![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 100 | ← | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 |
I am very concerned that a couple of our regular prep builders have expressed an intention to "back off" from building sets due to the number of promoted noms getting challenged recently. Prep building is a vitally important part of this process, we need our regulars to stay engaged.
This is actually not a new concern of mine, it's been bothering me for a long time that the burden of responsibility has, IMO, been placed too heavily on the shoulders of prep builders rather than being more evenly distributed. Prep building is a difficult- and time-consuming-enough task as it is, without the expectation that builders also be made responsible for checking a host of standard article and hook criteria. I was already mulling the notion of proposing, in a few weeks' time, a tighter definition of respective responsibilities of DYK participants, but given recent events, perhaps this is an opportune moment to bring that discussion forward.
In brief then, I'm thinking it should be clarified that prep builders are not primarily responsible for set verification. Beyond simple checks for hook grammar and interest, and a basic level of presentation for the article, prep builders should be allowed to concentrate on what they do best - selecting an appropriately varied set and posting it to prep. It doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage them to do more, but I think neither should we be blaming them when, for example, hook statements turn out to be erroneous. Instead, I think the responsibility for hook fact-checking should shift to the administrators moving the sets from prep to the Queue. Technically, that's a very simple job - far easier job than set-building - so I think it makes sense for the promoting admins to take on that particular responsibility. Ultimately, of course, primary responsibility still lays with the reviewer/s, and we might eventually need to look at making that part of the process more accountable, but that's probably a discussion best left for another day.
Regardless, with regard to the present situation, I would like to assure set-builders that I personally will not be holding them accountable for errors identified in their sets (unless of course they are egregious) - I am already taking responsibility for the accuracy and quality of sets I promote to the queue and I therefore expect any criticism of such sets to be directed to me. Since I currently have some spare time, I also expect to be promoting the lion's share of sets to the queue over the next few days. The important point is, I currently have time to verify and promote sets but I don't have time to also build them - for that I need assistance. So once again, I request that our regular set-builders stay engaged, and indeed encourage everyone to continue their participation. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 08:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Gatoclass, for your calm and reasoned approach to finding a solution to what has been dubbed "The DYK Problem". I don't think we've reached a solution yet, but your ratcheting down the tone many notches from the strident negativity that appears in almost all the threads on this talk page is much appreciated.
I'd like to suggest another solution for discussion. I don't think the problem is with the "rush" to get things onto the main page, or with the need for a "48-hour holding area" (it could just as well be 24-hours, for all the eyes that are supposedly going to look at it), or with the prep builders or administrators who "fail" to spot errors in sourcing or whole articles while they're putting together those 7 hooks. Bottom line, it's the reviewers. Some of them are novice reviewers who are bound by the QPQ system to review something; others are more regular reviewers who nevertheless are skipping over fact-checking, reference-checking, and other DYK criteria, letting errors creep through. I believe that the solution is to impose accountability at the review stage. I really like Maile's checklist; I think something along those lines should be programmed into every template so that the reviewer is "forced" to tick off what s/he checks, one by one. Then, it is perfectly appropriate to put the approved hook into a holding area where it will wait as long as necessary until a second reviewer double-checks it to make sure all the criteria have been met. Since the criteria are clearly spelled out on the template, you can include any criteria you want in order to make sure that it will hit the main page "error-free". After that, it would seem that prep-building and queue-promotion would go much smoother. Yoninah ( talk) 17:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have designed a new review checklist template: Template:DYK checklist. It is very much a work in progress, so comments of any kind are welcome. If we decide to preload it into new nominations, it could be loaded with comments to explain what each field is - we do something like this at ITN and it works pretty well. If we don't go that route, the checklist is at least available for people who want to use it.
The new template has a number of features built it. It will collapse itself when there are no problems (by type, undecided about complete collapse), provide a notice if the review is incomplete, and hide the image section if there isn't one. Take a look at the testcases to get an idea of what it looks like in action. Try it out on a live review, if you like, by copying and pasting from the documentation page. And provide feedback so I can make it work/look better. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3, Diane Guerrero, which was promoted by Bobamnertiopsis and had extensive discussions at Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Guerrero has the hook "... that Colombian-American Orange Is the New Black actress Diane Guerrero's parents and older brother were deported to Colombia?" I want to add "when she was 14 years old". to the end of the hook so that it is clear this happened when she was a teenager. Can I do this without further delaying the hook?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is my nomination:
{{Did you know nominations/Anna (Disney)}}
Now that I found it was promoted to GA for quite a long time. How should I withdraw? Or I just post it to get rejected? Forbidden User ( talk) 13:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
P.S. This fact was added very recently, but no fivefold expansion occurs.
The lead hook in Prep 1 is over 200 characters (not including "pictured"). Yoninah ( talk) 17:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't see that the source says "altered" - any chance this can be properly verified before pulling the hook? Gatoclass ( talk) 14:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
As it stands, it should be pulled. The source for it says "He moved the rood screen to the back of the church, and altered, extended and refurnished the sacristy. " [1], where the "altered" clearly is about the sacristy, not the rood screen. Unless some other source is found for the altered rood screen, it should be pulled. Fram ( talk) 14:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this nomination being ignored now that sources have been found for both the first "pulled" hook, and for the second current hook? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 08:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
On the issue of accountability for QPQ reviewers, which I raised earlier: I really think it's time we did something about this, because substandard QPQ reviewing has been a perennial source of concern on this page. So here's another suggestion: QPQ reviewers who approve articles which turn out to have copyvio/close paraphrasing issues, or incorrect hooks or hooks which turn out to have unsourced statements, will be required to do an additional two reviews, plus an additional two reviews for every review they get wrong; will be required to do an additional review for every such invalid review, and will not have any of their own articles promoted until they have done a review correctly. This requirement will be imposed at the discretion of the reviewer identifying the fault, or by a regular reviewer or administrator. Comments welcome.
Gatoclass (
talk)
11:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I was challenged by a couple of users on my previous proposal to come up with a way of encouraging, rather than requiring, better quality reviews. I still think more stringent requirements have a place in the system, but I agree that encouragement is usually a better approach where possible. In that light, here's another suggestion as to how we might improve reviewing quality.
