prognosis seems dim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's much easier to find Wikipedians who pretend to be copyright lawyers, than Wikipedians who really are. Art LaPella (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being informed that all of us are unworthy is such an effective motivator! --Orlady (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like the idea of a directorate, largely because the need for administrator attention at DYK is so frequent. It's impractical to expect any small group of administrators to commit to the necessary level of activity. The informal arrangements of the past, wherein a large number of administrators each "work" various aspects of DYK regularly but on an intermittent basis, have generally functioned well and do not need to be replaced with a formal arrangement. --Orlady (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a statement of the responsibilities of the DYK admins?

Panyd thinks some statement of what is expected of the admins working here would help with recruitment. I tend to agree with her. Anybody else? Yomangani^talk 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy was just complaining of instruction creep so that's a consideration. But it wouldn't hurt to give it a try I suppose. First of all though, we'd have to work out exactly what the admins' duties are, as that is a topic currently up for discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be easy enough to add a subsection to WP:DYK rules#The DYK process describing the various duties done by various sorts of editors here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the discussion above is about how most of us agreed an explicit review checklist should be used but we don't all agree on what its format should be. Right now most noms have Tony1's template, {{DYKrev}}, shown below:

After some discussion (mostly with Gatoclass—see #Another template and User talk:Rjanag#Review template—although I've had input from a few others as well) I've made {{DYK hook checklist}} and {{DYK article checklist}}. (The rationale for breaking it into two checklists was to allow for separate reviews of individual hooks--in the case of many ALT hooks-- and/or separate reviews of individual articles--in the case of multi-noms).

As I have said many times before, the exact list of checks in this template is not set in stone, and I'm open to suggestions about checks that should be added, checks that should be removed, or checks that should be merged. Likewise, whether or not to link the various checks to corresponding rules/guidelines is also open to discussion; right now, the documentation pages for {{DYK hook checklist}} and {{DYK article checklist}} include explanations of what each field refers to, if any are unclear. The reason I'm posting this now is mainly for discussion about whether the format of this is desirable. Feel free to play with it in your sandboxes; below is an example of what it would look like (with a fake nomination; this nomination is fake and this review is fake, so please don't get worked up over the content of it).

{{*mp}}... that '''[[ice]]''' is made of '''[[water]]'''?
created by some user
<!--
credits
-->

{{DYK hook checklist
|format={{subst:DYKY}}
|citation={{subst:DYKY}}
|neutrality={{subst:DYKX}}
|interest={{subst:DYKY}}
}}
:*Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. ~~~~

{{DYK article checklist
|length={{subst:DYKY}}
|newness={{subst:DYKY}}
|adequatecitations={{subst:DYKY}}
|formattedcitations={{subst:DYKY}}
|reliablesources={{subst:DYKY}}
|neutrality={{subst:DYKY}}
|plagiarism={{subst:DYKY}}
|article=Water
}}
{{DYK article checklist
|length={{subst:DYKX}}
|newness={{subst:DYKY}}
|adequatecitations=
|formattedcitations=
|reliablesources=
|neutrality={{subst:DYKY}}
|plagiarism={{subst:DYKY}}
|article=Ice
}}
:*The article [[Ice]] is still a stub. ~~~~

The reason I used {{subst:DYKY}} and {{subst:DYKX}} rather than just signatures is that it allows us to differentiate between things that have been checked and marked ok, things that have been checked and marked bad, and things that have not been checked at all (just using signatures alone doesn't provide any easy way to tell the difference between bad things and unchecked things, although people should be able to tell by looking at comments below the table). If people don't like this setup, it's possible to go back to using just signatures (an earlier version of this template, visible at User:Rjanag#Samples, did just that). If people don't like the titles of those little DYKY and DYKX templates, that is also very easy to change, so please don't get hung up on those minor details.

The major difference between this setup and Tony's is that these templates do not encourage lengthy comments within the checklist itself (the idea is that the checklist is a quick visual aid to see the status of the hook, and things that warranted an ✘ have it explained in the discussion below the template); I've found that Tony's template is somewhat confusing in that, say, I leave a comment about a problem in one line, sometimes people respond to me directly beneath that (making the review checklist get stretched longer and longer) and sometimes people respond below the entire template. The other main difference is that I tried to compact the checklist and make it take up less space. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template discussion

I think I'm seeing mojibake boxes instead of whatever character is supposed to be displayed. As a result, the only difference between the DYKY and DYKN is color, specifically red/green, which is the most common form of color-blindness. I suggest that either images should be used to ensure proper display regardless of what character sets editors have loaded, or more common characters (perhaps as simple as "Y" and "N") should be used. Other than that, I like the concept. cmadler (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried about that; right now it's using the first character in Tick (check mark) and the second-to-last character in X mark; perhaps browser support for these is not as widespread as I thought. Do any of the alternative characters in those pages show up for you?

If those don't work, bold Y and N would also work. I think that would be better than images, which might increase page load time for T:TDYK (although that has been discussed many times and I don't think we ever narrowed down exactly what things had a big effect and what things didn't). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So in sum, I think the options are:

• Some other tick and X characters that show up for everyone (do ✓ and ✗ show up for you?);
• Y and N;
• Y and N

rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Y and N. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, more templates (in the form of {{subst:DYKX}} and {{subst:DYKY}})? Does anyone else feel a bit overloaded with all the code? Why wouldn't it be possible to just write |length={no, x, n, yes, y, etc.} so that they will generate what is necessary. It's not really necessary to know who exactly reviewed each point if everyone is signing their name at the end anyway, right? I can hardly keep up with all the curly brackets, and I registered my account four years ago. Do you really think that editors new to DYK are going to stick around and try to learn it? Or is it more likely that they will take one look at it and run screaming? NW (Talk) 22:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to design a version that just took |length={no, x, n, yes, y, etc.} and added both the check/X mark and the signature based on that. Unfortunately it wasn't possible (see User talk:Rjanag#Technical stuff). If people want both checks/Xs and signatures, this is pretty much the simplest ways to do it in this sort of table format. The other options are to just have signatures without checks and Xs (in which case people could just use tildes rather than {{subst:DYKX}} and stuff like that), or to have just checks and Xs without signatures (I agree with you 100% that signatures shouldn't be necessary, but I don't know if everyone else feels the same way). Both of those are also options I have tried (again, see User talk:Rjanag#Technical stuff) but until I know what people really want out of this checklist, and how they expect it to be used, I won't know what is the best design for it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the mojibake, I edit primarily on two different computers. All the characters display fine using this one; I'll check on the other (where I initially saw mojibake) tomorrow morning and let you know what I see. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back on computer #1, and of the three pairs in Rjanag's comment at 20:01, 5 August 2011, the first pair show as mojibake, but the second and third are fine. cmadler (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it because I think it's less confusing when scrolling down the page. The current adopted system of underlined shoulder headings looks too similar to the main headings to me and I find it a right pain in the proverbial when I'm looking for the right place to click 'edit'. This one at least differentiates. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logic: I still think if I say Y (or whatever) to Plagiarism, there IS plagiarism. Or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss these issues (e.g., what the names of the various criteria should be) after the more basic issues are settled. To be frank, this issue is trivial and easily solvable, and right now what I am looking for is input about the format of the template (particularly the issue NuclearWarfare mentioned above about signatures). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is good, and obviously I have given my opinion about signatures (include a separate box for reviewer(s) maybe?). "Adequate citations" and "reliable sources" should probably be merged in the interests of space, and perhaps even "Formatted citations" too. NW (Talk) 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issue of the {{subst:DYKX}} and {{subst:DYKY}} templates being too much... for what it's worth, the documentation samples (at {{DYK article checklist}} and {{DYK hook checklist}}) include <!-- {{subst:DYKY}} or {{subst:DYKX}} -->, so users wouldn't have to remember all that--they can just paste in the sample and use the text that's already there. Likewise, if there is consensus to use this template, it can be preloaded in the page so it's automatically there and users don't have to personally type in {{subst:DYKX}}. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the boxes and the coloured ticks and crosses. I really don't like the unintuitive and hard-to-remember 14-character syntax, which is just as hard as those for the old system of coloured icons. If you have to scroll up and copy a syntax from above the edit-box, it's a hassle. Can't the template provide all but the final letter (y, n) for reviewers to type in, so that a box remains blank without a final letter, or produces the tick or cross with a y or n added, plus the signature via four tildes? And if it's not possible to reverse a previous reviewer's tick or cross, it should be an accepted part of the use of this template that this can be done via written-out objections below. DYK reviewing should be as easy as possible. The signature really must be there or we're back to the old "review all or none of the nom" that has been the recipe for poor reviewing practices (namely, the "good to go", when we know very well the basic policies and DYK rules haven't been checked out—better to admit that partial reviews are appropriate for QPQ and other reviewers). Tony (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"DYK reviewing should be as easy as possible." Support! "The signature really must be there." Oppose. If someone wants to do a fast approval, the kind you despise, that one will do 9 or so signatures (almost as) fast and brainless as so far. I doubt that a mandatory template will prevent that. For those who do a review with brain the template is not needed. It is a good tool (!) if a reviewer does only a partial review, to show the next one what was checked and what not. (I said all this before.) I am not shy to go into lengthy discussions for a review, for example I defended Mykola Leontovych which is now a GA. I was asked (below) to give examples: one I passed: Template talk:Did you know/Highland Cottage, one I received: Talk:Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir#Decent review framed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An example of both review ways in parallel: Template talk:Did you know/Es ist das Heil uns kommen her, BWV 9. You can see where I prefer the free style: It's coming as a dialogue, whereas the template has a "teacher/student", "pass/fail" attitude which I want to apply only if necessary, rarely that is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC) It wasn't nec here but I did it table style anyway: Template talk:Did you know/Julia Voss --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want to revert to all of the worst things about DYK non-reviewing, which brought the forum close to being dismantled by the community. Tony (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But remember how close we are to being dismantled anyway: I count 27 approvals left on the nominations page, 17 of which are done your way. Art LaPella (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Tony on this one - it's useful to see who has checked what via the sigs. I also agree with Tony about the syntax - I've suggested an alternative on Rjanag's talk page which would just involve adding a "y" or "n" to a field to pass or fail it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the preloaded template can include, e.g., <!-- {{subst:DYKyes}} or {{subst:DYKno}} --> in every field, so there wouldn't be a need to cut-and-paste. As for the issue of just adding a y or n and getting the template to produce both the doodad and the sig, I already explained a couple times (in a couple places) that it does not seem to be possible; I spent hours trying it and asked several people, with no luck. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just the double curly brackets enclosing just subst:DYK? Then you add "y" or "n"? Tony (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A variation of this was already suggested at User talk:Rjanag#Review template (2). It's just as complicated (if not more) as what I already have in place, and has other shortcomings as well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony1's template has been making me crazy (if for no other reason than that all those bold headings make it very hard to scan the suggestions page), so almost any of these versions would be an improvement.
  Like Gerda Arendt, I would like to be able to sign off some reviews without separately filling each cell in a template. For example, if an article is completely based on offline foreign-language sources, I likely will search for online validation during my review, but I will "AGF" most aspects of the review. In those cases, I fully expect to leave most parts of the template blank and sign a blanket approval statement below the template -- and if an obsessively bureaucratic person insists that I'm doing a deficient job of reviewing, I will tempted to make some evil remarks.
  I think that each box that's filled in needs both a signature (to say who made the judgment) and a symbol indicating what judgment the reviewer has made (because there's often more to communicate than just "yes" or "no", and symbols can help with that). Apparently that means Rjanag's version 1. Judgments that I imagine wanting symbols for are "OK" (or "yes", or a checkmark), "no" (or "X"), "AGF", "NA," and "?". --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template no longer bolds the headings. The community has demanded a checklist, with good reason. Tony (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, it does still bold the headings; mere minutes after you claimed it didn't, you were going around pasting in more templates with bolded headings. This is just one more instance of your insistence on completely ignoring feedback on this page. This page is full of complaints about the format of the checklist you keep adding and you clearly have no regard for the opinions of anyone at this page, or for the effort I'm making in trying to solicit feedback and actually make a checklist that works the way the DYK community wants it to work. I know you're an editor with some standing around WP, but this behavior of yours is getting very tiring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it might be better to just continue using the same icons we have been using, along with regular signatures, and fill out each field with, i.e., |length={{subst:DYKtick}} ~~~; maybe people will find that more familiar than what I showed below.

