Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 324: Line 324:
*:Well precisely. We have a week or so of good prep, and it's all fireworks and bunting, yet in a week or so it'll be "can anyone build a set of hooks so we can update the main page which is six hours late already already?" etc etc. Just be grateful for what we have. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
*:Well precisely. We have a week or so of good prep, and it's all fireworks and bunting, yet in a week or so it'll be "can anyone build a set of hooks so we can update the main page which is six hours late already already?" etc etc. Just be grateful for what we have. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
*As mentioned above by {{u|Johnbod}}, when we hit the holidays there are long stretches when there are only one or two people reviewing, building and promoting. Beginning with the (USA) Thanksgiving holiday, which is next week. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
*As mentioned above by {{u|Johnbod}}, when we hit the holidays there are long stretches when there are only one or two people reviewing, building and promoting. Beginning with the (USA) Thanksgiving holiday, which is next week. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
*:Actually, I mentioned it the day before Johnbod, but hey, who's counting? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


== AGF for a primary-source video? ==
== AGF for a primary-source video? ==

Revision as of 22:53, 16 November 2015

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesTM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut



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

The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon?

The Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following: wording has been part of the DYK nominations page since October 2011, after the test of a required review template that had reviewers checking off all such aspects was abandoned. The new wording didn't say "then indicate that you have reviewed all aspects of the article"; it's clear, given the actual wording coupled with the example that they expected the review be written out. And that expectation has been a part of DYK ever since.

DYK reviewing procedures aren't only in a single review document. Aspects can be found in many places—indeed, there have been many abortive attempts to get everything in one place, but until one succeeds and is approved, the various locations are all relevant: WP:DYKR, WP:DYK, T:TDYK, WP:DYKSG, the DYK nomination template editing window, and probably other locations I'm not remembering at the moment.

The rules do change over time, as consensus for such change is agreed to here on WT:DYK and in various RfCs that have been conducted. But there hasn't been any agreement here to change the practice of several years that reviews should specifically mention which aspects were checked, and many reviewers are careful to make sure that the reviews do mention each criterion checked and how the article/hook measure up to it.

The obvious question is whether the DYK community wishes to continue enforcing full reviews—whether volunteer or QPQ—or wishes to let the requirement lapse or be modified in some way. The usual way to do this is through discussion and consensus; of course, if any reviewer is allowed to continue refusing to follow the requirement and approve review after review, it will become quite difficult if not impossible to ask others to do what he will not, and the requirement withers. I frankly hope it doesn't wither, because the written out review is helpful to promoter and nominator alike, and it has over time improved the breadth of reviewing and the new reviewers to understand what they need to do as part of a QPQ or other review. But if it does become obsolete, it should be because the many DYK participants have decided it is no longer needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain

  • Retain and enforce - For all the reasons discussed on this talk page for years, and for all the hooks pulled, for the most recent (but not only) discussion on Signpost of sloppy work on DYK, and for the outright feuds that have erupted over the sloppy quality of reviews. — Maile (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that the nomination template already has a Reviewers' template in the upper right hand corner. It's a simple check list that makes it easy and convenient to check off the review. It's not difficult to use. — Maile (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain As a long time contributor, I can say it takse little effort at all to actually indicate the aspects that have been reviewed. And its been a requirement for several years at least that the aspects are stated. Lava, its not going to kill you to follow the requirements.--Kevmin § 13:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain and enforce per User:Maile66. As I mentioned in a different thread, for editors who regularly review articles, this requirement could be seen as a bureaucratic hassle, but allowing them to just write "meets all criteria" is an open invitation to new/inexperienced editors to do the same. We have to enforce accountability at the ground level. As a side note, because of the long time it takes to build a prep – due to the need to re-review all the hooks, often finding problems, and returning newly un-approved hooks back to the nominator's court – I don't even bother looking at the ones that say "GTG" or "Fine with me". Yoninah (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah; today - Template:Did you know nominations/Baker Run, Windfall Run - you (1) unilaterally exempted another editor from the newness requirement, and, (2) did it through a conversation on outside the nom template. I considered heeding your call for "accountability at the ground level" [sic] and failing this otherwise excellent nom by Jakec, however, I'm not going to do that as I remain consistent and confirmed in my belief we should be enforcing quality rather than process. If you're going to demand other editors follow the letter of the law, it might behoove you to do the same. LavaBaron (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - while, as Jackob points out below, there are a lot guidelines and criteria and unwritten rules and so forth to DYK, I've never seen these enforced as part of the rule to include all review criteria. I only check against, and include, the list of rules that appear at the top of every review template. All the rules are based off those basic rules. Sure, I forget to write out a criterion or two that I checked the review against, but, if someone challenges the review, it doesn't take long to explain that you simply forgot to mention in the review that you had checked the article against all criteria.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain and enforce. As I noted above, I think it's important to DYK to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. I have long argued that we need better standards of accountability at DYK. This page demonstrates why I think so, but I want to emphasize that the hooks listed there are only the tip of the iceberg. In almost every hook set I review, I find misstated and erroneous hooks, hooks with obvious grammatical errors, hooks that barely make sense, hooks not worth reading, and on it goes. For every hook I pull from prep, there are probably a dozen others that need copyediting or amendment of one sort or another - and I only review a minority of hook sets. Sloppy reviewing is a perennial problem at DYK and we need to be doing everything we reasonably can to discourage it. If anything, we should be looking to enhance our review procedures, not degrading them still further. Gatoclass (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you 100%. And going hand in hand with that is at the very bottom of DYK Prep areas N14: It is the promoter's responsibility to make sure all review issues have been resolved, that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. The promoter acts as a secondary verification that the nomination was reviewed properly. — Maile (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain and enforce. As a fairly new DYK reviewer and nominator, I find the requirement immensely helpful in reminding me to both be thorough in my review (and I hope no one intends that DYK reviews should be less thorough) and include all the relevant areas. On one of my recent reviews I almost forgot to double-check the status of the image included, but the checklist's requirement that each part of the review be detailed in the writeup saved me. I can't imagine any consequence of removing the requirement other than the quality of reviews declining (particularly as newcomers to the page might think all there was to it was writing "good to go!" without actually doing a review) and even more hooks being pulled from prep. Sure, some people might write that they did a full review without having done so, but that fact doesn't mean the current requirement should be rescinded. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think a rule like this would be much easier to maintain if we actually had one or more review templates, the way that GARs do. We've experimented with them, yes, but never developed them enough to introduce them to general reviewers via a stable page with wikilinks to it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple out there, but there are few adherents. It might be nice to have those templates—any idea who might put them together?—though like at GAN, some people prefer to write out their review than tick a bunch of boxes. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create and enforce.
    • The nay votes are completely correct that the current phrasing is revisionist and POV. A full checklist has never been an actual part of the review process, just something occasionally demanded by the admins when it looks like someone has been completely halfassed. "{{DYKtick}} GtoG. -Capt½Ass" The review that started this off—this one by Lavabaron—is a good example of what has been perfectly acceptable in the past: he at least mentioned going through the the checklist.
    • Further, the current review templates are terrible.
    • Further, rule creep has been growing cancerously in DYK and needs to start being cut out.
    • Further, the improvement here is minimal. The halfasses who halfassed their checkmark will now simply halfass seven checkmarks and diligent reviewers will still need to doublecheck reviews.
  • Now, all of that said,
    • this is something people should already be doing.
    • It doesn't take any more time if the editors were already actually reviewing the article properly.
    • Having an even more formal checklist than the one we already have at the top of the template will help avoid obnoxious rule creep by editors such as Maile. The checklist will be the checklist and that will be the end of it. Petty demands for more hoop-jumping will require such editors to gather support for a change to the checklist itself (a higher bar) and make such changes obvious and explicit to new editors.
    • It will hopefully spur some helpful editors to streamline the review process. Using earwig shouldn't be an optional thing available in the sidebar: a link from it should simply be the thing that shows you actually did check for copyvio.
  •  — LlywelynII 23:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rescind