My suggestion is that we encourage secondary reviews of existing approved nominations, by awarding review credits to users who find substantial errors in an approved nomination's hook or article. Review credits will only be awarded for secondary reviews which identify legitimate and substantial errors, as confirmed by a DYK administrator or regular reviewer; they will never be awarded for original reviewers. A double review credit will be applied for any secondary review which identifies legitimate copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues. Additionally, a review credit will be awarded for identifying substantiated copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues in any nomination which is yet to be approved. A new table will be added to the "List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs" page for review credits. Comments welcome. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
... that Jim Bartels resigned as curator of Honolulu's ʻIolani Palace after criticizing Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa for sitting on one of the palace thrones?
The source says he "had a dispute" with her, the article says he "had a dispute" with her, so why does the hook say he "criticized her"? Yoninah ( talk) 21:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The Russell Wilson (mayor) article features very close paraphrasing to the source which is being used in the hook. I suggest it is fixed or the hook pulled. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 09:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks to all users who contributed to the set.
Gatoclass (
talk)
16:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Would someone mind providing a 3rd opinion on whether the use of maps to support the hook for North Fork Tangascootack Creek is OR or not? Thanks, -- Jakob ( talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Heat > light (some time ago, in fact). Nothing useful is coming out of this, so collapsing this.
Bencherlite
Talk
18:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
|
---|
The Rambling Man says: The "consensus that the cure is too disruptive" is where? Amongst the whinging [sic] veterans who don't like their pet project being criticised? TRM repeatedly defends criticism aimed at him by attacking users as whining DYK cronies who staunchly defend DYK against intruders and who claim that nothing is wrong with DYK and nothing should be changed. This is absolutely false. No cool-headed, sensible, rational person could possibly honestly think DYK users are complaining and leaving because they think everything's fine and they resent someone helpfully coming in and trying to fix it. I'm sure everybody realizes that DYK is not perfect, and I'm also sure that constructive criticism, suggestions, and solutions to any and all problems are welcome. I haven't seen anybody ever suggest otherwise. But TRM's disruptive and disrespectful input is far, far, far from constructive. His heavy-handed, mean-spirited, hostile invectives are not conducive to the collaborative environment which is so important to Wikipedia. TRM says "We lose some of these stubborn editors who believe that everything is just fine. So what?" He dismisses the problem of putting "a few DYK regulars' noses out of joint" by saying "Omelettes and eggs". He again repeats "So what?", indicative of his total disregard for the damage he leaves behind him. It's not enough that he drives users away -- he then has to insult them and spit on their graves. Maybe he's unfamiliar with WP:WikiProject Editor Retention. I wonder if its founder thinks that such an attitude is befitting a high-profile administrator. Problems could easily be reported on and get corrected or discussed in a constructive manner and such input would be welcome. There have been other harsh DYK critics, but they still managed to remain civil. TRM insists on being as nasty, mean, pointy, sarcastic, condescending, and snarky as possible. His singleminded goal of badmouthing DYK and its users extends to WP:ERRORS -- his frequent indictments there of everything about DYK are inappropriate. That is not the correct venue for such commentary. Among the users who have announced their intention to curtail their contributions or leave DYK altogether in response to the extremely unpleasant environment -- the "eggs" who have been broken for TRM's "omelette" -- are Yoninah, Matty.007, and Yngvadottir. There appear to be many, many more who have simply silently cut back or disappeared entirely from DYK and/or Wikipedia as a whole. The bully TRM has chased so many users away that it seems as though Gatoclass is left to singlehandedly take care of everything. TRM wants to know where the consensus is. I think most users are afraid to comment on TRM's behavior, since every one who dares to, ends up eviscerated by TRM. Here are a few selected comments from the brave ones:
Fram says that the regulars are employing a "WP:SHOOTTHEMESSENGER" tactic. But this has absolutely nothing to do with a "message" of constructive, civil criticism. This is entirely about the outrageous and unacceptable behavior of the "messenger". Urarary ( talk) 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Nicely put, neutral description there. "No cool-headed, sensible, rational person could possibly honestly think DYK users are complaining and leaving because they think everything's fine and they resent someone helpfully coming in and trying to fix it. I'm sure everybody realizes that DYK is not perfect, and I'm also sure that constructive criticism, suggestions, and solutions to any and all problems are welcome." I was going to disagree with you, but then I would not be a "coolheaded, sensible, rational person". What a dilemma... Oh well, so be it. You are wrong: some (not all) of the DYK users dislike every form of criticism of DYK, and do everything they can to drive off people who find errors and make sure that what appears on the main page is as error-free and neutral as possible, be it by directly attacking those critical editors, by making more and more demands of what one needs to do to get the right to pull or alter a hook, or by any other means they can think off. This protectiveness, the blinders some regulars here have, and the sometimes very serious errors that have been ignored or swept under the rug, have done much more to make DYK an unpleasant environment than the fact that some editors have tried (for years) and are trying to improve the standards or results of DYK. And of course, a number of editors are now caught in the middle and some leave DYK because they don't like the situation; but that isn't caused by the people trying to solve the problem, but by the people who think DYK and hook promotion is the be-all and end-all, and that accuracy and neutrality are secondary concerns only. Fram ( talk) 07:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't going to dignify this tirade with a response, but as a result of the litany of errors within it, I feel duty-bound to at least put some of the record straight.
"Your exact comment "But you believe the quality of the update to be sufficient? Did you look at last year's article as I suggested?" So, I take it you meant greatly expanded", which it already had a paragraph of prose by that point and you wanted it like 2013, which was a ridiculous argument. One was won by two shots in a come from behind victory the other was won by eight shots in a tournament that the lead was never in doubt and we were to write a major write-up to explain the final round. HotHat ( talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
In conclusion, the fact that you follow WP:RAUL sums up your position perfectly and you need say nothing further!! Thanks for taking the time to write so much, it was interesting but ultimately completely flawed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Random break
|
I actually think we shouldn't worry as much as we do about article quality, but rather let DYK articles be frankly works-in-progress.
In summary, we should drop many of the standards for the articles (but make sure those that remain are consistently enforced, which they aren't now), and raise our vigilance for hooks.
I think this would focus energy on what's by far the most visible -- the hook -- without putting editors through all kinds of hoops to eliminate clarification needed and citation needed in the article -- nonsense not even required by GA. Furthermore, to the extent we want DYK to attract new editors, we should see it doing that by drawing in people who see the article on the main page and want to improve or fix some little bit of it (such as by addressing clarification needed or citation needed tags, which would now be allowed) -- not by rewarding the article creators/ nominators with DYK templates on their talkpages. Those aren't really "new" editors anyway.