I don't see a need for an "NA" parameter unless the checklist is expanded to include a lot of unnecessary things. In the versions I sampled below, every parameter is (I think) one that should be reviewed every time (for instance, even if all sources are foreign-language, it's still possible to check whether they seem reliable--are they books, journal articles, news stories, blogs, personal websites?). I intentionally avoided including parameters that wouldn't be needed every time, like image suitability. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issue of skipping the review checklist for some noms: I'm just going off the results of this RfC in which there appeared to be support for a requirement that people explicitly go through the checklist every time, even in these cases. I'll leave it up to others to argue over whether this RfC is valid and stuff like that; I'm not really interested in that, I'm just trying to take what people claim they wanted and actually make it happen. (I'm not sure how much people actually wanted this and how much people were just pile-on-supporting to get their piece of a nice juicy argument, but that's neither here nor there...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Rjanag. And if the review process involves long syntaxes, I think I'll ignore them. Tony (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samples

I'll try to make this a bit clearer. Here are what the three options are; I'm also including fake discussions below to try to give a feel for how they would actually be used. (Particularly, you can see that even without signatures it's clear who checked what--not necessarily clear at a quick glance, but clear if you read the discussion.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1: signatures and doodads

{{*mp}}... that '''[[ice]]''' is made of [[water]]?
created by some user
<!--
credits
-->

{{DYK hook checklist
|format={{subst:DYKY}}
|citation={{subst:DYKY}}
|neutrality={{subst:DYKX}}
|interest={{subst:DYKY}}
}}
:*Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. ~~~~

{{DYK article checklist
|length={{subst:DYKN}}
|newness={{subst:DYKY}}
|adequatecitations=<!-- {{subst:DYKY}} or {{subst:DYKN}} -->
|formattedcitations=<!-- {{subst:DYKY}} or {{subst:DYKN}} -->
|reliablesources=<!-- {{subst:DYKY}} or {{subst:DYKN}} -->
|neutrality={{subst:DYKY}}
|plagiarism={{subst:DYKY}}
|article=
}}
:*Article history looks ok and I didn't spot any editorial issues (checked for neutrality and text issues), but as of now the article isn't long enough. ~~~~
::*The nominator has added some text, the article's long enough now, checked it off. Still haven't checked the other stuff. [[User:Some other user|]] ([[User talk:Some other user|talk]]) ~~~~~

Version 2: signatures only

{{*mp}}... that '''[[ice]]''' is made of [[water]]?
created by some user
<!--
credits
-->

{{DYK hook checklist
|format=~~~
|citation=~~~
|neutrality=
|interest=~~~
}}
:*Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. ~~~~

{{DYK article checklist
|length=[[User:Some other user|]]
|newness=~~~
|adequatecitations=
|formattedcitations=
|reliablesources=
|neutrality=~~~
|plagiarism=~~~
|article=
}}
:*Article history looks ok and I didn't spot any editorial issues (checked for neutrality and text issues), but as of now the article isn't long enough. ~~~~
::*The nominator has added some text, the article's long enough now, checked it off. Still haven't checked the other stuff. [[User:Some other user|]] ([[User talk:Some other user|talk]]) ~~~~~

Version 3: doodads only

{{*mp}}... that '''[[ice]]''' is made of [[water]]?
created by some user
<!--
credits
-->

{{DYK hook checklist
|format=y
|citation=y
|neutrality=n
|interest=y
}}
:*Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me, so checking off everything but "neutrality". ~~~~

{{DYK article checklist
|length=y
|newness=y
|adequatecitations=
|formattedcitations=
|reliablesources=
|neutrality=y
|plagiarism=y
|article=
}}
:*Article history looks ok and I didn't spot any editorial issues (checked for neutrality and text issues), but as of now the article isn't long enough. ~~~~
::*The nominator has added some text, the article's long enough now, checked it off. Still haven't checked the other stuff. [[User:Some other user|]] ([[User talk:Some other user|talk]]) ~~~~~

• ... that ice is made of water?

created by some user

Hook review

Format	Citation	Neutrality	Interest
Y	Y	N	Y

• Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
Y	Y				Y	Y

• Article history looks ok and I didn't spot any editorial issues (checked for neutrality and text issues), but as of now the article isn't long enough. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator has added some text, the article's long enough now, checked it off. Still haven't checked the other stuff. Some other user (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the 4th of August the following appeared in Wiki's DYK section.

• ... that the Arabic translation of Mein Kampf has been a bestseller in parts of the Middle East?
  

If anyone had checked the Mein Kampf in the Arabic language talk page at that time, they would have noted that the "bestseller in parts of the Middle East" was a controversial claim. Could editors please exercise special care when including information from the Arab/Israeli field, as information is notoriously unreliable in times of war/conflict. Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Main page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also troubling that the article history shows that (after major battles over POV) on August 4, the day it main-paged, the nominator popped in an extra three paragraphs of anti-Arab POV [3]. Sharktopus ^talk 15:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've had problems like that at DYK before with anti-Arab POV being added while the article is on the main page. I thought some measures or rules were put in place to prevent this happening again? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "measures". Wikipedia already has a guideline against general protection or semi-protection of articles on the main page, and it's not DYK's responsibility to review all edits to all articles as they are on the main page. We already have a policy not to promote articles that are "unstable" due to being in the middle of an edit war. In this case, it looks like the discussion about the "bestseller" thing only began on August 4 (the day the article was featured, and thus long after it had been reviewed and approved) and, likewise, the objectionsable content (although I'm not sure what makes that "anti-Arab POV") was added while the article was on the main page, after the review was completed. DYK didn't do anything wrong here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions where being asked about the validity of information in the Mein Kampf in the Arabic language article almost as soon as it was created- (see here). By 24th of July the article's talk page already contained a comment (made by myself) expressing doubts about the statement: " …it achieved best-seller status throughout the Arab world" (admittedly not identical to the DYK claim but similar enough to ring some distant alarm bells I would have thought). Aside from factual reliability and controversy issues- If Wiki has a policy, not to promote articles that are "unstable" due to being in the middle of an edit war, why was this article even considered for DYK inclusion (on the day that the DYK went to press an editor was hauled before Wiki arbitration based on edits made to the article before that date). I think this warrants my original plea ie- "Could editors please exercise special care when including information from the Arab/Israeli field, as information is notoriously unreliable in times of war/conflict." Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rjanag, my rather vague wording was because I can't remember the exact details of the previous incident, and have no hope of finding it in the immense archives of this talkpage. I wasn't suggesting that DYK handled this incident wrongly, nor that there are (or should be) code-based or procedure-based restrictions in place to prevent this happening. What I vaguely recall of the last incident where POV content was introduced just as the article went to the Main Page, was that there was discussion of the possibility of banning one or more of the editors involved from DYK, or "measures" of that nature. However, as I say, I don't remember the details. Anyone? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Palestine topics and the local politicians should be excluded from DYK. Whoever approves these hooks spends very little time reviewing the articles relative to core policies especially NPOV/BLP, accepting almost any political rag or opinion piece uncritically as RS. I bet that if had I submitted only the positive (top) part of Eurabia it would have been accepted. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The queue will probably go empty by morning U.S. time. There are few articles being approved, and most of those few don't explicitly comply with the RfC. Based on that slow rate, here are the realistic options: 1. Pay lip service to the RfC, and change the Main Page once a day. 2. Enforce the RfC, and change the Main Page once a week. 3. Muddle through, and change the Main Page manually, whenever possible. Art LaPella (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that one very hard-working admin (Panyd) who was not only updating queues but also doing many preps, is offline. Plural people need to step up to fill her shoes. I am in transit and really can't right now. You don't have to be an admin to make up Preps, and a lot of preps are empty. You do have to be an admin to move items from Prep to Queue. Right now, we have one full Queue and the rest empty. There is a full Prep that could be moved up to Queue. There are a bunch of empty Preps that need to be filled. Another problem is that the number of picture-hooks approved is very small. 03:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the problem not enough noms, not enough reviewing or not enough moving to and fro?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that DYK is dying. I've spent the last two hours dealing with noms and preps; I don't have a broom, so I can't deal with queues. At the very least we have enough queues and preps for a few days now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have 140 noms and 31 passed noms, the number of noms is down but it's far from the worst I've seen, I've seen T:TDYK with no more than 60-80 total noms, and that was when we had no queues at all and just the single prep area, right now we also have at least three prepared updates as well. However, it's clear that recent changes - especially, I think, the rush to employ Tony's checklist - has had a significant deterrent effect on nominations. More than likely the tougher criteria some reviewers are trying to employ has irritated some contributors too - I myself might think twice about nominating an article in the current environment. I think things will eventually settle down again over time however. But if necessary, we can throttle back the number of updates to two or even one per day until noms start picking up again. Gatoclass (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, but for days since the new nomination template was introduced, the counts on the Queue page include a lot of noms that have already been pushed to the queues or rejected. For example, the count for July 25 shows 22 noms, but only 4 of those are still actually waiting on the suggestions page. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take heart from what you say about past experience—I haven't been around here very long. But I think going below three preps a day would set a dangerous precedent and in turn discourage people from nominating articles (and from reviewing them promptly and clearly). Let's instead see what we can do to encourage people, both to write/rewrite (I've been working on the same DYK-inappropriate article for a while; I'm trying to decide whether to bother to do a DYK-possible one next) to submit to DYK (see above section on cutting through the . . . stuff) and to do the reviewing (see various above sections, especially the two-way street one). Let's get the momentum building again; then it will be feasible (and less rude) to say "This nom shouold wait till it has a more interesting hook," for example. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the critics have driven a stake through the heart of DYK. The problem is not a shortage of administrators, but shortages of submissions and reviews. The new nomination template does seem be discouraging submissions, although I find it actually makes it easier to submit nominations. I imagine that the brutality of some recent DYK reviews probably is discouraging nominations -- when nominations are getting criticized and possibly even rejected for allegedly "obvious" problems in the article such as too many wikilinks, why bother to nominate? --Orlady (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They forgot the garlic. I agree with both you and Yngvadottir: we need to deal with major problems first and foremost. Copyvio, close paraphrasing, too short articles, attack pages, and whatnot. Boring hooks could wait a bit. Wikification should never be a breaker, unless an article is not wikified at all. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the new scrutiny is necessarily a bad thing, but there is no way I'm touching the queues in the current environment—frankly, I don't have time and can't be bothered to read through half a dozen articles that are at least 1500 characters long each, then and conduct a review worthy of an FAC before I can can even consider moving anything into the queue. Then if I get it right, people complain loudly that DYK is shite, and if I miss some slight error in the article, people complain even louder that DYK is shite and call for my head on a stake. Sorry, I'd like to help, but that's not my idea of fun! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I try to be a duck. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - have moved along three preps to Q's and asked at commons for images to be protected (they're usually pretty quick with these). Am off to bed now as late here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new structure with nominations on their own sub-pages, but am doubtful about the more formal checklist, which is a bit forbidding to a potential reviewer. If 99.6% of articles accepted under the old system had no serious technical problems, and moving up to 99.7% means doubling the review effort or halving the number of nominations, it is not worth it. No checklist will ever catch selective bias, where important aspects of the subject are not mentioned and trivial aspects are given undue weight. My guess is that many articles have this or other serious defects that only an expert would catch. Maybe we are doubling the review effort so we can move from 70.6% up to 70.7% on the quality scale. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady has hit the nail on the head: all the new requirements have made it significantly more difficult to contribute, and that's largely due to the critics' complaints. When articles that qualify under the rules get rejected simply because their hooks are "too boring" or for other minutia that are unrelated to the rules, that's a big downside. Moreover, I don't have much time anymore to do DYKs — I have enough time to write, but I generally don't have enough time to write and then do one or more reviews on top of it. Until policy absolutely requires me to do it, I will not use the new template: the rules don't require it, and it makes this too much like GA or FAC, which (contrary to a few people's opinions) is not the purpose of DYK. Nyttend (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic discussion

on-topic discussion

...a 1,500 character article thrown off in a couple of days is unlikely to give balanced and thorough coverage of the subject. If we want to limit main page links to quality content, a more formal DYK review checklist is not going to have much effect. The checklist just formalizes what reviewers should be looking at anyway. The real problem is that a review by someone like me who knows nothing about a subject and relies entirely on online sources may miss serious defects in an article. The only way to significantly improve DYK quality is to allow more time to develop more complete and balanced articles and to improve the articles based on considered expert review. It takes time to get quality.