  • Retain and enforce current wording of reviewing guide which does not require checkbox reviews Nothing is being "rescinded" where nothing has previously been enforced and where conflicting guidance is offered in multiple, equally valid, places. I object to the very wording of the proposal as POV-pushing. There's no evidence the community has ever been "enforcing full reviews." Also, this long proposal contains substantial editorial expository, opinion statements and historical revisionism, and is not a neutrally-worded proposal. A neutrally-worded proposal specific to amending the Reviewing Guide has been advanced below. LavaBaron (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abandon, but make it abundantly clear to all reviewers that they must check the criteria. It is overly bureaucratic, and therein lies the problem. Nobody wants to type out a thousand-word essay explaining how the article meets every single one of the 100+ rules and criteria and sub-rules and policies and guidelines and unwritten rules and secret rules and whatever. What matters is the quality of the review itself, not how many words the review types on the nomination form. It would be easy for system gamers (and there would be a lot of those if we started enforcing the rule) to just slap up a thousand-word essay without actually reading the article. This rule doesn't stop people from making shoddy reviews, or from missing things. Here's another reason it's rather pointless: the prep builders don't just take it on faith; they basically do a full review all over again (but funnily enough, they just have to say "promoted" or "rejected"). So yes, there's no point. Just check all the DYK criteria and say that you've done so, and all is fine. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'm not sure retaining or abandoning it is the right question. I'm very much disturbed by Yoninah's comments which imply to me that DYK's need re-reviewing when being moved to prep. That sounds like a serious problem, and more to the point it sounds like a critical problem because they are not talking about the short form reviews but all reviews in general. Increasing the form of the review won't help with this issue. I think we should be discussing how to address bad reviews... ones that actually miss DYK criteria. Because then we can hopefully be more sure that whatever the review looks like it is of good quality. --Errant (chat!) 14:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Errant, back when I was taking my first steps in assembling prep sets, my mentors noted that assembling did not just involve balancing a set, it was also the point at which a new pair of eyes should recheck to be sure the article met the DYK criteria, since any single reviewer can miss things: hooks might not read well, the hook fact might not be in the article or the given source, a BLP issue might have been overlooked, and so on. Building prep sets take time, at least how I was taught: you should scan each article, spot check a few sources to see if facts line up and close paraphrasing isn't an issue, and see whether any issues leap out at you. Having a review that mentions those aspects that were checked is helpful in this regard: you know what the reviewer has looked at ... and if there's an omission or lack of clarity, you know to check that aspect more deeply. The prep assembly step and the prep-to-queue promotion are the only two places where that sort of quality control can be inserted into the DYK process, and very few admins will do it at the latter step (Gatoclass is the only one I've noticed lately removing hooks at that stage), so prep assembly is currently the most likely place to catch errors. I rarely assembled a set without sending at least one approved nomination back for repairs. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I object to the construction of the proposal. First, I'm extremely concerned this proposal has not been made in good faith and has been advanced as part of a long-term editor dispute. This discussion should be closed until one that is (1) neutrally worded sans editorial commentary by the proposer, and, (2) contains a concise and actionable proposal, is advanced. Second, and most importantly, the proposal has, in addition to its inherent POV problems, been abusively constructed so as to require a consensus to maintain the status quo; as noted elsewhere the reviewing guide only requires a written review must begin with "one of the five DYK review icons" and contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." The way in which this proposal is constructed will green-light an amendment to the reviewing guide if a consensus fails. LavaBaron (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think BlueMoonset intended this as a poll; it looked to me as if he was merely initiating a discussion, but when you !voted on it, others followed suit. I think it's going to be disruptive to start again at this point; however, if you are really concerned, you could perhaps collaborate with another user on the other side of the fence - Maile perhaps - to organize a new statement and deprecate the old one. I'm not going to have time to do this myself. I will add however that any new statement should not present your proposed amendment to the status quo as the status quo position, as I outlined in the discussion with you below. Gatoclass (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal actually presented Maile's proposed amendment to the status quo position. The status quo being the wording that is present in the reviewing guide. To demand that the form the RFC take is in the offer of an amendment to the "unwritten custom" is an utterly impossible standard. Unwritten custom can't be amended because it's (a) unwritten, and, (b) customary. I'm at a complete loss as to why this is so difficult to understand. I'm also really concerned you had the time to close my RFC with a long expository about its problems with "subliminal" POV but, minutes later, find yourself too busy to address this one with its overt editorializing. LavaBaron (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron, please stop claiming that this is all about "unwritten custom". As has been pointed out to you below, the requirement to explicitly reference all aspects of a review is right there in the instructions at the top of the nominations page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gatoclass as has been pointed out to you, the requirement that a review only contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have" is in the Reviewing Guide. I appreciate there is conflicting language, please proactively see this as a redundancy that needs to be remedied by evaluation of each of two equally-valid positions instead of presuming the Reviewing Guide is simply erroneous because of "accepted practice" (your exact words, AKA "unwritten custom"). LavaBaron (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't proposed anything. Nor do I care to.— Maile (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to Gatoclass, I am singularly and personally disallowed at proposing RFCs at DYK unless you or your compatriot participates. And, conveniently, you both say you won't. What an utterly bizarre interpretation of RFC guidelines - RFCs can't be proposed unless all sides agree to have a RFC. WP will grind to an absolute halt once that's applied system-wide. LavaBaron (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NM - it appears Gator shut-down my neutrally-worded RFC as a precursor to lodging his own !vote ... even though he supposedly didn't have time to address any underlying issues. What a joke. Elections in Haiti in the 1970s were more even-handed than this. LavaBaron (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shut down the RFC because I believed it was malformed, and not to do so would simply waste everyone's time. There was nothing to stop you opening a new RFC with more appropriate wording, made in collaboration with others. As it happened though, this discussion then became the default RFC. I agree the opening statement of this one is not appropriate either, but rather than shut down a second RFC, suggested you work with others to rectify that. I'm fairly sure that those who have already !voted retain at this point are not going to change their minds regardless of the wording. Gatoclass (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet your most recent comment [1] was that it "was not technically malformed." I think you need to maybe take a beat. LavaBaron (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your misstatements of my comments are getting rather tiresome. There is no contradiction there. I said I believed the RFC was malformed at the time I closed it, but later conceded that perhaps it was not. Regardless, the RFC statement was still in my view not neutral, which renders it equally invalid. Gatoclass (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you made a mistake in your rationale for closing. We seem to only disagree on the number of mistakes. LavaBaron (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Abort RFC