In fact, maybe the MP DYK section should say, Did you know...
If did know any of these things, then maybe you have the interest and knowledge to help us improve these frankly in progress articles.
Not exactly what to say, but the idea we want to project. EEng ( talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Articles that are GA could carry no template, or a different one. EEng ( talk) 16:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Wording like "frankly in progress articles" is pointy (And "if you know these things" is unnecessary; anyone can fix typos or, say, add images), but
Please help to develop and improve these articles
would be OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
On the noms page, there are unrelated postings under the nom for Template:Did you know nominations/Oley Creek. Yoninah ( talk) 00:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The GA articles on here get approved via a terse and rudimentary process of nomination and approval, and really should not be a criteria for DYK's to come from. This is because we are unable to determine the wherewithal (breath of scope/brevity and completeness) with which the review process was done in the first place. I have always thought of DYK's as being new content or content that has been expanded not GA's. HotHat ( talk) 12:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
There's a note at the top of the queue page that says:
Having been examining dozens of queues over the past couple of weeks, I don't believe this to be true at all. Is this note actually required? The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a serious concern that one portion of the main page advocating a dedication to a single country in its output. No other part of Wikipedia does this, why should DYK? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
In the name of all that's holy, Rambling Man, do you have to be against everything? I'm probably your best friend here -- I think this place really needs some shaking up -- and even I'm getting a bit annoyed.
The discussion so far is enough for the small number of prep builders to be aware that this is a possible issue. Let's reconvene in a coupla days when people have had a chance to get a sense of what's really going on. In the meantime, just try to stay within 1/3 to 2/3 US.
Now if people will please get back to letting me recruit them for the destruction of DYK from within... EEng ( talk) 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Something like:
If more than 10% of hooks on the suggestions page are related to a single country or subject, please ensure that at least three hooks in any given update are about that country or subject, in order not to build up a backlog
would seem equitable and workable. And please, everyone, dial down the snark. It's very off-putting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I was unable to access "Duplicate detector" and got a toolserver error message stating that the user account had expired. Is this a known problem? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Gatoclass: The Yank Robinson hook states that he was "among his league's offensive WAR leaders for three consecutive years". I have a problem in that I can't see clearly in the single reference given where he finished each season in that ranking (but that could be because I find baseballreference.com inpenetrable). Any advice on where to find this information in that ref would be great. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You should have pinged me Belle, I completely missed this post and have already replaced the hook. Never mind, it can be promoted to the next set if everyone is happy with it. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I did a manual update as the bot appears to be asleep. Hope I did it right because it's a very long time since I had to do that. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I (and other prep builders) are under the distinct impression that we cannot promote our own hooks (not our own articles, but our own ALT hooks which have been approved by other editors). The only place I can find a written rule to this effect is in Rule N1: When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created. Am I interpreting this rule correctly? Yoninah ( talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems a bit unfair when I peruse the nomination page and see that loads of nominations seem to be exempt from QPQ because they are "not self noms". This is totally ridiculous! The purpose of QPQ is to eliminate BACKLOG. But since now we have nominators who basically on do non-self-noms, this should be changed to make non self noms require QPQs. wirenote ( talk) 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
First hook claims "Stephen II of Hungary (pictured)" but the image is an historical artist's impression of what Stevo may have looked like. It's a depiction of him. Perhaps it's conventional to just claim that ancient drawings of people can be referred to as such, I'm not sure. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng ( talk) 20:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
A developer has a link to Village Pump- Scottywong tools for the replacement on the DYK (QPQ) Checker. Please post any comments on the Village Pump thread. — Maile ( talk) 23:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the late notice, but could someone please review Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Bahamas by July 10? I don't normally ask for this, but having it hit the MP on that date will coincide with the Independence Day of the Bahamas. Cheers! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I promoted this hook to Prep 3, but cannot close the nomination for some reason. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 19:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 09:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
So, WP:DYKE. We agreed to hold off using this until some other proposals got passed through, which seem to have stalled, so what should we do with it? We could either move all error related threads there, guide people onto using it but keep existing threads where they are (my preference), or get rid of it. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be useful: in times of high debate like we've had recently it is easy for the queries on the queues to either get lost among the posts or break up the discussion. It might be less intimidating for editors to report errors there too (I remember going backwards and forwards a few times before making an error report here for the first time) Belle ( talk) 11:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Transformations of a hook:
I slept through the next steps:
Did you know that we now have a hook with the subject's name in a genitive (which I dislike even if you can pronounce it) and which doesn't mention what he is known for: ensemble singing. - I will watch more closely next time. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The old "Beef Stew" hook claims the magazine said it "was one of the most unusual nicknames", but the article says it was just featured in a piece about unusual nicknames, no claims of it being "one of the most unusual". The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
In case anyone is as lost as I am, the article in question is Template:Did you know nominations/Lou Marconi. 17:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Village pump discussion, any tool that was Dispenser's was not migrated to Labs. What this means for DYK is that on the nomination template, the Dab links and External links tools are no more. Also, if you've been using Reflinks to clear up bare URLs, that's gone also.. — Maile ( talk) 23:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The article now in prep 4 on the composer Mansoor Hosseini is based on a translation from the Swedish article mostly by Hafspajen with me filling in a few bits where he got stuck. Gerda Arendt requested the translation and did a lot of work on it subsequently to get it to a DYK worthy state, so it is only right that she should get the credit. The problem with the article is that a lot of the Swedish article is almost a straight lift from the cited reference [5], and this closeness in structure and wording has been carried over in the translation (of course it has, because Hafspajen and I are excellent translators. No sniggering at the back!). I think the hook should be pulled until the close paraphrasing can be sorted out (but if consensus says it isn't a problem, I will swap sides and try to pretend that I never wrote this.) Belle ( talk) 23:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 00:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently "... the final version of The Saint on radio ran for 16 months ... " but I'm seeing nothing specific in the target article to substantiate that, moreover I'm seeing a crappy "for this version, which ended. October 14, 1951.[3]" I'm sure the people that reviewed the article and the hook knew what they were doing, but this needs to be tweaked before it hits the main page. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Tim Frick's hook is referenced by a YouTube video, since when did that become reliable? More importantly, why is it interesting that a bunch of six-year-olds have a twelve-year-old "coach"? It happens all the time. I thought dyk hooks were supposed to be interesting. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I asked when YouTube became a reliable source, not who claimed to produce this video. As for "cute", read dull and not at all interesting and entirely commonplace. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Done