Many readers (and some nominators) think DYK is just a collection of curious factoids. We could change DYK to be just that. Forget the "new" criterion, replace it with "B Class", or something like that, and concentrate on debating and deciding on the interest level of the factoids. "...that the Higgins wood-boring beetle is most active in the summer?" "...that Jamie Higgins was booted out of three reality shows before he turned 16?" "...that S.S. Higgins was the first copper-hulled trawler to be sunk by U boats in the North Sea?"

But before we fix it, is it broke? Do we have any statistics on reader feedback? Maybe they like seeing random articles in their embryonic state. Maybe it does encourage new editors. Maybe the occasional poor quality article serves as a useful reminder that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just use some common sense. Whenever you see articles about local politicians or controversial topics quickly hatched, it's safe to assume they aren't NPOV unless they've been reviewed by a substantive number of editors. Wikipedia is used for WP:ACTIVISM more often than not these days in certain areas (and perhaps that was always the case, but I wasn't around). Pay a visit to WP:AE if in doubt. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question about reader feedback. I find the stars at the bottom (article feedback) rather questionable if not downright worthless. Anger management, this version, was rated as 5 five stars across the board by about 8 editors at one point. I'm not sure what triggered the flood of reviews thereafter (I discussed it with one of the editors that seem very involved in the feedback project), but the current stars don't reflect the current article either, because I deleted most of it and added one sourced paragraph. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I see a DYK article on Mayor Smith describing his birth, education, business and political career and his views on jobs, the environment, immigration, taxation and so on. All the content is sourced from reputable newspapers and magazines, and seems to be accurate and neutral. In fact, the sources have been carefully selected and it is a vicious and one-sided attack. I would never spot that. It could take a few weeks before anyone who did know about the subject spotted it. If we put recent articles into DYK, that is a risk we run. I find the risk acceptable, although sometimes it could be embarrassing. A formal review checklist will not avoid the problem.

On feedback, I was not so much thinking of article scores as of a general reader survey asking about what they like and do not like, what they expect, what they want improved and so on. If most readers enjoy DYK and have no problems with it, don't fix it. If a fair number of readers do have problems with DYK, then it needs fixing. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "DYK is dying": I don't know if the feature is dying or not, but I do know this: the new procedure for reviewing somebody else's nomination is so incredibly complex and daunting that it is definitely going to discourage nominations. I just spent 15 or 20 minutes trying to figure it out and then said, "Forget it - I just won't submit the nomination I was planning to submit; it's not worth all this effort." I'm not a newbie; I have 8000 or so edits, and I have had a dozen DYKs accepted, including some where I had to review somebody else's nomination under the old rules. That was do-able. But I'm not a DYK specialist, and requiring people like me to try to navigate this complex new system is a bad idea. Either we will do a bad or partial job of reviewing, or else we will just say "forget it" - as I did tonight. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Killings has a forename, Dwayne. We do not refer to people simply by a surname on first mention. The suggestion that he "directed" the team is also contestable: he is listed as one of three assistants to the coach, Fran Dunphy. Anyone would think that rules of presentation and statements of fact are being stretched to make a cheap pun based on potential misinterpretation of a name. Still, nothing funnier than death, is there. Kevin McE (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup at main page errors; why isn't there a template to notify article talk, since this happens so often and the errors are left standing at the DYK template on article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that DYK is halfway there on accountability (a record is kept of noms), has anyone notified all of the participants in this mainpage mess? QPQ reviewing doesn't work, but editors and reviewers are more likely to become better writers and reviewers if they are notified of their misses. Since they are such a frequent issue at DYK, there should be a followup template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The double nom for Paul Speratus and Es ist das Heil uns kommen her was not even approved a while ago and is now in queue 6. Please add the title of the hymn as he wrote it, linked and highlighted, and leave the English as a translation (which it isn't, saying "all" unstead of "us") or rather a common version. I explained here but things moved too fast. ALT4: ... that Paul Speratus was in prison, sentenced to death by fire, when he wrote the hymn Es ist das Heil uns kommen her (Salvation now has come for all)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying harder: what's now in the queue is not true and (perhaps worse in WP, smile) not supported by the sources. Paul Speratus wrote Es ist das Heil uns kommen her, Catherine Winkworth wrote Salvation hath come down to us, an unknown poet wrote Salvation now has come for all. Please, admin, change! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged an admin. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm that the hymn name is in italics. Usually, song titles are not italicized, but are placed between quotation marks, like in the current version. Materialscientist (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On First Lutheran hymnal, now on the Main page, the eights songs are italic, this is one of them. A 1524 influential hymn is not exactly what is called a song today. I think it works both ways but should be consistent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. I also couldn't find the guidelines for the hymn title and leave this to others :). Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright violations. The challenge on Bill Noel was dropped, and the one on Phil Preis apparently has one paragraph in dispute. I didn't even create the Preis article but added to it. No errors have been shown in any of the articles to my knowledge. Everything is sourced and documented. Plagiarism is passing off the words of others as one's own without any attribution. All is atributed. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this comment to the bottom of the section (Billy Hathorn had placed it at the top). I will leave a note pointing out that he needs to read and respond to the ANI thread. Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge on Bill Noël was not dropped; offending text was removed over a series of edits by User:NortyNort. Likewise other editors have removed three paragraphs of offending text from Phil Preis -- text you (Billy) added. cmadler (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mystified why Gatoclass continues to focus only on the copyvio aspect of Hathorn's DYKs, when the other aspects are just as problematic (failure to use reliable sources after five years of editing? padding of articles with irrelevant text? is that to meet the DYK size crit?). I don't know why he's still allowed to edit at all, particularly since he won't discuss and the cleanup effort will be massive (and will never be done). The DYK aspect is that DYK enabled this to occur and never even noticed it, but the real ban should be beyone DYK IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a ban beyond just DYK, but we can't do that here. I requested the CCI, which is now open, and I attempted to get a broader ban at AN/I, but the section keeps getting archived there. cmadler (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that consensus is already quite clear that people support Demiurge's proposal, above, but if others want to continue to engage with that proposal, could they add !votes to the section above? Sharktopus ^talk 15:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to start penalizing editors because they occasionally add content that someone thinks irrelevant? As for use of iffy sources, outside the hallowed halls of FAC, there's rather a lot of it going on. As long as the important info in an article is reliably sourced, it's of little consequence whether an article contains a source or two that doesn't pass muster; certainly it's far from sufficient cause to start talking about banning people. Gatoclass (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've de-archived the Billy Hathorn thread at AN/I. Since he's now indefinitely banned from DYK, there's nothing more we can do here except make sure the issue doesn't die there. cmadler (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He still has at least one nomination on the board. His name somehow got added to hidden text. Speedy closure of Template talk:Did you know/James M. Flinchum welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've not yet figured out how to reject/archive nominations under the new template/sub-page system or I'd do it. cmadler (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yomangani^talk 12:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear anonymous, step up and sign up or shut up." Sharktopus, if this is how DYK people treat other editors, it's no wonder you're short of nominations. Tony (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony, is your comment just slightly off-topic or misplaced? My annoyed remark was to an anonymous making a snarky comment mocking another contributor. Anonymous people making remarks relevant to improving DYK are of course always welcome by me and by everybody else. Sharktopus ^talk 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated an article that I started for DYK Ants of Kansas. I was told by someone who is experienced in species articles that it still counts as a list. If it still counts as a list, but has enough content for DYK, is it allowed? Joe Chill (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant rule is Length: lists are allowed as long as they have 1500 characters of prose.