  • Support - As per Gatorclass, this was not intended to be a RFC and "the opening statement of this one is not appropriate." LavaBaron (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The more you post, the more it becomes clear you don't have a good grasp of Wikipedia structure as a whole, and DYK in particular. The one you made is an RFC, because you labeled it so - that's your doing - you're the one who stuck an RFC template on it so it would be posted to Wikipedia editors at large. This doesn't claim to be an RFC, and never did. It's a talk page consensus, which is how things get done here. You can't shut down editors voicing their opinion on a talk page, any talk page. This is not a dictatorship where one editor gets to rule, or one editor who doesn't like to bother with the process can get it all tossed out for them personally. And administrators don't hand down rulings like a Supreme Court. At the end of the day, everything at Wikipedia gets done by talk page, of one place or another, and no lone person has a right to shut that down. And what you tagged as an RFC, that also takes consensus, either direction.— Maile (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What can we do to empower you to post with WP:CIVILity and not launch scathing personal diatribes against other editors, as here? Believe it or not, an actual human being is behind this account with real human feelings, and I'd prefer not to be called a dictator. Not sure how calling other editors dictators contributes to building an encyclopedia, quite frankly. LavaBaron (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And there you go again, misquoting. I didn't call you a dictator. I didn't call anyone a dictator. I said DYK is not a dictatorship. I'm sure you realize that all the time you've spent posting on this page, you could have done a lot of reviews and actually listed what you checked in the review. I don't know what your agenda is, and I don't care, but the process is the process. — Maile (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My "agenda" is to build an encyclopedia. I'm starting to wonder about yours. LavaBaron (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you can explain to us all why it is so difficult for you to just follow the instructions on the nominations page section "How to review a nomination" that quite clearly states:
  • To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

    Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

Not only have you resisted and talked around doing that, but you keep posting hither and yon that the instructions don't say what should be listed. It looks pretty clear. Please tell us why you find it so difficult to follow those simple instructions. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide lists everything. How can you keep insisting the instructions don't say what you're supposed to check? — Maile (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it is a very poor choice of wording to say on a review template: "I'm editing with another editor holding a gun to my head." And whatever topic ban you're referring to in the sentence before that, I've seen nothing like that on this DYK talk page. It has no place on a nomination template. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per the Reviewing Guide you cited, the only requirements in a written review is to place an icon and "be sure to give a thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." I always stamp an icon and I always give a thorough explanation of problems or concerns. I really do believe you still think the Reviewing Guide says something else. You should really take a moment to read it carefully, slowly, and deliberately. Wikipedia is not a race. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Conclude?

It's been a few weeks now, and the discussion and !voting seems to have come to a natural end. Have we come to a consensus? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How much of the "5-day rule" can we waive for new editors (particularly students)?

The 5-day rule is a problem for the new editors who are not familiar with DYK. Let me give you two examples. First, I customarily review the new article feed (for Poland, User:AlexNewArtBot/PolandSearchResult) each Monday-ish, and I invite new promising editors to nominate their content here (through the User:Piotrus/TDYK template). But not accounting for common delays (hey, it's Tuesday and I haven't started yet), this means that anyone starting an article on late Monday/Tuesday/Wed is screwed by the timing, since my review and info about the DYKs will probably reach them too late. Further, many new editors will not log in to Wikipedia on a daily basis, I got a number of replies about whether they can nominate articles that happened one or two weeks after I left them the suggestion. Second, as a teacher, I encourage my students to nominate their articles. I try to have them develop their work in the Sandbox, but not everyone listens to me (sigh, students...). One of my most promising students this semester develops her articles in the mainspace, and it takes her more than a day to do so - usually a two or three weeks, and by the time she reports them to me, I review them and guide her through T:TDYK we are looking at article that is probably a month overdue (ex. Template:Did you know nominations/Seoul International Fireworks Festival). In the past I've had reviewers who were more lenient towards student/new editors, but I think it's high time we developed a more clear rule about how lenient we can be. I'd suggest in the spirit of (gosh) WP:IAR we consider DYKs to be a motivational tools for newbies through which they can see their content promoted, and thus hopefully get encouraged to produce more content. We already have an exception in the quid-pro-quo review requirement for new submitters, I therefore suggest we also make an exception for their first two or three submissions, allowing them to submit work that has been expanded/created not just five days, but five weeks ago. This should be sufficient time for editors who receive a talk page invitation to DYK from new article feed, or for students, to go through the process (again, let's remember that many of those people don't log in to Wikipedia on a daily basis, like we do, but more likely, on a weekly one). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given how long it takes us to process nominations, I for one am willing to waive it for new editors, given the purpose of DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I based my review (yes, the rule has been 7 days rather than 5 for a while now) on the recent Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Cotton Road nomination, which had a new DYK nominator (though not a school-based one) and a 21 day delay. It was rejected after some discussion. This was 22 days, so it seemed to me that the same reasoning should apply. Pending a consensus here, I'll put my decision on hold, so this nomination isn't rejected in the interim. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a slight COI here, as I have a current nomination that's listed as having been made eight days after the article moved to mainspace (but that's because it was formerly part of a double nomination that was made days earlier and then split). My opinion is that, since the goal is to encourage as many valid DYK nominations as possible rather than to prevent as many nominations as possible from succeeding, relaxing the current seven-day window, at least for editors new to DYK, is a good idea. I wouldn't have been so bold as to suggest extending the window to five weeks, but I recognize that Piotrus makes a good case for doing do. I know there are a couple other articles I'd created within that window that I would have nominated for DYK once I learned about doing so, had I thought they were recently-created enough. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally sympathetic to this, but there is also the tactic of nominating an article before it is finished, or even meets the criteria (other than length), and then continuing to work on it. In practice most aren't looked at for a few days, & reviewers generally won't complain about this. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, that tactic is fine for editors who are already aware of DYK and how it works; I believe the intent of the proposal to relax the 7-day window rule for newer nominators is to let people still nominate otherwise-eligible articles even if they didn't realize they had to do so within a fairly short time after such articles were first created / had their expansion begun / moved to mainspace. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 12:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • None Support rigid enforcement of 7-day rule. We currently have an issue with different editors applying different interpretations of fairly clear guidelines and rules, frequently invoking cryptic precedents from a mythic past to override various DYK guidelines. The result is the emergence of a self-recognized class of Archons who have declared themselves keepers of the arcana of DYK (y'all know who you are). This situation is utterly bizarre and entirely inefficient. Let's mean what we say and say what we mean. LavaBaron (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is already there: There already is a bit of a grace period, if the backlog isn't severe. Plus, there's always some discrepancies with time zones which often grants several hours of grace period. I'm sympathetic to Piotrus's concerns, however. Perhaps if the students then reviewed each others nominations after creating nominations?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have routinely allowed up to about a month's leeway on the time limit for new contributors who overlooked that requirement. I've never allowed a user the same leeway twice, as they shouldn't need to be informed a second time. And I am, at the very least, struggling to see why we should make allowance for more than one very late article for a new contributor. Gatoclass (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ltdr except for Gatoclass above). As long as we don't think we are being gamed then I agree with Gato. Be nice to newbies and bend the rules to help Victuallers (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's really wrong with 7 days? Mhhossein (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's too short of a period for new editors to operate within. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Gatoclass and Victuallers. Strict enforcement of rules is bad enough for arbitration, we can help newbies by looking at DYK rules as guidelines. When a nomination has no other problem than being not new enough, I would welcome it. If there are severe other problems, rejecting it by "not new enough" is a way that saves the time of the reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd like to see the 7-day requirement made a 30-day requirement, but the RFC I initiated on that point failed to gain consensus. I completely agree that if it's a new or newish editor, there should be more of a grace period around their articles. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: What would people think about making the rule 30 days for brand-new nominators, but for a maximum of five articles, after which the standard seven-day rule would apply? More specifically, once an editor knows about DYK and has nominated articles they created (or 5x expanded or promoted to GA) within the past 30 days, any articles they begin working on subsequent to those nominations would fall under the 7-day rule. Also, there would be an arbitrary time limit of, say, 48 or 72 hours from when they make their first overdue nomination to make any other overdue nominations that fall within the 30-day window.