Yoninah (
talk)
21:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
For the past two days I've been watching and waiting for those prep sets to be filled by all the people you drove away from DYK. I took the plunge, spent between 30 minutes and 90 minutes to assemble each set, held my breath and posted it. Bingo! In rushes Rambling Man to pick apart and dissect anything he can find. May I point out that you will find much more fodder for your red pen on the nominations page? There are plenty of hooks that have been approved that you can criticize, nitpick, and fault while the nomination is still open – which is obviously the most appropriate and accepted time to make changes. Think a hook is dull? X it out on the nomination page, rather than arguing with the prep builder who thinks it is interesting. You might also consider rolling up your sleeves and making the necessary tweaks to a hook or article (really now, spouting off over a misplaced period?) rather than criticizing the prep builder in front of everyone else on the talk page. I really miss the days when civility was upheld as one of the 5 pillars on DYK, too. Yoninah ( talk) 21:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
No thanks, I'll continue to keep the queues and prep areas on my watchlist and do my best to stop errors and dull hooks from getting to the main page. Cheers! The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
While the DYK process remains as it is, review each hook as if it has never been reviewed. That's what I'm doing. If you do that, and do it properly, then last minute corrections, pulls, ERROR reports, trips to ANI can be avoided, or at least reduced. Until you do this, or fix the system that produces erroneous hooks, don't blame me for finding issues in most queues. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Ignore him. People who are in it for the attention tend to go away when they don't get any. Prioryman ( talk) 22:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
One hook suggests (arguable) that a sailor's corpse was scattered in a dinghy and a few lifebuoys ... though I don't believe that is what is meant. 15:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Lady Gaga's G.U.Y. video duration claim is not inline referenced in the target article. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
A beautiful example, BTW, of why WP has rules re OR and PRIMARY, and why secondary sources are our primary sources (ha, ha, little joke there...). While a robotic look at the little MM:SS display on youtube may, technically, justify a statement of "almost twelve minutes", there's a least a good chance that a secondary source would distinguish the wheat from the chaff. EEng ( talk) 15:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 17:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This conversation arose between two highly respected editors on the Talk page of a recent DYK article. We felt it would be selfish of us not to share it with our esteemed colleagues.
Hey, I thought you were going to tell us all about Dr Young and the FDA? It's obvious that Rectal dilator is in need of its own article? Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have completed Prep 2 but need someone to load it into the Queue, is anyone available? Gatoclass ( talk) 10:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Promoter still needed. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng, per your request above. As important as this is now becoming, I would like to suggest that the Prep guidelines be consolidated and clarified so anybody and everybody can understand them with no gray areas. It's no wonder there is confusion on this. I found all these mentioning how to handle the preparations:
And I frequently see unlinked references to the "Suggestions page", and have no idea what that is. I'm still looking for the Klingon language supplement to the supplement to the regular rules as amended by that elusive Suggestions page, because it's probably out there somewhere. Really, the prep areas are a hot button issue. Please make these guidelines as concise and easy to understand as possible. All on one page, perhaps bullet points, with as few words as possible. We shouldn't be having personality spats over this. We should be getting this down to be understood. If someone could come up with a separate RFC on what the prep guidelines should be, it would probably go a long ways towards healing here at DYK. — Maile ( talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
These are the only two pages that really detail the Prep guidelines, and are somewhat duplicated but not exactly
I have condensed them below. EEng, what you were earlier looking for is N14, and I did not condense that one - it's as it was originally written. I found nothing that specified the Prep person has to check for copyvio or paraphrasing. I shuffled it up to the top, because I don't think it should have been at the bottom.
I don't believe N1 should even have a number, but should be an introductory stand-alone paragraph. N10/J8 specifically focused on the Preparer's right to trim a hook, and did not mention changing the hook's wording. N7/J5 seems strange to me to even have to mention it - it's worded as it was originally written. Fellow DYK travelers, please review and offer comments below the rules. — Maile ( talk) 22:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Great work! Some suggestions:
N8: Hooks on the Suggestions page that include images often get verified first. Users sometimes then just go and grab a bunch of the nearest verified hooks for the preparation areas, which can often include several of these verified picture hooks. Not every submitted picture can be featured in the picture slot of course, but since only one picture can be featured per update, try to leave the good picture hooks behind for another update if you possibly can.— Maile ( talk) 23:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel ( talk) 23:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The following is a rearrangement and copyedit of (I hope) everything above, incorporating (I hope) the comments so far, none of which I think needed discussion. I've removed redundancy and excess verbiage, and made some slight additions and rewordings which I hope will be non-controversial.
Thoughts so far? EEng ( talk) 03:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments should be droll and include inside jokes if possible.
This way the admin doesn't have to edit and subst the nom pages, tinker with the hooks, etc. His/her job is "read only" -- look over the nom page, check the hook through to the source, etc. If everything goes well he/she has nothing else to do but move the set to Q.
If there's a problem the admin pulls the hook from prep (leaving a hole, or filling the hole if he wants) and reopening the nom page. (I don't think we need to consider this as "/Removed", BTW. In fact I'm not sure what /Removed is really for anymore, as long as anything pulled gets its nom page reopened.)
To reinforce: I think it compromises the "checking" step to mix it with the "select/modify-hook/arrange/credit/etc" step. Separate them, giving the first to the prep builder (which can be several people each contributing one or two hooks) and the second to the admin promoting to Q.