Yours looks like it does, although some people might think the Ants of Kansas#Kansas ants section looks like a list in prose format. Personally I think it's ok. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use the handy dandy page size tool - 1,533 characters. If someone says that the Kansas ants section is a list in prose, I will try to ease their concern. Joe Chill (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking because I have noticed that species articles on DYK seem to not get very many views while on the main page for DYK. My question is - what type of interesting hooks do you think that I can use for species articles that can grab an average reader's attention? I thought that the hooks on articles I worked on and nominated for DYK were really interesting especially in 2010 with ".. that when in danger of predation, the harvestman Leiobunum rotundum can self-amputate its legs, but they will not regenerate?" and "... that the beetle Dermestes maculatus attacks and eats live turkeys?". A spider that self amputates its legs to escape predators even though they will be gone for good! A beetle that eats LIVE turkeys! Pretty cool in my opinion, but their views while on DYK weren't impressive. Joe Chill (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a lot of hits is very enjoyable, but creating a good article that improves Wikipedia is really what DYK is supposed to promote. Those hooks you mention would certainly have motivated me to click on them! I've had numbers of hits that pleased me on biology hooks, not just for penis-fencing flatworms and zombie ladybirds but recently for Timema stick insect species that haven't had sex for a million years. Yet there have been articles I was proud of creating that got incredibly low numbers of hits. The score measures something, but it doesn't measure everything. Sharktopus ^talk 02:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am proud of my DYK articles no matter how small or big they are. I am also proud of my stub articles because I know that I accomplished creating an article that is notable and didn't already exist on such a huge encyclopedia. I guess you're right that a lot of hits is just an extra bonus. Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely DYK's remit is new articles, not good articles? Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant good as in well-written, not GA, though I'm never sure what people mean when they say 'good' (I suspect you meant good, not GA and would have said GA if you had meant that). I sometimes wish GA had a different name. But while some newly created articles are no more than stubs that just meet the criteria, some people do try and produce really nice, long, comprehensive and well-written articles straight off. I found Oscar Clayton a delight to read. The other thing is that if you expand a stub fivefold, that tends to produce a better article than what was there before (well, hopefully). I've always thought that expanding existing articles should be encouraged more, as long as that is done correctly of course (see what Sandy wrote elsewhere about padding that sometimes happens). And people should be encouraged to take good DYK articles further, and those that create stubby article and then don't do anything more with them after DYK should be encouraged to work on them more and discouraged from building up too much of a backlog of stubs that they are leaving to others to expand, though giving others some time (e.g. a year) to pick up a stub and run with it is reasonable. After that time, though, the initial creator really needs to bite the bullet and go back and work on it. I have a back-catalogue (if you like) of stubs, and I'm slowly starting to work through them, trying to improve them. I suspect nearly every editor here has stubs in their early history that they created and never went back to (click the 'articles created' link on anyone's contribs to see what I mean). It's how most people start off with article creation here on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's natural that biology articles, some history articles, articles about churches, and even some political articles, will draw less clicks. On the other hand, as has been said, the clickthrough numbers aren't a total measure of the value of a hook or article. If the main page was filled solely with articles related to royalty or celebrity marriages, recent sports events and favourite flavours of political controversy, then I might well have wandered off in disgust long ago, and maybe a few others would take the same view. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Joe Chill's question, bioology articles often get low hist everywhere - look at the TFA statistics. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are only interested in the hits, anything related to sexuality will draw clicks. For Batara Kala, for example, we used one of his origin myths (conceived by a fish swallowing Shiva's sperm) and received nearly 11,000 hits. However, you would probably want to vary it a bit. Unique quotes, like calling someone a "damn fool", seem to work well too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures usually help a lot. Interesting ones. I tend to find myself only creating and nominating articles for DYK these days if and only if I find a picture of them somewhere. Though in general, I find that having a picture encourages me to expand an article more, whether it's intended for DYK or not. Then there's the time factor, DYK's coinciding with the best times on the western hemisphere will usually get more hits.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually looked over the top 30 or 40 most viewed while at DYK articles once and wrote about it somewhere else. Surprisingly it's not sports, celebs (not many of those anyway) or sex that sells views. It's "war and morbidity", followed by "cute animals doing cute thins" followed by "food". Sex actually doesn't do all that well - probably because there's a buttload of competition out there on the internets.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insects aren't cute - too bad. Joe Chill (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...so *some* species articles - of interesting, gross, or cute animals - do indeed get lots of hits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that sells is stuff from other cultures, if it is not the same as what is common in western cultures. Cat rice had lots of hits, mainly because the name is ambiguous (it would probably be read as "rice made from a cat", even though it really means "rice that is portioned for a cat"). Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full binomial names certainly don't add click-appeal Jebus989^✰ 13:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I was wondering if somebody could help with the building of preps. I have done a few recently, but some approved hooks I've had to skip because I reviewed them or because they were my nominations. I will do some more reviewing, but I'd appreciate if someone other than myself built one or two preps (including the ones I am not allowed to pass) Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at lunchtime (4 hours), unless I can't get back online; it will be a good opportunity to learn the new process. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Hassocks. I have to go to bed now, but there seems to be about a queue's worth of approved hooks in the older articles. Any help would be appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I filled up Prep 3, but am about to lose internet myself. More help still needed! and many thanks to Crisco for stepping up. Sharktopus ^talk 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've got the new method figured out (not too difficult, really), I hope to go back to doing this more regularly. Sadly my browser was crash-prone today! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both Sharktopus and Hassocks. I have done quite a bit more reviewing today, so hopefully we won't have to deal with the queues running out. Help with preps is still appreciated, naturally. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The first" means the first: "the very first" is redundant hype. Kevin McE (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to first, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... that US Army Master Sergeant Ernest R. Kouma won the Medal of Honor (pictured) in the Korean War for singlehandedly killing approximately 250 North Korean troops?" One does not "win" the MOH. You receive it. It's neither a contest nor a competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.255.1 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 10 August 2011 UTC (UTC)

Copied to WP:ERRORS. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wha'?! Wait! Everything is a contest in Wikipedia. You win DYKs that you can strut, that's fo sho. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, despite being cited from the official army records, the body count is one of the least reliable aspects of this encounter. Kouma's tank was fighting a delaying action and was forced to withdraw after the fight with the entire US position abandoned. The body count for actions like this in the Korean war is historically very unreliable, with an order of magnitude differences between the body counts in the same action by the opponents' official histories. [4] [5] [6] Some secondary sources do not mention the body count in this action: [7]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to raise this here, but I appear to have had no choice, because the hook was promoted almost instantly after the first review, giving me no chance to comment. The current hook for an article I wrote and nominated, referring to a Willamette River railroad bridge, or Did you know/Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge 5.1, is inaccurate or at least misleading. (It was shortened from all of my suggestions, all under 200.) Portland, Oregon has eleven "Willamette River bridges" and three alone are railroad bridges. The hook needs to include "of BNSF Railway" or "of BNSF", because without that the name given in the current hook is an incorrect name. See my comments at nom (made 12 days ago) for more. The newly created hook is 170 characters, so I see no good reason for leaving out "of BNSF Railway", which would make it 190 (or 182 without Railway). I know the current shortage in the queue is rushing things, but I checked the nom just 6 hours ago and it had yet to receive its first review; now, it's already in Prep with a significantly changed hook! (Note: I'll only be online for about the next 20 minutes, if any questions arise). Thanks to anyone who takes this up. SJ Morg (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can edit a hook in prep but since you are distressed and about to go offline, I have removed your hook from Prep 3 and will replace it onto the nominations page for more discussion. Sharktopus ^talk 20:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SJ Morg (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it on the noms page (or at least I tried to; putting a hook back was so much easier in the old days) and suggested a new alt hook that I think will address the issue. --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting an OK from the author. I will happily move it to Prep (but not Prep 3, which I just refilled) once that happens. Thanks so much, Orlady, for your helpful intervention. Sharktopus ^talk 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at #Review checklist templates (and related discussion at #The review checklist, redux) seems to have come to a halt without any firm conclusions. As best as I can tell, editors are divided about whether signatures are necessary in the review checklist or not. To speed things up, I'd like to just do a quick poll to see what people think about this issue; for examples of what I'm talking about, see #Samples above. If you have an opinion, please sign your name in the Support or Oppose section, or leave a comment.

Also, please note that this poll is only to get feedback about the matter of whether signatures should be included. If you have other issues with it (for instance, with the specific items that are included in the template, or with the names of those items), those issues can be addressed after this.

Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of advantages and disadvantages

• A checklist with both ticks/crosses and signatures makes for more transparency, as users can see who has checked the individual fields. Disadvantages are that the checklist is more cluttered and difficult to read at a glance, and that the list requires the individual fields to be filled out with {{DYKyes}} or {{DYKno}}) instead of a simple "y" or "n".

• Regarding the checklist with only ticks and crosses, its state will be much easier for reviewers who are looking for uncompleted checklists to assess quickly, and this checklist will require only a "y" or "no" in each field to complete it instead of {{DYKyes}} or {{DYKno}}). The disadvantage is that it won't be apparent who is responsible for filling in the checklist fields unless the reviewers leave notes or else the history is checked.

Support checklist with ticks/crosses and signatures

1. At minimum one signature, for accountability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   With respect, I don't think that's a !vote in favour of signatures in the checklist. I think it's a given that reviewers will be signing off on their reviews below the checklist, but that's not what this poll is about. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I will give a little clarification. If one does the entire review on one's own, a signature at the bottom would be enough. If one does only a portion of the review, one should note that somewhere (either by signing what was reviewed or noting at the bottom). Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Ok, thanks or the clarification. I think that sounds most like what I had in mind with version 3. Anyway we'll see what others think about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. As per Crisco 1492; items should be signed when the review is partial, but one signature is sufficient when the review covers all aspects. cmadler (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I support, under the conditions stipulated by Crisco and cmadler. SJ Morg (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree with Crisco and cmadler, good idea. Sharktopus ^talk 12:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I hate to say this, but what you guys are !voting on is not actually one of the options. You can't have both a signatures and doodads checklist and a doodads only checklist, it's a choice between one or the other. A sig of course can always be added below the checklist, but for the checklist itself it must be either one or the other type as it's not possible to have a checklist which can output both types of fields, and only one checklist can be added to the nomination template. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   No reason not to offer the choice of either. If an editor does the whole review, they can use the doodads-only checklist and then sign the review. If an editor does only part of the review, they can use the signatures-and-doodads checklist and sign the appropriate parts. cmadler (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Well if somebody wants to use the no-sig checklist for their own reviews, there is nothing to stop them doing that at any time, although I doubt many people will bother. The point of this poll is to determine which checklist should be added to the nomination template as the standard checklist. Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It is technically possible to have two different templates people could choose between, although I think that would make things unnecessarily complicated (we have people asking why DYK has both preps and queues, I bet we'd also get people asking why there are so many different versions of the checklist). It's also possible for the template to be somewhat flexible in that it could not by itself output doodads but people could just directly type in, e.g., "{{subst:DYKtick}} ~~~" or just "{{subst:DYKtick}}". Although, like I said above, these votes actually sound to me similar to the idea I had with version 3 (doodads only), in that people can sign off below the template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support checklist with ticks and crosses only

Comments

I don't care what format you choose for the checklist, just as long as:

(1) it is a checklist, as required by the RfC, that includes all aspects listed in the RfC, including the "regular" DYK aspects as specified in the last line of the RfC text;

(2) it involves a signature if a whole review is done, and where a part review is done, signatures for the aspects required by the RfC;

(3) you work out how much of a review needs to be done to satisfy QPQ;

(4) reviewers are not required to go searching for a cumbersome string of characters to paste in icons; and

(5) the instructions include directions related to these issues.

If obvious errors in formatting and prose are let through, these will be the subject of complaints, on this page and elsewhere; this is why it would be far preferable to include this in the checklist. The community will not be happy if crap continues to dribble onto the main page.

These are the only circumstances in which I, personally, would support the continuation of DYK. When Crisco, above, says, "I have tried to keep the queues from faltering, but it's rather hard to fill a queue with no noms."—well, don't change shifts so often, then. Every change robs a good hook/DYK from further exposure. Tony (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With or without signature, checklist doesn't work

I can't find the blooming subpage, so I'll replay the entire DYK section here. Multiple people looked at this; the hook appears to have been written by someone for whom English is not a native language. The checklist doesn't work; accountability from a real person before something goes on the mainpage is still missing (I've been too busy for days to check for copyvios, but I doubt that they're not still there, considering one only has to look at the most recent reviews to find issues still). PS: AGF on foreign language sources, when translations are frequently plagiarized? For goodness sakes ... we're talking about Wikipedia's mainpage. Is there no burden on the nominator to prove the text is mainpage worthy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is this about? This poll is not about Tony's checklist, it's about two alternatives proposed by Rjanag. Please don't confuse the issue by dragging Tony's checklist into the discussion, we can debate that after we've settled on the best version of Rjanag's. Gatoclass (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, please note that the discussion that Sandy is upset about is still on the nominations page. The discussion has not been concluded. Nothing has happened. --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, several points for you. They're going to be a bit snippy but I can't say it isn't about time:

1. That nomination doesn't have a subpage because it was posted before the subpage system was started. I think this is the fourth time I've had to explain this simple concept to you, and I think already told you last time that I didn't want to explain it to you again.
2. Like Gatoclass asked above, what is your complaint even referring to? Are you trying to say the hook needs editing? Use your words. We can't tear apart DYK and remake it in the wonderful image that you want if you can't even be bothered to explain what you want.
3. No offense, but you're a broken record. You've already told me over and over that you think the checklist is a waste of time, but unfortunately right now many people here want one. But hey, if you don't want it, you are welcome to get SHOUTED at by this guy who wants to block anyone who doesn't like the checklist. Personally I don't care either way, I'm just trying to make a better one for them if they decide to use it. See, unlike you, I actually care about trying to do something constructive here, rather than just dropping by every day to tell us all how hopeless we are.
4. I already said above that I opened this poll for feedback on a specific issue and that issue was not which things should be included in a review or how a review can be conducted; those issues can be discussed later or elsewhere. If you can't be bothered to read the text of a conversation you're jumping into and you can't be bothered to make even the most basic attempt to understand simple concepts that have been explained to you over and over again (see point 1 above) I don't understand where you find all the time to tell everyone how much they suck and I don't understand why you keep dropping by here.