  • Example 1: Editor 1 creates one article on October 10 and another on October 20, taking ten days to get each one to the point that they're happy with it, and working in mainspace rather than draft space because they don't know that will affect their DYK eligibility. On October 25 they find out about DYK and nominate both articles. (Under the standard rule, only the second article would have been eligible, and only if editor 1 had worked in draftspace until they thought the article was ready.) This is still new content, and still the kind of editor we should be encouraging, I think. However, now that our hypothetical editor 1 has made their first two nominations, they know that seven days is the standard limit for time between article creation (or expansion or GA promotion) and nomination, so it's reasonable to expect them to follow that rule with future articles they create.
  • Example 2: Editor 2 creates an article every three days starting October 10. On October 30 they find out about DYK and nominate all 6 of the articles they've created. The first five get a pass on the 7-day rule, because editor 3 didn't know about DYK at the time they were created. The 6th is okay, too, because it's nominated 2 days after it was created.
  • Example 3: Editor 3 creates 3 articles on October 10, another 3 articles on October 11, and a further 3 articles on October 12, and then takes a two-week break from Wikipedia. When they get back, they notice the DYK section on the main page and discover how to nominate their own articles. Under my proposal, editor 3 would have to choose just 5 of the articles they had created to nominate — they couldn't get the 30-day extension for all nine articles.
  • Example 4: Editor 4 creates one article on October 10 and another article on October 15. On October 25 they find out about DYK and nominate the second article. Four days later they decide they want to also nominate the first article after all... but it's too late; they knew about the seven-day rule and didn't nominate the article when they had the chance.

If indeed some new users have been granted approximately a month's leeway with their first nominations in the past, then, if we're going to continue granting such leeway, it seems that it would be fairer (and less confusing) to have a formal rule about that practice, rather than it being just a discretion call on the part of whoever happens to look at a particular nomination.

Pinging @Piotrus, Hawkeye7, Andrew Davidson, BlueMoonset, Johnbod, and LavaBaron: @3family6, Gatoclass, Victuallers, Mhhossein, Gerda Arendt, and ONUnicorn: since you had all contributed to this discussion previously and may not be watching this page. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 06:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You go for arbcom candidate the right way, it's the place where simple things are made complicated ;) - Why not leave the rules as they are and be lenient as I described. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in theory. The proposal needs a little streamlining, but I fundamentally like the idea a first-timer gets a relaxed version of the requirements, not unlike their waiver from QPQ. LavaBaron (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't we have enough rules already? I think I'd prefer it if we just kept it mostly informal. Perhaps a word or two to say that the requirement can be waived for new users who have yet to participate in DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I'd keep it simple: first five articles to be eligible for 30 days, then regular rules apply. Isn't the first five also excluded from QPQ reviews? Let's keep it synchronized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If it ain't broke don't fix it. We have flexibility under present rules. We can do it, but we don't need a rule. However, waiver should be a relatively rare occurrence, depending on equities and exigent circumstance.
If it is a new article which had to be reviewed before going live, then the editor has an unlimited time to fine tune it. Just as one can do in their Sandbox. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Allowing five sounds complicated. It could be hard for the editors themselves, to keep track, as some DYK's might be rejected or delayed or overlap. Would five allow just applications, or accepted DYKs? If the editor has two pending DYKs that would use up their 5th allowed, do they get to choose which one gets the DYK. Maybe there could be a tracking page. Etc.... Perhaps allowance of one time (as Gatoclass has allowed) could be put into a rule, but not any other number. --doncram 14:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC) (I am not currently a DYK participant, so feel free to discount my comment)[reply]
  • Comment: The previous discussion to change the 7-day limit to a 30-day limit fizzled out. Wouldn't it just be simpler (and better) to have a 30-day limit on all DYK noms? It's not as if we're drowning in good hooks, is it? Better too many quality hooks than not enough. Edwardx (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: K.I.S.S., the DYK rules are already much too complex and this only adds to the mess. Make judgments on a case by case basis, and once a new member is informed of the 7 day rule, the have the option of working within that time frame.--Kevmin § 15:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support a loose enforcement of the time limit. It doesn't matter at all to the readers how old the material is so why should we reject good quality contributions just because they don't meet a completely arbitrary internal time limit. Why not make it 14 or 30 days? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have nominated a fair number of student articles, but if I missed the deadline I left it out. But I think we should show some lenience for the first self nomination of a person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for 5-nom proposal. Since the QPQ requirement is waived, I could see this requirement being waved as well. Currently, it seems that we already grant some leniency for the first one or two noms, so, if GrammarFascist's proposal doesn't go through, our current practice should be made explicit.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: K.I.S.S., It aint broke, IAR covers this. Who wants this rule? This vote seems to be those people who want to keep the same amount of leeway and those who oppose because we have that amount of leeway. We are passing a rule to say that the sun needs to rise in the morning except when its foggy. Aint broke guys. Victuallers (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed five-article limit. It's just going to further complicate the rules IMO. I think everyone is probably entitled to some leeway on their first nomination. I think we could add something to that effect to the rules without unduly complicating things. That would, for example, enable users to nominate articles of other users who have never participated in DYK, as it would give more time for eligible articles to be identified and for the creator to respond, as Piotrus has noted. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFKM Oppose Seven days is plenty and any well-deserving exceptions can be dealt with on an ad hoc basis per WP:IAR and WP:BURO. — LlywelynII 23:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