[Striking suggestion for now so as not to derail the first step, which is to just organize the current rules. -- EEng ( talk) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Given all the information above about promoting to a prep, this is almost funny. The only place I find where it mentions specifically what admins are supposed to do in the promoting process is Wikipedia:Did you know, way down at the bottom:
and
and
So, the admins get simplified instructions. Hmmmm. — Maile ( talk) 22:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Sarama: I'm sorry to notice this so late, and not to know where to report it. But the Sarama hook is wrong. As the article points out, in nearly all versions of the Ramayana Sarama is a heroine character. It is only in the one version, mentioned in the last line of the article, that she is seen in a negative light. At a minimum it should say "in post-Ramayana literature" rather than "in the Ramayana" but strictly it is only in the Sita Puranamu in Telegu. 174.88.8.213 ( talk) 10:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Shubinator, has there been a change in the coding of DYK Check recently? Maybe my memory is off on this. But I was just running a routine check and it read "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (2251 days) ". I remember that the time period was recently changed from 5 days to 7 days. Maybe I missed something in all the discussion on this page. I don't understand either the 10 days or 2251 days mentioned. — Maile ( talk) 13:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
An article I would like to write a DYK for was previously nominated and rejected in 2013 because the 5x expansion was over four weeks old. Since then, the article was promoted to Good Article status and is now eligible. Am I able to nominate a new DYK hook for the article? If so, where would I place the nomination as the original (rejected) nomination exists on the page where one would normally nominate it. MJ94 ( talk) 20:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
On the nominations page under July 1, if you click on Astronomical Society of New South Wales, it brings up Template:Did you know nominations/Did you know, which opens a blank page. To fnd out what was meant, I clicked on July 1 and found out the editor manually input the text for Astronomical Society of New South Wales directly under that date and inadvertently created a blank template as above. To correct that, I created Template:Did you know nominations/Astronomical Society of New South Wales and replaced the prose under July 1 with this template. However, something is not correct. If you click on that nomination under July 1, the old blank page template still pulls up. Can an admin please correct this? — Maile ( talk) 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
... "that Thea Austin has had five hits as a member of three groups?"
I checked the rules ("The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it, since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable. (Note, "extraordinary" is used here to mean "out of the ordinary", not "exceptional to a very marked extent.") Nominations are to be rejected if the claim made in the hook is not present in the source, or if the source is not a reliable source.") and I checked the article, but I couldn't see how the article and its hook met the rules. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
... "that's a remake"
Per WP:MOS, ("Uncontracted forms such as do not or it is are the default in encyclopedic style; don't and it's are too informal. But contractions should not be expanded mechanically. Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable; occasionally contractions provide the best solution anyway.") we avoid contractions. I made a minor correction yet it was reverted twice. If this isn't fixed now, it'll be picked up at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Your recent post to my talk, "I'll just wait for main page and report ERRORS" typifies your blow-it-up, take-no-prisoners attitude. A more construct approach would be to say (as I will now)...
Let's see what other editors think. EEng ( talk) 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Currently we have "that parodies a movie that's a remake of another movie which is based on a book", why not "that parodies a movie which is a remake of another movie that was based on a book"? Or are your grammar bells shaking and jangling about this? If you like, I can recommend places to have your bells waxed, just let me know. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
... "but had a son who became"
Awkward and clumsy phrasing, should be "but whose son became". I made a minor correction yet it was reverted twice. If this isn't fixed now, it'll be picked up at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
With that additional information, you're right and I've changed the hook to read
Nonetheless, you do see, don't you, that the text you kept trying to install made no sense? EEng ( talk) 21:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
... SITI: An Iconic Exhibition of Dato' Siti Nurhaliza ...
I'm struggling (mainly because its white text on a black background) to see where the hook's claim that the exhibition "is among the first of its kind in Malaysia where the main subject is solely based on a single celebrity". Any pointers from anyone who can read inverse colour text would be helpful here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday, we went 20 hours without a new update because nobody built one. We need more updaters! Don't worry too much about loading a hook with an error, I check all the hooks before promoting to the Queue in any case. Just make sure that as a minimum you have read the nomination page discussion and have selected an approved hook or ALT, that the hook is interesting and that the article looks presentable, I can pretty much do the rest. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 13:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Preps are empty again, we need more updates. Updaters - don't worry too much about loading a hook with an error, I check all the hooks before promoting to the Queue in any case. Just make sure that as a minimum you have read the nomination page discussion and have selected an approved hook or ALT, that the hook is interesting and that the article looks presentable, I can pretty much do the rest. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 03:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to start moving DYKmake and DYKnom's innards out of userspace and into the template namespace. While I'm doing this, the credit templates in the preps and queues might not work. Should be done in under an hour. Shubinator ( talk) 16:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
For the current set I noticed missing dyk credit on the talk page of Frequent subtree mining, and similarly missing credits on the creator's talk page. This hook was moved from one prep set to another, without the accompanying credit template. Similarly, there is a wrong dyk note on the talk page of the pulled Thea Austin, and undue credits on the creators' talk pages.
I would recommend that those who move hooks between prep sets, also move the credit templates accordingly, because it is much more time consuming to clean up manually afterwards.
I normally do not check this, only checked now because I was the one who promoted the hook (frequent subset mining), so I don't know how frequently this happens. Oceanh ( talk) 10:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This will require some tedious changes to templates and bots, but if the format of the prep sets would allow the credit template(s) for a given hook to be immediately adjacent to that hook, that would help a lot, not to mention making setting up the sets a bit easier. IOW:
*... that blah blah hook1
{{DYKmake for hook1}}
*... that blah blah hook2
{{DYKmake for hook2}}
*... that blah blah hook3
{{DYKmake for hook3}}
EEng ( talk) 18:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"Corfu Channel Case" should be italicized as a case name. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 00:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Copied from my Talk EEng ( talk)
As to the amount of gold, the print source (several actually) state it in kilograms. I have no objection to adding troy ounces except that it would probably push the hook over the limit.
I disagree with the term "using" insofar as the claim wasn't used to satisfy the ICJ judgment. The claim stemming from the judgment was settled at the same time that the claim to the gold was settled. Arguably, the judgment wasn't really satisfied, but that's another topic entirely. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Admin help needed above, I posted a notice on the talk page of creator/nominator Gronk Oz on how to create a nomination. I've always thought the instructions at T:TDYK are fairly simplified in setting up a template. The nominator's response to me makes me understand why we sometimes get newbies manually creating the nomination directly beneath the T:TDYK date rather than the template. It seems there are three other instruction pages: Nomination and NewDYKnom, which has a link to Template:NewDYKnomination. Too many instructions in too many places. Comments, suggestions? — Maile ( talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that is, as you say, consensus. Nonetheless, I'll think about some kind of userspace thing as a prototype. Thanks again, Mat ty. 007 19:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, this moved up so fast I didn't see this. Lead hook is only 13 words, and two of them are "Australian". Seems repetitive. Could we change one? Would it be offensive to say "Aboriginal" instead of "Indigenous Australian"? If not that, then how about changing "Australian ambassador" to "his country's ambassador"? Also, this may not be important, but am mentioning this to be sure - the image is copyrighted, but the licensing seems to say it's OK to use it with proper attribution. — Maile ( talk) 16:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng ( talk) 16:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Not blaming anyone involved in this specific case ( Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Clarence_Elkins) but it's a shame that arbitrary criteria about byte counts and nomination dates keep us from DYKing a man who, imprisoned for murder, cleared himself and proved who the true killer was, from prison (!) -- while we happily pass the most boring crap imaginable 10 times a day, just because someone did a better job of padding the article with fluff. EEng ( talk) 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Look at Prep3 right now (reordered):
The first four pass at least a threshold requirement for "interesting" because they relate something out of the ordinary or unexpected. The last three are (I am sorry to say) utterly pedestrian. Rehearsal for a music video took four days -- not surprising (I guess the ballet aspect might be considered somewhat different). Person X won a medal in event Y -- well, someone was going to win it. Actress A's first big role was in Production P -- every performer had a first role.