To everyone else: sorry for the snippiness, but I hope you can understand I am fed up with this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually pretty fed up with you, Rjanag. You're the one who has been behaving disgracefully. If you can't abide by the requirements of an RfC, butt out. Tony (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you opened at #Warning: Deliberate Breaching of RfC Consensus showed a clear consensus that I didn't "breach" (or, should I said, "BREACH") the RfC and didn't do anything wrong in removing your templates. Now, since you clearly have nothing to contribute to the discussion in this section, you butt out. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bulleted checklist that has been included in DYK nominations for some weeks now has the explicit endorsement of the "checklist" RfC. While it is not the only checklist that could be produced in line with the community's overwhelming decision, it follows the wording of the RfC text closely: text that the community has endorsed.

It has come to my attention that User:Rjanang has been unilaterally, without consensus, (1) removing the template from DYK nomination pages, without substituting another template that does justice to the community's insistence on a checklist; (2) fiddling with the original template (created by Carcharoth) by inserting "noinclude" to blank it out in display mode; and (3) revert warring over the past half hour when I attempted to reinstate the checklist. This is despite Rjanang's noinclude admission that the RfC produced "consensus to include a checklist". Rjanang has used several spurious reasons to justify his actions. Among them are "there is no rule that the decision of every RfC needs to be implemented immediately" and "You don't have consensus to force this version of your checklist on everyone, until you actually ask if there is consensus for it." The latter is despite the fact that the checklist comprises what the community decided on, plus a few DYK rules for convenience and thoroughness, and which need to be ticked off explicitly in any case.

The proper course of action for Rjanang would be to hold an RfC to reverse or modify the community's overwhelming decision only three weeks ago that a checklist is required before main-page exposure.

If Rjanang's behaviour persists, I will launch an AN action against him within 36 hours, since he is clearly going against strong community consensus, and in a way that again renders DYK liable to serious breaches of policy. I believe that nominations stripped of the checklist (or any template that satisfies the consensus of the "Checklist" RfC without replacing it with another checklist that also satisfies the community's demand should 'not be moved to a prep room. They are, in effect, rendered illegitimate by his actions.

Another alternative would be to terminate DYK altogether. I'm not averse to that option, even though I've put considerable work into shoring it up against the many editors at WP who are complaining vociferously about it. Tony (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion is at Template talk:DYKrev#noincluded. I have nothing to say that I didn't already say there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony has been informed on numerous occasions that his RFC on the checklist was malformed and a breach of WP:POLL, but he has continued to play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT over that issue. Moreover, there was never any consensus to use the particular checklist that Tony is using, nor was there a consensus that it be used immediately and without further discussion. My opinion is that the checklist has made T:TDYK quite chaotic and difficult to read, and been a leading factor in driving many of our most longstanding contributors away from the project. I support Rjanag's position that the use of the checklist should be suspended until all the outstanding issues have been resolved and there is clear consensus on the use and format of a checklist, doing otherwise is just going to lead to further chaos. Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e.c.) **Gatoclass, you make those assertions without backing them up with facts or references. They are not credible. Go back and examine the RfC, and observe the > 3/4 majority that demanded a checklist. This will go to ANI if there are further reversions, and I am about to warn nominators individually that there nominations are likely to be ineligible for main-page exposure if their nom page does not include a required checklist. Silver seren, until another RfC overturns the first one, the requirement for a checklist remains. Materialscientist, I'll disregard the implied personal attack and assumption of bad faith. If you think proper reviewing, as demanded by the RfC, is unwieldy, we'll need to close down DYK. Tony (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truly extraordinary Tony, that you think it appropriate to threaten other users here if they don't agree to immediate and unconditional surrender to all your demands. I've been increasingly concerned with your attitude over the last couple of weeks, to the point that I myself have been considering applying to AN/I to have you blocked for disruption. If you are foolish enough to take this matter to AN/I, that's precisely what I will be proposing. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think another RfC about the new DYK template would be useful at this point in time, considering that there have been a number of complaints about it since it was put into use. An RfC on whether editors wish to continue using it would be helpful in determining if it has been successful in its intentions or not. Silverseren^C 06:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a new RFC would be premature, since as you can see from the above section we are still in the process of refining an alternative checklist. At the very least we need to have a couple of alternatives to choose from rather than a yes/no !vote for just one. But we can't do even that much until we have settled on what those alternatives will actually look like. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Tony, this all does look like a few editors were dropped here with machine guns to shoot the regulars, scare newcomers and either terminate or hijack the project. This all goes back to being friendly and accepting criticism. The checklist is unwieldy. It helps reminding issues to check, but also does clutter the page, and the same old errors are passing through as before. So please take it easy. I might add suggestions to the list a bit later, just one note for now - I suppose "vintage" is a dubious and obscure term, especially for non-native speakers. Something like "nomination date" sounds better to my ear. Materialscientist (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Everybody calm down a bit. There's no need for the section header to be in all caps. It's the tone of threads like this that drives contributors away. (Now back to my bot coding...) Shubinator (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I note that the Proper reviewing checklist RfC has been archived and explicitly excluded from the links on this page to RfC reform proposals. That looks like an agenda-driven omission to me. DYK regulars appear to be in denial. That's too bad, I'm sorry: the community determined in no uncertain terms that a checklist must be used. Perhaps you need reminding of the text:

RfC

DYK quality assurance and archiving

Extensive discussion above shows that there are serious quality and policy-compliance problems in the current DYK process, and that many editors are concerned that plagiarism and close paraphrasing, sourcing issues, verification issues, copyvio, and wrong facts are regularly going through under the radar. This RfC is to determine whether there is consensus for two changes to the process as partial steps towards fixing these problems.

The RfC does not cover issues that might need to be resolved if one or both of the current proposals gains consensus. These include whether:

• there should be a directorate;
• nominators (after their fourth successful DYK) should still be required to review another editor's nomination when they nominate a DYK;
• a template should be created to provide for the explicit checking off of the explicit requirements listed in the first proposal, below; and
• the system of pasting in coloured ticks and crosses should be binned or modified.

Implicit in the proposals is the likelihood that the maximum four six-hour shifts per day of five to eight hooks (≥ 32 DYKs) will more often than now be altered by the queuing admins to longer exposures and fewer shifts per day, and be treated as normal practice. This would not be necessary if there is a sudden influx of reviewers and more nominators who can manage the time to respond to the issues they raise. However, please note that the primary consideration of the two proposals is effective quality assurance and compliance with site-wide policies, not reduced flow. ...

RfC proposal: a proper reviewing checklist

Proposal: "No DYK article should receive main-page exposure unless the article has been checked and explicitly passed for:

1. adequate sourcing, including verifiability, reliability of sources and BLP policy;
2. neutral point of view;
3. plagiarism and close paraphrasing;
4. other copyright violations, in files and text; and
5. obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting."

These checks are in addition to the existing requirements concerning hook length, hook source, article length, and time since article creation/expansion.

_______________

The template that User:Rjanang has taken upon himself to remove (twice in some cases) was designed to precisely do justice to the text that !voters endorsed with a resounding majority. Tony (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the RfC was archived by a bot (who I don't think has an agenda), as all discussions at this page are eventually; it's still visible here. The moving of proposals into Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals was handled by User:Carcharoth, who I don't think has any agenda and who left several messages at this page beforehand asking for input about which proposals people thought he should move and which they didn't. If you think he had some agenda, though, you're free to check with him. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it specifically says there, the RfC was not to be about the inclusion of a checklist template, just that DYK noms should be checked for those things. Thus, there is no consensus for the current arrangement of the template and users are free to change it (or even blank it) if necessary in order for there to be more discussion in order to improve it. As I stated above, there appears to be extensive problems with the current template that are not helping matters or DYK process. Silverseren^C 07:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) OK, granted (I endorsed the proposal too), but it seems to me that that the nub of the dispute is simply whether this particular template is the best way of going about it. I don't see an endorsement above of a particular template and I was a bit surprised to see the one you came up with suddenly appearing on every DYK nom. Tony, nobody's disputing the valuable contributions you've made to this discussion, but I do think it would be helpful to reach agreement on how this checklist should be documented. Let's have that discussion and come up with something that works for everyone. Prioryman (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the points I was about to make have been pre-empted by several other users, in which case I will confine myself to simply endorsing their comments. Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Silver seren is playing with words. For sure, generally speaking as a project, there is no deadline. However, as events have proven time and again, the inertia for continuing to do things 'the old way' remain strong. It was only a few days ago, in the background of severe bludgeoning from certain quarters about "Plagiarism Central", that Tony was held out to be the extremely constructive and helpful 'saviour'. I note Rjanag, in editing the template as he did, was reacting to some [persistent] complains from the regulars here about the complexity of the procedure.

One might continue arguing about the legitimacy of the disputed template, but there's no shying away from the fact that the community is explicitly wanted each article to be checked for those issues appearing in the checklist. It is the procedure that is the cause of this apparent malaise, not the template itself, which is but a vector. Implementation can't be put off forever. In view of the seriousness of the problems, it ought not to be put off at all because the form isn't exactly right or has everyone's endorsement. With the incessant criticism about the template, the adoption of a 'consensual version' of the checklist which could take the rest of the year... I'm pretty sure it's not the response hoped for by the community. I could be wrong, but my reading was that an urgent fix was necessary. My suggestion: grin and bear the template for now, pending an 'agreed' version that satisfies the concerns addressed at the RfC. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These "urgent fixes" have already led to the resignation of four of our most longstanding DYK admins, not to mention the other contributors who have left, including at least one quality contributor who has retired altogether. This kind of haphazard approach to change, as users try to force their own vision onto the project without regard to practicality or consensus, is leading the project to disaster. Well perhaps that is the intention, but if so it is not a goal that has the community's endorsement. Nothing is lost by slowing down the process of change and proceeding more carefully; the same cannot be said for the alternative approach. Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put the blame anywhere except where it belongs. The patient was suffering from an ailment. Previous attempts at self-medication didn't fix it, so it became a chronic and more aggravated condition. The new medicine, it seems, is making the patient worse à la House for now. Look at the self-medication if you want to point fingers. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the example of a Vicodin-addicted felon who always gets it wrong the first few times when not sexually harassing nurses or unprofessionally berating his colleagues while acting outside the law or medical ethics is an apt one. Nobody is disputing that the 'patient' needs 'treatment' but the exact form of the template to be used was not the subject of the faulty RfC. - Dravecky (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well caught... I did say that the problem lay with the self medication, didn't I? ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside from the issue of the RfC being malformed, the RfC merely stated that reviewers must have "checked and explicitly passed" an article on five points. That does not necessarily suggest any template, much less this particular template. Rjanag has been hard at work creating a more compact template that still meets the RfC's requirements. Beyond that, it would be entirely sufficient for a reviewer to type (or copy and paste) "I've checked and explicitly passed this article for sourcing, NPOV, plagiarism and copyvio, and obvious faults in prose." That meets the RfC's requirement, and it takes up a lot less space (and is a lot less difficult) than your (Tony's) massive template. cmadler (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for this! (said several times). Also: run a RfC in summer when nobody is active, run several at a time so people don't bother to even look, let alone vote, if you want to push something. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat, and there are certainly methods that don't involve excruciating pain for the animal. ;-) What's being suggested above isn't so bureaucratic, and is more like the 'I hereby do solemnly swear that I have exercised due care and attention in my review, and so be it' type declaration. One of the key advantages of the "massive template" is that the review using said template doesn't have to be all performed by one person. It allows the job to be split up, and it's transparently and obvious if something hasn't been checked, and equally obvious who claims to have done which part. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also said before: in that case, a review not completed by one person, a template showing what was reviewed by whom is a good tool. But, to my experience, those are only a few. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with this as well. The RfC covered what needs to be explicitly reviewed, not whether this or any particular template was required. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to the new templates and instruction creep