@Launchballer: @GrammarFascist: @Notecardforfree: The hook for The Almost Impossible Game Show (in the quirky slot) does not reflect the description in the article. In the article, the first trick is described as "shaking a croissant off their suit". The second trick is described as catching the teabag in a cup that is attached to their crotch. Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the oversight. Perhaps we should change "shake croissants off their crotches" to "shake croissants off their suits"? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have amended the article in the first instance, in the second I suggest:
ALT2: ... that challengers in The Almost Impossible Game Show not only have to shake croissants off their crotches, but must also thrust teabags into cups attached to their crotches? I have amended Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 to that effect.--Launchballer 22:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This makes me very uncomfortable. Aside from the fact that nominators should not be making changes to their hooks in prep, looking at the article I see that the hook comes from the article author viewing the show and writing what he saw. There don't seem to be any reliable secondary sources—the British Comedy Guide is a by-fans-for-fans site, Bother's Bar is a blog, and UKGameshows.com is a wiki—and the bulk of the sourcing is three different episodes of the show. I think, under the circumstances, this should not be in prep, and needs to be pulled back for further consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, I commented on the sourcing issues at the article's DYK nomination template. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sinatra Day: Dec 12th

I propose we make December 12th 2015 a "100 Years" of Frank Sinatra Day for DYK and host his main article, recently promoted to GA status, and other related articles for 24 hours on the day. It is his centenary, and being such a massive figure I think we can justify DYK dedicated to him for a day. Miyagawa has expressed an interest, but we need further contributors to expand or create a few articles which can be gathered under the special holding section. Perhaps we could do something different just for a day, a different format for DYK or something to glamorize it as it is Sinatra. I think a Vegas-style gold header for Sinatra instead of the usual bland DYK green header or something like that would be a cool idea for a change.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following are red links in his article, some of which may be potential DYK articles. Any help creating them would be most appreciated. If we have enough articles we could show a batch for 12 hours and another for 12 hours and keep the main Sinatra article constant.

  1. Hank Sanicola - tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Artanis Records - on it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gus Levene
  4. Say It (Frank Sinatra song)
  5. Oh! What it Seemed to Be (song)
  6. Hollywood Plaza Hotel
  7. Riobamba Club - working on it. Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Yoninah, I didn't see this here. I marked it from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki link. Please feel free to do whatever you want to it. Certainly plenty there for a DYK hook. SusunW (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jim Byron Done! :) Miyagawa (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxine Cheshire
  10. Jack Entratter Done, awaiting collaboration before DYK nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kauai County Fair
  12. Burt Boyer

If anybody is interested, now is the time to expand a few articles, particularly his most notable albums and songs! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darejan Dadiani

Just wanted to make an observation re the hook for Darejan Dadiani, currently on the main page. According to her biography, this interesting woman exerted a lot of political influence, including initiating an end to primogeniture in Georgia - plus, her policies led to the annexation of Georgia by Russia. With all of this, couldn't we have found a better fact than the number of children she had? (Which is not even close to the record.) It's discouraging to see, and I hope we would be moving away from defining a woman by her family instead of by her accomplishments. Hopefully we will change such hooks if they come up again. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Defining"? It was just an interesting fact... --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pic in pic

Hello, all. The photo in Prep 1 now shows a painting and the painter in the photo. While we have a license for the photo, do we need a separate license for the artwork within the photo? It doesn't look like the photographer and the painter are the same person. I hope we don't have to wait till that person is dead for 70+ years before we can use the photo, but I thought I should ask first. Thanks for your advice. --PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Commons deletion discussion for the image, OTRS has received appropriate permissions from both the photographer and painter. As at least two experienced OTRS volunteers have reviewed the submitted permissions ([2] and [3]), everything should be good to go unless you have a specific reason to doubt the provided permissions. --Allen3 talk 23:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Allen3. I didn't realize that permissions were granted for both photo and painting. No problems now. Thanks, again. --PFHLai (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

"that Sugar Hollow Creek and South Branch Roaring Run are Class A Wild Trout Waters, but are entirely on private land"