So, yeah, I'd say about half of hooks are dull as dishwater. One of DYK's problems is a determination to be like the Special Olympics -- everyone gets a medal! EEng ( talk) 20:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This hook is cited by an inline reference which dates 26 July 1962, i.e. the (actually caveated) claim of "rarity" was made almost 62 years ago. The hook needs to be changed to the more accurate "was" a rare example, or we should have some evidence that "is a rare example" is still a valid claim. In other words, pull until this can be adequately fixed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 01:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there anything anywhere suggesting we could/should/must use a consistent variety of English within a single set of hooks? The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Any reason why the game rules are not simply "rules"? Also, the link to billiards redirects to the non-specific Cue sports article which doesn't adequately specify the "American billiards" described in the target article. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Now in Prep 1: ... that the closeness of Friedrich Bohl, former head of the German chancellery, to then-chancellor Helmut Kohl spawned the phrase "No Kohl without Bohl"? - I read it a few times and still don't know what "closeness" should mean here. Also "former" and "then-chancellor" seems kind of doubling. Also the phrase was probably not used so much in English. Is it just me? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
dunningota
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 100 | ← | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 |
I am very concerned that a couple of our regular prep builders have expressed an intention to "back off" from building sets due to the number of promoted noms getting challenged recently. Prep building is a vitally important part of this process, we need our regulars to stay engaged.
This is actually not a new concern of mine, it's been bothering me for a long time that the burden of responsibility has, IMO, been placed too heavily on the shoulders of prep builders rather than being more evenly distributed. Prep building is a difficult- and time-consuming-enough task as it is, without the expectation that builders also be made responsible for checking a host of standard article and hook criteria. I was already mulling the notion of proposing, in a few weeks' time, a tighter definition of respective responsibilities of DYK participants, but given recent events, perhaps this is an opportune moment to bring that discussion forward.
In brief then, I'm thinking it should be clarified that prep builders are not primarily responsible for set verification. Beyond simple checks for hook grammar and interest, and a basic level of presentation for the article, prep builders should be allowed to concentrate on what they do best - selecting an appropriately varied set and posting it to prep. It doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage them to do more, but I think neither should we be blaming them when, for example, hook statements turn out to be erroneous. Instead, I think the responsibility for hook fact-checking should shift to the administrators moving the sets from prep to the Queue. Technically, that's a very simple job - far easier job than set-building - so I think it makes sense for the promoting admins to take on that particular responsibility. Ultimately, of course, primary responsibility still lays with the reviewer/s, and we might eventually need to look at making that part of the process more accountable, but that's probably a discussion best left for another day.
Regardless, with regard to the present situation, I would like to assure set-builders that I personally will not be holding them accountable for errors identified in their sets (unless of course they are egregious) - I am already taking responsibility for the accuracy and quality of sets I promote to the queue and I therefore expect any criticism of such sets to be directed to me. Since I currently have some spare time, I also expect to be promoting the lion's share of sets to the queue over the next few days. The important point is, I currently have time to verify and promote sets but I don't have time to also build them - for that I need assistance. So once again, I request that our regular set-builders stay engaged, and indeed encourage everyone to continue their participation. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 08:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Gatoclass, for your calm and reasoned approach to finding a solution to what has been dubbed "The DYK Problem". I don't think we've reached a solution yet, but your ratcheting down the tone many notches from the strident negativity that appears in almost all the threads on this talk page is much appreciated.
I'd like to suggest another solution for discussion. I don't think the problem is with the "rush" to get things onto the main page, or with the need for a "48-hour holding area" (it could just as well be 24-hours, for all the eyes that are supposedly going to look at it), or with the prep builders or administrators who "fail" to spot errors in sourcing or whole articles while they're putting together those 7 hooks. Bottom line, it's the reviewers. Some of them are novice reviewers who are bound by the QPQ system to review something; others are more regular reviewers who nevertheless are skipping over fact-checking, reference-checking, and other DYK criteria, letting errors creep through. I believe that the solution is to impose accountability at the review stage. I really like Maile's checklist; I think something along those lines should be programmed into every template so that the reviewer is "forced" to tick off what s/he checks, one by one. Then, it is perfectly appropriate to put the approved hook into a holding area where it will wait as long as necessary until a second reviewer double-checks it to make sure all the criteria have been met. Since the criteria are clearly spelled out on the template, you can include any criteria you want in order to make sure that it will hit the main page "error-free". After that, it would seem that prep-building and queue-promotion would go much smoother. Yoninah ( talk) 17:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have designed a new review checklist template: Template:DYK checklist. It is very much a work in progress, so comments of any kind are welcome. If we decide to preload it into new nominations, it could be loaded with comments to explain what each field is - we do something like this at ITN and it works pretty well. If we don't go that route, the checklist is at least available for people who want to use it.
The new template has a number of features built it. It will collapse itself when there are no problems (by type, undecided about complete collapse), provide a notice if the review is incomplete, and hide the image section if there isn't one. Take a look at the testcases to get an idea of what it looks like in action. Try it out on a live review, if you like, by copying and pasting from the documentation page. And provide feedback so I can make it work/look better. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3, Diane Guerrero, which was promoted by Bobamnertiopsis and had extensive discussions at Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Guerrero has the hook "... that Colombian-American Orange Is the New Black actress Diane Guerrero's parents and older brother were deported to Colombia?" I want to add "when she was 14 years old". to the end of the hook so that it is clear this happened when she was a teenager. Can I do this without further delaying the hook?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is my nomination:
{{Did you know nominations/Anna (Disney)}}
Now that I found it was promoted to GA for quite a long time. How should I withdraw? Or I just post it to get rejected? Forbidden User ( talk) 13:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
P.S. This fact was added very recently, but no fivefold expansion occurs.