While I understand and even support splitting each nom into a subpage, and the requirement of "submit one, review one", speaking a rather prolific DYK creator (350+) I want to express strong objection to the new complex templates. I saw this monstrosity added and thankfully reverted from a DYK, and I was strongly hoping that the addition was some sort of weird experiment that will not be seen again. DYK reviews are no GA reviews, they are supposed to be quick. I refuse to spend more than one minute on them, and if you introduce this complex template, I will most likely stop bothering with nominations. Please stop pushing so much instruction creep into what was once a relatively simple process; at least not without a better advertised poll among DYK creators, and analyzing some numbers on how the current creep is affecting DYK nominations. Recently, another DYK writer told me that he stopped nominating DYKs because the rules became too complex, and I fear few do-gooders are merrily creeping DYKs out of existence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I also happen to agree that this quid pro quo reviewing wasn't working. I would quite happily say goodbye to it, but the community still saw a value in it. Without QPQ reviewing, you can submit any number of articles without the need to reciprocate; reviews will be done by editors who want to review. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps that isn't a bad thing. Not everyone is competent to review; forcing everyone to do so inevitably means that people who aren't any good at it will end up doing it and making mistakes. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"DYK reviews are ... supposed to be quick. I refuse to spend more than one minute on them"—In that one statement, Prioryman Piotrus, I think you've given those who want to close down DYK the greatest propaganda coup they could wish for. Tony (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read more carefully, Tony. Piotrus said that, not me. Prioryman (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Prioryman: fixed. Tony (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus asks for a "poll among DYK creators". Herein lies the problem. Template:Nono Presumably there are plenty of non-problematic DYK creators under the easy system. But how do you propose those shortcomings are dealt with if only the opinion of the existing club of "DYK creators" matters? FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I had only one DYK article that was considered too close to the original sources. I would have fixed it, but guess what - I took a break from Wikipedia. I never told other editors to fix it which one of them that fixed it didn't complain about it till yesterday. Joe Chill (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted a claim that two specific editors are examples of problematic creators. I think nearly everybody in Wikipedia considers some other Wikipedians to be problematic, but RfCU and ANI are the places where such allegations can be made appropriately, giving the people thus named a chance to defend themselves. Sharktopus ^talk 02:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming tiresome to see this self-serving falsehood trotted out day after day: "Tony's forcing his checklist" ... note forcing and his. I'm sorry, it's not my checklist: the checklist was approved by massive consensus in the RfC. Tony (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The "checklist" RfC calls for a checklist, not the checklist, explicitly passing an article for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. So at least the word "his" (meaning Tony's specific checklist) seems undisputable, especially in a context where the alternative is Rjanag's table rather than nothing. Did I miss something? Art LaPella (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Art, for several weeks now Tony has had his fingers stuck in his ears and been singing "La la la la la I can't hear you!" regarding this point. Above everyone told him the same thing you and I just did, so now i think it's sufficient just to ignore his strange messages and revert him if he actually is stupid enough to keep edit-warring over adding his templates. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, maybe, but I have more patience than most. Tony, did you "hear that", and why doesn't Rjanag's template comply with the RfC? A better point for Tony is that last time I looked, not all of the approvals on the nominations page did comply with the RfC; some don't even mention copyvios. Art LaPella (talk)

Rjanag, now you're calling me "stupid". Isn't that a violation of WP:CIVIL? I think the time is coming to ask you not to participate at DYK. Tony (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call you stupid. I said continuing to edit-war over these templates after numerous editors clearly told you above that you have no grounds for doing so would be stupid. For an editor who is known for his clear eye for these sorts of details in article writing, I'm surprised you'd jump to such a silly conclusion here, so I can only assume you're being deliberately stubborn. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Interesting sense of humour, to ban the one who is working and helping the most here, for just a word, and not even a strong one. Todays Bach cantata translates to "It has been told to you, mankind, what is good" (not even reviewed yet, btw), my "words on Sunday", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So now he's calling me "silly". Right. Tony (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Wikilawyer would emphasize that he called the conclusion silly, although that defense doesn't apply to "deliberately stubborn" (but maybe the AGF exception does). I don't think Rjanag has Tony's experience concerning what you can and can't say under Wikipolitics. Why doesn't Rjanag's template comply with the RfC? Art LaPella (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving toward consensus on improvements to WP:DYK

I'd like to start by expressing great respect for the contributions of both Tony1 and Rjanag. I hope that the intelligence and generous spirit that has motivated both of you in your efforts to improve Wikipedia and DYK will also guide you toward a satisfactory conclusion of your current disagreement.

Tony1 created a checklist in response to many requests for something like a checklist on this talkpage. As was to be expected, many people had ideas about improving it after Tony had done the work to create it. Rjanag, who had been doing the coding to implement the new page-archiving feature, proposed quite a few different ways of implementing the checklist, with discussions evident here, here, and here.

If I could summarize a hopeful consensus for this thread, it is that the review template should include some checklist for reviewers, but not necessarily the format created by Tony1. For example, there seems to have been consensus in the discussions cited that using a table format, as proposed by Rjanag, saves white space and usefully segregates longer-form comments into a space separate from ticked-off requirements. Instead of waiting until a new-form review checklist has consensus, I propose that Rjanag insert one of his own updated review checklists into the review template. Something not perfect will be better than nothing. Sharktopus ^talk 14:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good suggestion, there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea, but I still believe it should be removable; or better yet that the reviewer should have the choice of using a template or not (that would also be the best way to determine which format people like best). There's also more than one way to do a thorough review. Also, see above section, where the idea of abolishing QPQ comes up yet again. If that can be revisited, some of the argument for a template - reminding people of what-all they should check - may become moot. Both the QPQ discussion and the whether to have a template discussion drew limited participation and consensus seems likely to have changed with respect to both issues. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sharktopus: I do intend to add the review template to {{NewDYKnom}} at some point, but, per Template talk:NewDYKnomination#Review template, I'd prefer not to do so until there is a clear consensus about which template to use. Unlike some other people in the discussions above, I don't want to look like I'm forcing my preferred version of a template on anyone. More seriously, since it's a protected template people wouldn't be able to revert that addition without wheel-warring, which I think makes it even more important to secure clear consensus here before adding it. The whole reason for the silly shouting thread above was someone wanting to force his preferred template on all reviewers without any regard for the community's feedback. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, even the most carefully pre-vetted checklist will have things people want to change once it comes into use--so giving your in-process checklist a public tryout will bring consensus much sooner. Also, inserting a checklist will short circuit any claims that you are defying previous consensus to have some checklist. As a practical matter, and also in the kindly interest of reducing further dissension, I ask you to insert your own preferred checklist into the current template, with whatever disclaimer you wish regarding its provisional nature. Sharktopus ^talk 22:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't agree that it's appropriate of me to insert my preferred checklist into a template that everyone has to use, when even I haven't yet figured out how people want the checklist to work. I think it would do quite the opposite of reducing quarreling. Given that everyone is already complaining about Tony forcing his checklist on everyone, I don't see how myself doing it is any different.