Is there any reason why this is "but"? Is there a reason to suppose that "Class A Wild Trout Waters" should be on public land? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cant work out why they even exist as articles. Is there some aspect of notability I am missing? Aslo whats notable about them being Class A Wild Trout Waters, is wild trout particularly rare? Is it unsualy to be a class A? Are there thousands of Class A Trout Waters? Or just 3? Who knows, because neither of the articles go into any detail and neither do the associated articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that a lot of the DYK noms about Pennsylvania creeks use the term "Class A Wild Trout Waters" but there doesn't seem to be any article that defines that term or talks about Classification of Wild Trout Waters.[4] Perhaps that should be the next article Jakec makes. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest this is pulled until an actually interesting or notable hook can be determined. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Meanwhile, Class A Wild Trout Streams are, "Streams that support a population of wild (natural reproduction) trout of sufficient size and abundance to support a long-term and rewarding sport fishery."[1] Given that the classification above that, "Approved Trout Waters," is for, "waters [that] have significant portions that are open to public fishing," I'm not sure how notable it is that two Class A Wild Trout Waters are on private land and therefore (one would presume) not open to public fishing. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we don't have an article on this trout fishing classification, it makes the hook almost impossible for a passing editor to get their head around, it's really a case of "so what?". Pull it and rework a decent hook that can be understood by our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses, I'm writing one right now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but the hook shouldn't have been passed without such an article existing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now there is one. Funny how you keep pushing me to write all sorts of useful articles that I wouldn't have otherwise made --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Trout Water Classifications". Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Retrieved 11 November 2015.

Template:Did you know nominations/Yosef Karduner

BLP article currently at prep 2, but the article has an unsourced section. sst✈ discuss 14:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Science hooks

It's nice to see so many women in science hooks ready for DYK. But too many of them emphasize that the subject is "the first". This is going to start sounding pretty redundant... Yoninah (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that also. I've been adding ALT hooks that focus on the woman's career. Even if the nomination has already been approved, can't hurt to add alternative hooks. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first three weeks of October. As of the most recent update, 114 nominations are approved, leaving 210 of 324 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from August, September and the first half of October.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYKSTATS Tool

The WMF recently made their views data available via an API. I was casting about for a use for it and thought of DYK stats. The current stats are taken from a tool that doesn't count mobile views, and requires people to calculate totals manually (which can sometimes be confusing). So I mocked up a tool on Tool Labs to basically do it for us. Here is an example of its output. It's very simplistic for now (although with decent safeguards). But if there is demand and people like it I'll tidy things up to be a bit nicer. --Errant (chat!) 14:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, very good! It's easy to use. I can see where it would be very helpful. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that! I've just tried it with Waste House, a recent DYK of mine for which I couldn't get the stats using the conventional method because 12th October's were missing, and it has brought back these results. With regard to the actual purpose of the tool, compared with the existing tool I can see that extra views have indeed been counted on the day before and after. Good stuff! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been interesting, as an aside, comparing the additional numbers that including mobile views bring. So far it looks like ~10%. --Errant (chat!) 15:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice and useful tool! Sorry for sounding greedy, but I was wondering if you can create a similar tool that counts the views for the whole day (24 hours) for use with WP:TFASTATS. Alternatively I can just check the views twice. sst✈discuss 01:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll happily expand it to produce more than one type of statistic. Leave it with me.... --Errant (chat!) 09:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding hooks for April Fool's Day

Earlier today, I nominated an article for DYK that was identified by The C of E as a potential good candidate for an April Fool's Day hook. I am not familiar with the procedures for nominating April Fool's Day hooks; should I move the nomination to Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know, or should I keep it with the rest of the nominations at T:TDYK? Thanks in advance for your help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a note in the nomination requesting it to be held for then, it will then be sequestered off by another reviewer in time. GRAPPLE X 18:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the move to the holding area. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

The hook fact for Nako does not appear in the article. There it just says there are "images" on the walls; here it says "thangkas". I think "images" should be used, as the other term is obscure. (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Corrected. I think it was my error in the first place. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to increase the number of hooks per set?

I would like to congratulate and thank all those involved in building prep sets and moving them into the queue, on their recent performance. Things are going smoothly and it is more than a fortnight since the DYKUpdateBot last reported "DYK is almost overdue". Proceeding in this orderly manner gives sufficient time for hooks to be examined critically before making it to the front page.