The lead hook in Prep 1 is over 200 characters (not including "pictured"). Yoninah ( talk) 17:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't see that the source says "altered" - any chance this can be properly verified before pulling the hook? Gatoclass ( talk) 14:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
As it stands, it should be pulled. The source for it says "He moved the rood screen to the back of the church, and altered, extended and refurnished the sacristy. " [1], where the "altered" clearly is about the sacristy, not the rood screen. Unless some other source is found for the altered rood screen, it should be pulled. Fram ( talk) 14:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this nomination being ignored now that sources have been found for both the first "pulled" hook, and for the second current hook? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 08:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
On the issue of accountability for QPQ reviewers, which I raised earlier: I really think it's time we did something about this, because substandard QPQ reviewing has been a perennial source of concern on this page. So here's another suggestion: QPQ reviewers who approve articles which turn out to have copyvio/close paraphrasing issues, or incorrect hooks or hooks which turn out to have unsourced statements, will be required to do an additional two reviews, plus an additional two reviews for every review they get wrong; will be required to do an additional review for every such invalid review, and will not have any of their own articles promoted until they have done a review correctly. This requirement will be imposed at the discretion of the reviewer identifying the fault, or by a regular reviewer or administrator. Comments welcome.
Gatoclass (
talk)
11:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I was challenged by a couple of users on my previous proposal to come up with a way of encouraging, rather than requiring, better quality reviews. I still think more stringent requirements have a place in the system, but I agree that encouragement is usually a better approach where possible. In that light, here's another suggestion as to how we might improve reviewing quality.
My suggestion is that we encourage secondary reviews of existing approved nominations, by awarding review credits to users who find substantial errors in an approved nomination's hook or article. Review credits will only be awarded for secondary reviews which identify legitimate and substantial errors, as confirmed by a DYK administrator or regular reviewer; they will never be awarded for original reviewers. A double review credit will be applied for any secondary review which identifies legitimate copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues. Additionally, a review credit will be awarded for identifying substantiated copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues in any nomination which is yet to be approved. A new table will be added to the "List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs" page for review credits. Comments welcome. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
... that Jim Bartels resigned as curator of Honolulu's ʻIolani Palace after criticizing Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa for sitting on one of the palace thrones?
The source says he "had a dispute" with her, the article says he "had a dispute" with her, so why does the hook say he "criticized her"? Yoninah ( talk) 21:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The Russell Wilson (mayor) article features very close paraphrasing to the source which is being used in the hook. I suggest it is fixed or the hook pulled. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 09:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks to all users who contributed to the set.
Gatoclass (
talk)
16:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Would someone mind providing a 3rd opinion on whether the use of maps to support the hook for North Fork Tangascootack Creek is OR or not? Thanks, -- Jakob ( talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Heat > light (some time ago, in fact). Nothing useful is coming out of this, so collapsing this.
Bencherlite
Talk
18:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
|
---|
The Rambling Man says: The "consensus that the cure is too disruptive" is where? Amongst the whinging [sic] veterans who don't like their pet project being criticised? TRM repeatedly defends criticism aimed at him by attacking users as whining DYK cronies who staunchly defend DYK against intruders and who claim that nothing is wrong with DYK and nothing should be changed. This is absolutely false. No cool-headed, sensible, rational person could possibly honestly think DYK users are complaining and leaving because they think everything's fine and they resent someone helpfully coming in and trying to fix it. I'm sure everybody realizes that DYK is not perfect, and I'm also sure that constructive criticism, suggestions, and solutions to any and all problems are welcome. I haven't seen anybody ever suggest otherwise. But TRM's disruptive and disrespectful input is far, far, far from constructive. His heavy-handed, mean-spirited, hostile invectives are not conducive to the collaborative environment which is so important to Wikipedia. TRM says "We lose some of these stubborn editors who believe that everything is just fine. So what?" He dismisses the problem of putting "a few DYK regulars' noses out of joint" by saying "Omelettes and eggs". He again repeats "So what?", indicative of his total disregard for the damage he leaves behind him. It's not enough that he drives users away -- he then has to insult them and spit on their graves. Maybe he's unfamiliar with WP:WikiProject Editor Retention. I wonder if its founder thinks that such an attitude is befitting a high-profile administrator. Problems could easily be reported on and get corrected or discussed in a constructive manner and such input would be welcome. There have been other harsh DYK critics, but they still managed to remain civil. TRM insists on being as nasty, mean, pointy, sarcastic, condescending, and snarky as possible. His singleminded goal of badmouthing DYK and its users extends to WP:ERRORS -- his frequent indictments there of everything about DYK are inappropriate. That is not the correct venue for such commentary. Among the users who have announced their intention to curtail their contributions or leave DYK altogether in response to the extremely unpleasant environment -- the "eggs" who have been broken for TRM's "omelette" -- are Yoninah, Matty.007, and Yngvadottir. There appear to be many, many more who have simply silently cut back or disappeared entirely from DYK and/or Wikipedia as a whole. The bully TRM has chased so many users away that it seems as though Gatoclass is left to singlehandedly take care of everything. TRM wants to know where the consensus is. I think most users are afraid to comment on TRM's behavior, since every one who dares to, ends up eviscerated by TRM. Here are a few selected comments from the brave ones:
Fram says that the regulars are employing a "WP:SHOOTTHEMESSENGER" tactic. But this has absolutely nothing to do with a "message" of constructive, civil criticism. This is entirely about the outrageous and unacceptable behavior of the "messenger". Urarary ( talk) 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Nicely put, neutral description there. "No cool-headed, sensible, rational person could possibly honestly think DYK users are complaining and leaving because they think everything's fine and they resent someone helpfully coming in and trying to fix it. I'm sure everybody realizes that DYK is not perfect, and I'm also sure that constructive criticism, suggestions, and solutions to any and all problems are welcome." I was going to disagree with you, but then I would not be a "coolheaded, sensible, rational person". What a dilemma... Oh well, so be it. You are wrong: some (not all) of the DYK users dislike every form of criticism of DYK, and do everything they can to drive off people who find errors and make sure that what appears on the main page is as error-free and neutral as possible, be it by directly attacking those critical editors, by making more and more demands of what one needs to do to get the right to pull or alter a hook, or by any other means they can think off. This protectiveness, the blinders some regulars here have, and the sometimes very serious errors that have been ignored or swept under the rug, have done much more to make DYK an unpleasant environment than the fact that some editors have tried (for years) and are trying to improve the standards or results of DYK. And of course, a number of editors are now caught in the middle and some leave DYK because they don't like the situation; but that isn't caused by the people trying to solve the problem, but by the people who think DYK and hook promotion is the be-all and end-all, and that accuracy and neutrality are secondary concerns only. Fram ( talk) 07:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't going to dignify this tirade with a response, but as a result of the litany of errors within it, I feel duty-bound to at least put some of the record straight.