As for "short-circuiting claims that I am defying previous consensus", I hope I made it clear through my lack of participation in most of the discussion above that I am not concerned about those claims anyway. It seems pretty obvious to me that no one other than Tony has a problem with what I did. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that I think a period of consolidation and review of previous discussions is needed before charging ahead with any new RfCs, though some new RfCs may be needed. I would encourage anyone to help out with the plan C mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Separating out reform discussions. Once we have an idea of what was discussed, it will be easier to see where attention is needed going forward. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing that User:mbz1 was credited for Mein Kampf in the Arabic language when the version she wrote [8] bears little resemblance with the version approved [9] (and even that still had some issues). FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard procedure is to give credits to the editor who nominated the article and/or any editors who played a major role in creating/expanding it (what qualifies as "major" is basically up to the nominator, who is usually the one who chooses whom to credit). The major exception to this is in the cases of articles that were cut-and-paste copyvio when created, then cleaned up by someone else; AFAIK in those cases credit doesn't go to the creator. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's one more thing that's broken in your standard procedure. If someone writes an article that says "Creationism is the truth", and then someone changes it to "Creationism is not the truth", the first person deserves all the credit according to your standard procedure. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've long held that nominations with substantial POV issues should be summarily rejected, we should not reward users who attempt to misuse DYK to push a political platform, and its an imposition on everyone who feels obliged to try and fix these articles before they appear on the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, re FuFoFuEd) Well, obviously, people use common sense.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your intended purpose was in opening to this discussion, except (I think) to complain that someone got a DYK bauble (ohmygod, they're, like, such a big deal) for having written a version of an article you didn't like? rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More like rejected by consensus at WP:RS/N. [10]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to be a very slow broken record, but replace the word "credit" with "notification" and the problem goes away. Yomangani^talk 09:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all the problems finding admins to curate DYK queues and other Main Page elements, I wonder if it might be time to propose a new subcategory of mid-level admins so that we can get more people working on maintenance. I don't know how fine-grained the permissions are on admin rights, but I would have thought that it would be possible for the developers to create an intermediate level of user between ordinary editor and full admin. It would be useful to be able to give trusted individuals the ability to edit through protection and to protect/unprotect pages and images, but not the other admin rights such as being able to block users, delete edits etc, so that they can carry out the purely janitorial role of Main Page maintenance. You could perhaps formally call them "janitors" or "maintainers" to distinguish them from the fully empowered admins. Because their rights would be limited and they would be required to operate only in certain areas, they should not need to go through the bureaucratic monstrosity that is RFA. What do the rest of you think? Prioryman (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not currently possible on en-wiki and not going to be enabled anytime soon. See WP:PERENNIAL#Hierarchical structures and WP:Limited administrators. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who show themselves to be sensible and trustworthy, and need the tools, should be ok to get through the RfA hoop. I am happy to consider discussing and possibly nominating people I feel have a good chance at passing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the "sensible" part - why would anyone who's actually sensible want to go through the "RfA hoop" (wide as a needle's eye, flaming hot fire, suspended over a pool of caymans, with caltrops and salt dust spread out on the other side)?Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asking for Template talk:Did you know/Ants of Kansas to be closed, but someone just has to keep on replying to me. I guess it was a mistake to say how much I am not pleased with DYK (not related to the DYK nomination) on the nomination page because apparently that means that my main interest on Wikipedia is complaining despite my other contributions. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed it (though it is still waiting for an assessment from Wikiproject Complaining) Yomangani^talk 15:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"that before his death in 1952, Wat Tyler Cluverius, Jr. was the last surviving officer of the sinking of the USS Maine?" That strikes me as an excrutiating truism: can the underlined words, which add nothing to the meaning, be deleted, or at least reconfigured: "that Wat Tyler Cluverius, Jr., who died in 1952, was the last surviving officer of the sinking of the USS Maine?" Kevin McE (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I fixed it just now -- belatedly, since it went to the main page a couple of hours earlier. Thanks. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too much to ask that we not include blatantly sexist statements in DYK like "Did you know that Flat Horse dance may represent male virility or female irrationality?" Lest we forget, DYK already has a long history of misogyny thanks to the reign of King Bedford.[11] Perhaps we could be a bit more thoughtful in the future. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did not occur to me that this hook would be read as DYK's endorsing "female irrationality." But then I just got yelled at yesterday for a hook that mentioned "the ten plagues of Egypt" without mentioning disputes about the Book of Exodus. Bear in mind that a hook about the ballet Swan Lake might say it represents magical swans; few people would interpret that to mean that DYK claims magical swans exist. But your interpretation is also a possible one. Could you suggest an alternate hook that you would like better? Sharktopus ^talk 18:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way: If the hook had said "Did you know that Hoohaa dance may represent white virility or black irrationality?" do you think it would have made it to the main page? There are plenty of other interesting hooks that could have been made from that article. At the very least, we could have changed it to "Flat Horse dance has been said to represent male virility or female irrationality". Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edited on main page. Kaldari could have fixed the problem by editing it there, too. (Wink) --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Orlady! Kaldari (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks to Orlady, and thanks to Kaldari for bringing to our attention something that may well have been offensive although it was not intended to be so. Sharktopus ^talk 20:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended to be sexist; it was just an amalgamation of Spiller and Richter's interpretations of its meaning. Perhaps subordination would have been a better choice, but it seems that Richter's main point was the irrationality. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article so I understand where the hook came from. The problem was lack of context given in the hook. While lack of context may sometimes be useful for creating humorous or intriguing hooks, it can also lead to hooks which sound quite offensive on their face. Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I will try to keep an eye on things like that (if I see them). I hope the revised version was acceptable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone update Template:DYKproblem so the text that says "your nomination's entry" links to the nomination sub-page rather than to the section of T:TDYK? I can't do it because 1) it's protected, and 2) I'm not exactly sure how to make the change. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above was done fast and efficient, thank you! The template for noms results, if "diff" is filled, in a lot of blue clutter. Could that be reduced to a piped link to, let's say, "diff". Or can we even drop it, now that we have the subpages? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean; could you show me an example? I agree that a diff is probably not necessary anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just go over the suggestions page and look for "http", example Template talk:Did you know/Shinde Chhatri. I never filled "diff" because I reviewed articles with subpages which carry the hstory. But there are people who fill out everything ... and then complain that it's so hard, smile. Let's take it easy, go slowly over the summer and make decisions when people are back, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a problem with the template; it seems to be an temporary error on Wikipedia itself. I assume it'll be fixed soon. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem is definitely specific to this page. It only just happened recently, though--it wasn't happening before--so I'm going to have to try to figure out what's causing it. The links themselves are not malformed; there must be something on the page (maybe a recent change to {{DYKsubpage}}) that's causing them to not render correctly. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking! Yes, I saw it only today, first in an article I reviewed. I changed the "naked url" to piped "diff", but next time I looked it was as before, I didn't bother to question if it was reverted. That article was promoted already. The link doesn't look malformed, just too blue, and I don't like clutter, I guess I said so before. - I liked your "snippy" comments, btw, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something's happened to T:TDYK that's messing up the rendering of links within the subpages. When you open the subpage itself it doesn't have these problems (the example you gave was just a typo in the external link itself; the other subpages that have links, display correctly); the problem only happens when viewing T:TDYK. I'm looking into it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed now, and I didn't do anything. Must have just been some problem with the wiki. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know: Don't believe in miracles. Rely on them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have said a lot of bad things about DYK, but members have convinced me that this is a worthwhile project. It just needs a bit of work which may take time, but it is worthwhile with consensus discussions and members who really know what they are doing. It shouldn't have taken a few members to convince me of that. I will continue nominating articles for DYK especially new members' articles. I have nominated several newbie articles for DYK and articles by members that have been here awhile, but have not stepped into DYK territory. One of the members that has been here a while and has never participated in DYK thought that an article that he started and I nominated wasn't good enough for DYK, but some editors and I showed him that he was wrong once the article was approved. Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Now as to whether DYK is actually a "worthwhile project", I'll have to reserve my judgement ;) Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a hook for an article that was created on August 3. I know there are still 18 days before that date would no longer appear on the nomination page, but it brings up one question. If my hook is never approved or denied, will it basically be pocket vetoed or does it remain until a decision is made? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope not. My understanding of the removal rules is when a review has been made and issues pointed out which the nominator/author hadn't fixed or replied to for a certain amount of time.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current rules, no, no hook can be rejected without receiving a view. This has been discussed before (see, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 48#What is DYK for? (long, sry)) but there has not yet been consensus to remove unreviewed nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So in my specific example, a partial review was made. I corrected the problems. And the rest of my article and hook were not reviewed. My hook will then remain in place until it has been reviewed and I have had sufficient time to correct any proglems? Ryan Vesey Review me!

It's hard to say anything specific without seeing your example. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to make sure it didn't look like I was pushing my hook. The example is Template talk:Did you know/HMS Phoenix (N96). Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This won't be rejected without a complete review. You could try bugging the guy who did the partial review to see if he can finish it (that's done sometimes), or just wait until someone else comes around to finish it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Sorry, I've been focusing on the older nominations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I've lost track of all the proposals, polls, particulars, problems, predicaments, quips, qualms, quandaries, queries, qoncerns about ques and qriticisms, rebukes, ripostes, replies and remonstrations, statements, side discussions, serious and silly scrapes, and all that else that has been raised lately.

In the interest of refocusing the discussion: in my opinion the most serious problem with DYK is the potential appearance of (links to) copyright violations on the main page. Other stuff like some minor grammatical issues or spelling errors in the articles themselves (in the articles themselves, not hooks) as long as it doesn't rise to the level of "embarrassing" are secondary. I guess another serious matter is the potential for POV pushing in hooks etc. but that appears to be more minor and mostly confined (so far) to the I-P dispute; there, it's probably enough that reviewers are aware and pay special attention to the articles in this area.

So the questions is how to best ensure that no copy-vio-articles get promoted. The checklist was supposed to be a way to remind reviewers to check for that, though now it has taken a life on its own. Some other possibilities potentially are:

1. Get User:CorenSearchBot to also automatically run through all articles currently in the nominations page. Currently it just runs through newly created pages but this will miss any copy-vios added to x5 expansions, and to articles which are created initially but expanded after a pause of a day or so.
2. Somehow get Duplicate detector [12] to check all nominations. This can be done just by including a link somewhere to it and asking reviewers to run it on the most used online cite in an article (if there aren't any then AGF). Maybe it would be possible to write a bot to somehow do this but that's outside my expertise.

Any other ideas?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fine ideas. CorenSearchBot is regrettably out of order and has been since July, but once it comes back online I hope we can use it here. I have found DuplicationDetector very useful in checking DYK articles. One caveat is that it will flag as "duplication" direct quotations enclosed in quotation marks and properly cited to the source. Therefore the reviewer should check the article before flagging it as a copyvio/CP. Sharktopus ^talk 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, still need human eyes - DD just suggests some things to watch for (another false positive is long titles of sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Template talk:Did you know/mChip is a blatant copyvio. The article is now listed at the copyright problems page and the article has been blanked with a copyright notice. I'm guessing that it is safe to close the nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have rejected all nominations by that author and moved the involved articles to their userspace with a request to rewrite them ASAP. (This is a compromise solution aiming not to scare a prolific newcomer contributor). As far as I can see, there are no nominations of this author in preps/queues/archives. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios are bad but are not lethal to the project. If the source material is offline there is no mechanical way to spot it. Every so often copvios will find their way onto the main page. Some will be spotted and removed quickly, not all. Original research and unsourced content are also bad. Poor spelling and grammar, garbled wording and poor overall organization are not good either. It would be nice to also avoid incomplete or biased articles, but often only an expert can spot these problems. I don't see copyvios as the main problem. The problem is striking the right balance between fresh new content and quality content. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, the crucial difference between copyvios and poor spelling and grammar, is that the latter are not breaking the law. So yeah, I'd say copyvios are the main problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A law we inevitably violate occasionally, because for one thing, "If the source material is offline there is no mechanical way to spot it." Could that be "lethal to the project"? Unlikely, because we've survived for years in that condition. But I suppose it could be lethal, if someone sued Wikipedia for millions. And anything that's referenced could conceivably be called close paraphrasing. I wish we had some professional legal opinions, which no one here has claimed to have. Art LaPella (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please change Otis to "Otis" in Queue 2 (last hook)? Otis is the name of a song, not an album. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but that is a very poor hook. Band releases a song? What on earth is unusual about that? The hook should be replaced. Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original was "from The Throne", but Kevin MCE changed that too. At the very least, we have "... that (person name) was released by (word possibly meaning government)?" Better than "... that "Highway to Hell" was released by AC/DC?", which would not be able to be misinterpreted. If we have another quirky approved, it could be changed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the hook with a new one. Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I got the inverted commas/italics convention wrong: my recollection was that all works (songs, paintings, scultures etc) were to be italicised. But of course I would change the preposition: does anyone claim that any linguistic convention is being followed by saying (track) is released from (band) ? Kevin McE (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By is probably the more appropriate. An album might be from (maybe, at least Billboard thinks so), but I doubt a song could be released from someone. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so: is the latest release from (which could apply equally to a single) is a very different grammatical construction than was released by Kevin McE (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, true. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Churnalism. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And one you might want to read: meta:What is a troll?. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I call. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no real evidence of causality between the theft of some kit and the decision to join the army. His parents had power to veto his signing up, so there was, we assume, some deeper level of conversation than "I don't like it at school: the big boys took my stuff". The nearest we have to a causal link is "It was probably the football uniform, his father decided, that started Kenny on the way" [13]: starting on the way is not a firm cause, or a claim to such. Kevin McE (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass has addressed it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His edit is an improvement on what was there before my edit, but I think still overstates the situation. "Starting someone on his way to doing something" is not the same as "doing something because of..." Kevin McE (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about: "... that Kenneth R. Shadrick, the first U.S. foot soldier reported killed in the Korean War, joined the Army after his football uniform was stolen?". The inclusion of the football shirt theft implies a link but the hook is strictly factual. Yomangani^talk 12:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is hooky about that? The current hook is a simple statement of fact - that it was thought [by his Dad] that a stolen football uniform led to his son joining the Army and getting killed. The hook is accurate, factual and hooky, and that is all that is required. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to: "... that after Kenneth R. Shadrick became the first U.S. foot soldier reported killed in the Korean War, his father traced the tragedy back to a stolen football uniform?" I don't think there can be much argument about that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Yomangani's proposal, but this one is OK by me. Kevin McE (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But looking at that again, it seems less than even handed to have mentioned an award given for killing 250 Koreans a couple of days ago, and then describing this unfortunate young man's death as a tragedy. Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• House has made his diagnosis; it's not just the new nominations format or the new reviews that are causing the patient to be sick, it's a combination of both. DYK has seen a lot of treatment recently, and the life-support is wearing thin. Question: Can DYK stand on its own yet, or do we require further intervention?