At the time I write, there are five filled queues and four filled prep areas, making a total of 72 hooks. Besides this there are 106 approved hooks out of a total of 311 hooks on the nomination page. New nominations are being made at the rate of about 16 a day, the same rate as they finally exit the DYK system. I think it is time that this tremendous backlog of nominations got reduced slightly and propose that we move to nine hooks per set to slightly increase the througput of hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but people have in the past argued that this would decrease the amount of scrutiny the hook sets received and might make for more (embarrassing) errors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of increase is definitely needed: new nominations this month are averaging close to 20 a day through November 12, and the 8th through 12th are still being added to, so that average may rise. A burn rate of 16 per day is not sufficient to keep up with it. I'm not sure increasing the set size to 9 will be sufficient, and I'd be cautious of going up to 10, since 8 was said to be the ideal size in earlier discussions. (We were a bit long earlier in the week compared to ITN/OTD; today we are shorter.) Perhaps a week or two at three sets of eight per day would get us down to a more reasonable level, and we could revert back to two per day at that point. If we do increase the frequency, we would need to make sure that if any special occasion hooks already in queues and preps, they are moved so they run at the right time. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: DYK is an incredible important tool for incentivizing content creation, and I think that giving more editors the chance to appear on main page (with three rotations per day) could be a good idea. If I recall correctly, I think that we had a three rotation per day system until 2014 (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/February). I also think the DYK review process is an excellent forum for providing community input to improve new articles. However, just to play devil's advocate in this argument, we may also want to consider other alternatives for eliminating backlog. For example, we could eliminate backlog by enforcing the DYK criteria more strictly (i.e. by strictly enforcing the rule that a hook must be "interesting to a broad audience"). Alternatively, we may want to consider implementing a system of failing problematic hooks if issues have not been resolved within seven days (much like the "on hold" process for GA reviews); this would incentivize editors to resolve issues in a timely fashion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep there used to be three cycles per day for a long time. That ended up being unmaintainable in terms of the number of nominations (e.g. running out of hooks to use). It's a hard one; but I think increasing the hook count would be a sensible thing to do. Going to three cycles per day again could burn through the backlog very quickly and leave the same problem as 2014. Better to keep consistency but increase/decrease the hook count to suit a large backlog. My suggestion is that we decide what a sensible amount of approved hooks is (for example: 50 approved) and use this figure to assert how big the list should be (8 or 9). Getting down from the current backlog might take a little while, but that's okay! This will effectively auto-correct any backlog. Defining that as a process now avoids having to work out what to do when we have a bigger backlog again in the future! --Errant (chat!) 17:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errant, the submissions are currently increasing at a rate beyond the ability of 8 or 9 hooks twice a day to keep up with the rate of submissions, currently about 20 a day: the backlog is growing. With a backlog of 109 approved but unpromoted (and another 211 awaiting approval) how does your proposal deal with the current backlog when it's been steadily increasing for weeks with promotion of 8 hooks per set? We're limited in how much real estate we can take on the main page, so 11 or 12 hooks in a set is not in the cards, and I'm dubious about 10. Three cycles a day with seven per set could gradually reduce the backlog, but I'm not sure how long set builders could sustain that rate of prep creation. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but will it continue at that rate? If the answer is "yes" then that's a problem with my approach. Otherwise, I think the suggestion still has merit. I'm not sure it is sustainable. To be honest, I think we need more data. What is the historical rate of new noms per day over, say, the last 12 months? What's the pass/failure rate for DYK noms? etc. Perhaps we should be more strict about criteria - a lot of hooks I read are just downright boring. There's a difference between a fact and an interesting fact, and it's called a "hook" for a reason. One reason I don't feel I should review DYK's is because many that I read I'd question the hook - and that's probably me being too strict or mean with the guidelines (so it's not fair for me to review it). Either way; the important metric is approved hooks per-day; whether that figure is addressed by handling more hooks on the main page or if we do it by increasing standards I don't know. --Errant (chat!) 18:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just take it easy everyone. It was only a few weeks ago that no preps were in place and the main page updates were hours and hours late. Having a large backlog, especially around Christmas, isn't a bad thing because there will be fewer people around to move stuff around, check it for accuracy, verifiability, interest etc. There is no deadline, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of nominations has remained remarkably stable this year, this is the first time in a long time that it's crept up. I would oppose going to 9 hooks a set, it's just too long. If necessary, we can go back to three 7-hook sets per day for a few weeks, or if we want to reduce the number more quickly, three 8-hook sets per day as BlueMoonset suggested. I'm not sure we need to panic just yet though, we're probably only a couple of hook sets above average right now. Gatoclass (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AGF for a primary-source video?

I started a review of the Celebrity Fifteen to One nomination, whose current hook involves one contestant having appeared on the show during the tenures of both its hosts. I'm having some issues with verifying the facts needed to support the hook. First, for one of the contestant's appearances, the only source cited is a video of the episode, and I can't get the video to play (this seems to be a problem on my end, not with the video itself); would it be acceptable for me to AGF that the credits show the contestant's name as if it were an offline source? Does the fact that the video is a primary source make a difference?

The other issue is that there isn't a source cited which states that this contestant is the only one who appeared on the show with both hosts. There are just sourced tables listing which contestants appeared in each series, and as aforementioned, for some of the series, the only source cited for which contestants appeared are videos of the episodes themselves. I'm not sure whether this means the hook's assertion qualifies as WP:SYN or WP:OR or not, and I would like to solicit opinions from others on these questions. Thanks in advance to all who respond. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Ada Lovelace Days? 10th December is her 200th birthday

It says in Wikipedia at the start of her article "Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace (née Byron; 10 December 1815 – 27 November 1852)". By my reckoning that means that in about 25 days it will be exactly 200 years since the world's first computer programmer was born. Now some may see this as a day for articles about women, but she was also a computer programmer and also just a clever person. This is a significant anniversary. Any ideas? Victuallers (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to have a mix of these themes - women scientists and computers and combinations thereof. :) Keilana (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a nominations section below. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To dream the impossible dream - if anyone had thought about it far enough ahead, the Ada Lovelace article could have been improved and brought to GA status, just in time for the lead hook at her big day. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested

A gimmick? A DYK load where they are all called Ada?

The six below are a quick look, we may find others. The ones below can be made into start articles in 24 hours or Dr B could do them in 24 mins Victuallers (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Q18526292, Ada Ballin, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  2. Q18526293, Ada Swanwick, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  3. Q18526294,Ada Vachell, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  4. Q18670631,Ada Benson, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  5. Q18670632,Ada Dundas, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  6. Q18917143,Ada Chesterton, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
Not forgetting "Fucking Ada", of course (?). *chortle, chortle" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=690983258"