Translation: We've discussed what's wrong with DYK up the wazoo, and it is showing signs of improvement. We have a somewhat decent amount of reviewed hooks under the newer nominations section, but the total number of nominations is down. A goodly number of DYK regulars are MIA, including some admins. Is DYK stable enough running as it is, or should we do something more drastic, like reducing queue rotation? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat a comment I made above where it may have been missed: the new procedures, new requirements, and new template are going to prevent me, and many other editors, from submitting DYK nominations at all. I came here yesterday to submit a nomination, but I was completely baffled by the new template for reviewing someone else's nomination - which the rules require me to do. There are no instructions, I couldn't tell what I was supposed to do, and after 15 or 20 minutes trying to figure out what was required of me I said "the hell with it, I just won't submit my nomination." I suspect there are many like me, occasional DYK submitters, who are turned off by the complexity and incomprehensibility of the review template and the added burden of doing a full review of all the sources in the article. If you want to continue to get DYK nominations from regular editors like me, as opposed to DYK specialists, you need to either relax the requirement to review another submission, or else return to a simpler process. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask another editor to nominate for you. I've seen it done a few times since the new review template started to be used; people who usually collaborate instead have one as maker and one as nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but it seems like that would add still another burden to those few of you that are comfortable with the new system. It's really not important to me; when I create an article it's because I want to create the article, not because I want to chalk up another DYK. If I ever have one that I REALLY think needs to go to DYK I'll let someone know - if there still is a DYK feature. Good luck to those of you trying to maintain it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A low number of approved hooks and of reviewers is nothing unusual; this has happened many times in the history of DYK, and DYK has kept plugging away. We certainly don't need to hastily implement more drastic changes and we don't need people from the FA crowd to come "rescue" like they seem to think they are. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but it is rather frightening when one can scroll halfway down the page and not find a single unreviewed article, only "promoted by", "rejected by", and problem articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that bugs me about the current arrangement is having to scroll through all those "promoteds" and "rejecteds" in order to find nominations that are either ready for promotion or needing to be reviewed. In the old days (for example, a month ago), the page wasn't cluttered with the skeletal remains of old noms. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could edit the template so that those don't show up. I don't remember off the top of my head why they are there; they weren't there in early versions of this system, but eventually something prompted me to add them. I think it was in response to some issue, but I don't really remember what. If anyone can brainstorm pros and cons of having these links to completed noms, it would be nice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to do? It's hard to keep track of how serious the situation is with all the passed and failed reviews still on the page. DYK bot seems confused too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed it. Noms posted after now won't have this behavior any more. Unfortunately, current noms will still show up like this (since the templates are all subst'ed) unless someone wants to go through with AWB or something and remove it from all of them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My article is still sitting there unreviewed - not sure if it's because I did something wrong or what.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mine too. I'm going to try and find yours and review it, since I should try this new review system. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole process seems to be ridiculously bureaucratic and rule-bound now – as well as baffling – and I too really can't be bothered with it any more. A shame, it used to be a nice place and fun. The arrival of the jobsworth literal police was a harbinger of this kind of nonsense, I guess, the ones who frowned on hooks such as "... that A. Forward was a forward". Ericoides (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That comment sounds like it's directed at me. For what it's worth, I and several other editors have been pushing for hooks to be "hooky" for at least two and a half years; this is not a new development. I'm fine with people complaining about the recent changes that have been made to the review system—I've had complaints too—but if that's what we're doing, let's try to focus on the ones that actually are recent. A lot of people seem to be wanting to use the "oh, there are so many recent changes" meme to vent complaints about entirely separate issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite mistaken in thinking the comment was directed at you. In fact, you altogether misunderstood the thrust of what I was saying. We sail towards the same object; I too am for hooks being hooky (hence my phrase "the jobsworth literal police" for those who felt it necessary to specify exactly in which sport A. Forward was a forward – the humourless and mechanical application of some obscure ruling at the expense of the hook). Ericoides (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake then; I misunderstood your comment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to echo what MelanieN says above, after making two recent noms, and reviewing two articles and looking at all the changes, I doubt I'll be making any further nominations. Too convoluted, too complicated. Frankly, all of these templates and changes and subpages have created a situation where the solution is actually worse than the problem it is intended to fix. I have great respect for most of the editors attempting to improve the process, but there is a long way to go yet. Resolute 01:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Concerning reducing queue rotation: It might last another week at this rate, but I expect enthusiasm for elaborate reviewing to peter out after the excitement is over. We can always adjust the queue rate then, if there's anyone left who feels like adjusting it. Art LaPella (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hopefully. I have tried to keep the queues from faltering, but it's rather hard to fill a queue with no noms. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One bizarre contributing factor in the current dearth of hook nominations has been the continuing dysfunction of User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult‎, which is normally a source for potential DYK candidates. That bot service was completely unavailable for a time. Now that it has been restored through the good offices of User:Tedder, it doesn't yield the same quality of results it used to provide. Recent results included very, very few articles even remotely suitable for DYK. I've discerned that the bot wasn't scoring new articles for size, which meant that it wasn't providing nearly as many results as it used to -- and the vast majority of the results were actually too short for DYK. Tedder confirmed that it wasn't implementing the size parameter; that issue may have been fixed, but there may be other issues waiting to be identified by tech-savvy folks in our midst. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we come back to discussing the archiving procedure? I agree with Orlady that it's creating a lot of clutter, and unnecessary red tape. Why do we even need archive pages for individual days anyhow? We already have the archives for the individual noms, surely that is enough? I have gone to the nom page three days in a row now with the intention of doing some reviews, and just given up in disgust at the mess on the page. I only managed to do a few reviews tonight because I went down to the bottom of the page to review some "clean" noms, but if I'm finding this new system discouraging, it must be a nightmare for less experienced reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. (I think we are at August 2nd now; I've been hammering away at them for a while). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The main reason I made archive pages for individual days was become "some people" (User:SandyGeorgia) were insisting on it. I did explain to her (here) that I don't see any usefulness of daily archives. If no one other than her likes this daily archiving thing, I'd be happy to go back to what it was before. (If desired, days could still be archived after they go empty--at that point it wouldn't make a difference to nominators and reviewers anyway--but while they are going on, they would be sections of T:TDYK like before, rather than their own subpages like they are now). rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add Whorlton Castle (approved at Template talk:Did you know/Whorlton Castle), which I wrote, to a queue this weekend? I intend to do some more work related to it but I would like to get the DYK out of the way first. Prioryman (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, it's appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q5: When we talk about a public building, especially one that is named according to its function, we generally assume that we are talking about the function of the building unless otherwise specified. That being the case, the phrase "the Hartington City Hall and Auditorium is a Prairie School design" seems at best counterintuitive: the auditorium is not its architectural design. Suggest ...that the Hartington City Hall and Auditorium was built to a Prairie School design when that style was in decline... Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q5: Waxworks: one word. There is nothing in the emboldened article to suggest any persuasion/convincing on Philidor's part, although it is hinted in the Tussaud article. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q6: "Spans" seems an odd choice of verb, especially as the road does not actually reach the third city in question: suggest "links" Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q6: It would appear that no building work has started: suggest that Kingdom Tower is to be built by.... Building projects do not always go to plan: and is planned to be the world's tallest building. Also suggest that we should give some location information, per rule C2. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q6: Typo: is noted for having very similar Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased all (hopefully). Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone change the hook for HMS Phoenix (N96) to

... that HMS Phoenix (N96) (pictured) fired upon multiple ships in World War II before she was sunk, but didn't hit any of them?

relevant discussion can be found at User talk:Crisco 1492#DYK Review. I also left a note at User talk:Reaper Eternal so it may be dealt with. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason people are signing without the time when promoting or rejecting a nom? Tony (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People are not signing when promoting or rejecting a nom. The signature is automatically added by {{DYK top}} ([14]) as part of the promoting process. The template can be changed to make a full signature (including a timestamp), although I don't know if it makes a big difference either way. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to make this slight change? It would improve the tracking of the history of noms in the process, and would improve accountability, especially where an article is found to be wanting in a prep room or queue. Tony (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Right to Vanish, yet another DYK regular is gone. --Allen3 ^talk 17:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Five edits to T:TDYK and none to WT:DYK in the last 11 months is hardly a recent "DYK regular". Xe appears to have been a prolific editor and article creator, but given that xyr DYK contributions largely stopped almost a year ago, it seems inappropriate to link this RtV to the recent changes here. cmadler (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is confused: I just changed something to new nominations subpages will be at Template:Did you know nominations/some article (list) rather than Template talk:Did you know/some article (list). This is mainly in response to complaints about the nom subpages having no associated talk page (since they already are talk pages), particularly with people who want to leave comments somewhere after the the nomination is completed and boxed out (see, e.g., this discussion, and edits like these).

I don't think it will be necessary to move old noms (as far as I can think of, the only thing that needs to know the name of the nomination page is {{DYK talk}} and the other credit templates, but I just edited those so they will work with both). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the rationale for making them go at Template:Did you know nominations/... rather than just Template:Did you know/... was so that it would be easy to separate them out from maintenance-related pages (e.g. Template:Did you know/Queue, etc.). I used Template:Did you know nominations/... rather than Template:Did you know/Nominations/... because that's the only way I'm aware of to make a group edit notice that will show up on all nom subpages (showing, e.g., the ticks and stuff) and not show up on pages where they're not needed such as the queues and the main template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions need to be updated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any places that are out of date? I tried to update them when I made the change (although just now I found one spot that I had missed, and updated it), but if you notice anything else feel free to change it or to point me to it. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving may need to have the instructions changed a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a quick question about a review I did for a DYK (and many thanks for the work you do on this). It was Template talk:Did you know/Wacław Gluth-Nowowiejski, which you promoted. I think I might have used the wrong symbol there, as I thought a couple of things needed discussing or changing first, but as they were minor I assumed the promotor would have looked and made the changes themselves? I'm referring mainly to the hook comments I made (the wording is not so critical, but the overlinking I pointed out was later fixed here and I made another change here. Looking closer, I see you had delinked World War II, so maybe you did see the comments and silently made some changes and not others? If so, did you consider the alternative hook wording I had suggested, and was there a better place for me to suggest that? What I also want to know is whether I should have used a different symbol, or asked the nominator directly for input about some of that? Possibly the changes made to the hook as it progressed to the queue is a feature of the system, but maybe it would be better if the hook was settled at the time of promotion? I'm going to ask Tony1 (who removed the other example of overlinking) and Volunteer Marek (the article nominator) to comment here (as the nomination subpage is now closed), as they might have some thoughts on the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page. Would a shorter hook be better? I left the longer hook as we are at 6 hooks per set right now, and OTD keeps using long hooks (and thus us being too short would be an eyesore). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually saw Carcharoth's comments and wanted to respond to them but the nom page looked "closed" (in fact I think it said something like "discussion is closed") so I went to sleep instead then didn't think about it today. One thing I would change - and thanks to Carcharoth for pointing this out - is that it should be "short comic" rather than "comic book" (basically it was one comic among others in a comic book anthology/magazine kind of thingy). I can't make the change in the que either as I'm not an admin. But yeah, basically I was left wondering myself as what the proper way to address these was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding copied from my talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Having said that, I think "short comic in a comic book" vs. "comic book" isn't THAT crucial so... not sure if this is a big deal).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I changed it here. It's not critical, as you say, but I didn't want to make the hook any longer as it might then unbalance things on the main page. This was mainly my fault for not using the right symbol. I should have put a "hold" or "discuss" symbol on the hook bit at the review. Would have held it up for a day or two, but would have avoided the messier "tweak things in prep and then queue" method. Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjak of Dukagjin in prep 1 isn't homepage ready, but needs a good copyedit by a native English speaker first. Schwede66 16:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it very difficult to verify the hook in the article. The impression given by the hook is that a record was set in 1967, which was surpassed in '68, which was surpassed again in '69 etc up to 1971. The greatest figure for one day referred to is 38,000 on 14 July 1968, which was not during the carnival. By 1970 and '71, the aggregate attendance over the course of a week was 45,000. This claim needs either explanation or rephrasing. Kevin McE (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignored here for c 28 hours: it got picked up and changed on WP:ERRORS about 8 minutes before it was rotated off. Quality control is sorely lacking. Kevin McE (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]