"Your exact comment "But you believe the quality of the update to be sufficient? Did you look at last year's article as I suggested?" So, I take it you meant greatly expanded", which it already had a paragraph of prose by that point and you wanted it like 2013, which was a ridiculous argument. One was won by two shots in a come from behind victory the other was won by eight shots in a tournament that the lead was never in doubt and we were to write a major write-up to explain the final round. HotHat ( talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
In conclusion, the fact that you follow WP:RAUL sums up your position perfectly and you need say nothing further!! Thanks for taking the time to write so much, it was interesting but ultimately completely flawed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Random break
|
I actually think we shouldn't worry as much as we do about article quality, but rather let DYK articles be frankly works-in-progress.
In summary, we should drop many of the standards for the articles (but make sure those that remain are consistently enforced, which they aren't now), and raise our vigilance for hooks.
I think this would focus energy on what's by far the most visible -- the hook -- without putting editors through all kinds of hoops to eliminate clarification needed and citation needed in the article -- nonsense not even required by GA. Furthermore, to the extent we want DYK to attract new editors, we should see it doing that by drawing in people who see the article on the main page and want to improve or fix some little bit of it (such as by addressing clarification needed or citation needed tags, which would now be allowed) -- not by rewarding the article creators/ nominators with DYK templates on their talkpages. Those aren't really "new" editors anyway.
In fact, maybe the MP DYK section should say, Did you know...
If did know any of these things, then maybe you have the interest and knowledge to help us improve these frankly in progress articles.
Not exactly what to say, but the idea we want to project. EEng ( talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Articles that are GA could carry no template, or a different one. EEng ( talk) 16:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Wording like "frankly in progress articles" is pointy (And "if you know these things" is unnecessary; anyone can fix typos or, say, add images), but
Please help to develop and improve these articles
would be OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
On the noms page, there are unrelated postings under the nom for Template:Did you know nominations/Oley Creek. Yoninah ( talk) 00:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The GA articles on here get approved via a terse and rudimentary process of nomination and approval, and really should not be a criteria for DYK's to come from. This is because we are unable to determine the wherewithal (breath of scope/brevity and completeness) with which the review process was done in the first place. I have always thought of DYK's as being new content or content that has been expanded not GA's. HotHat ( talk) 12:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
There's a note at the top of the queue page that says:
Having been examining dozens of queues over the past couple of weeks, I don't believe this to be true at all. Is this note actually required? The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a serious concern that one portion of the main page advocating a dedication to a single country in its output. No other part of Wikipedia does this, why should DYK? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
In the name of all that's holy, Rambling Man, do you have to be against everything? I'm probably your best friend here -- I think this place really needs some shaking up -- and even I'm getting a bit annoyed.
The discussion so far is enough for the small number of prep builders to be aware that this is a possible issue. Let's reconvene in a coupla days when people have had a chance to get a sense of what's really going on. In the meantime, just try to stay within 1/3 to 2/3 US.
Now if people will please get back to letting me recruit them for the destruction of DYK from within... EEng ( talk) 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Something like:
If more than 10% of hooks on the suggestions page are related to a single country or subject, please ensure that at least three hooks in any given update are about that country or subject, in order not to build up a backlog
would seem equitable and workable. And please, everyone, dial down the snark. It's very off-putting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I was unable to access "Duplicate detector" and got a toolserver error message stating that the user account had expired. Is this a known problem? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Gatoclass: The Yank Robinson hook states that he was "among his league's offensive WAR leaders for three consecutive years". I have a problem in that I can't see clearly in the single reference given where he finished each season in that ranking (but that could be because I find baseballreference.com inpenetrable). Any advice on where to find this information in that ref would be great. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You should have pinged me Belle, I completely missed this post and have already replaced the hook. Never mind, it can be promoted to the next set if everyone is happy with it. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I did a manual update as the bot appears to be asleep. Hope I did it right because it's a very long time since I had to do that. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I (and other prep builders) are under the distinct impression that we cannot promote our own hooks (not our own articles, but our own ALT hooks which have been approved by other editors). The only place I can find a written rule to this effect is in Rule N1: When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created. Am I interpreting this rule correctly? Yoninah ( talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems a bit unfair when I peruse the nomination page and see that loads of nominations seem to be exempt from QPQ because they are "not self noms". This is totally ridiculous! The purpose of QPQ is to eliminate BACKLOG. But since now we have nominators who basically on do non-self-noms, this should be changed to make non self noms require QPQs. wirenote ( talk) 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
First hook claims "Stephen II of Hungary (pictured)" but the image is an historical artist's impression of what Stevo may have looked like. It's a depiction of him. Perhaps it's conventional to just claim that ancient drawings of people can be referred to as such, I'm not sure. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng ( talk) 20:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
A developer has a link to Village Pump- Scottywong tools for the replacement on the DYK (QPQ) Checker. Please post any comments on the Village Pump thread. — Maile ( talk) 23:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the late notice, but could someone please review Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Bahamas by July 10? I don't normally ask for this, but having it hit the MP on that date will coincide with the Independence Day of the Bahamas. Cheers! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I promoted this hook to Prep 3, but cannot close the nomination for some reason. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 19:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 09:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
So, WP:DYKE. We agreed to hold off using this until some other proposals got passed through, which seem to have stalled, so what should we do with it? We could either move all error related threads there, guide people onto using it but keep existing threads where they are (my preference), or get rid of it. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be useful: in times of high debate like we've had recently it is easy for the queries on the queues to either get lost among the posts or break up the discussion. It might be less intimidating for editors to report errors there too (I remember going backwards and forwards a few times before making an error report here for the first time) Belle ( talk) 11:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Transformations of a hook:
I slept through the next steps:
Did you know that we now have a hook with the subject's name in a genitive (which I dislike even if you can pronounce it) and which doesn't mention what he is known for: ensemble singing. - I will watch more closely next time. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The old "Beef Stew" hook claims the magazine said it "was one of the most unusual nicknames", but the article says it was just featured in a piece about unusual nicknames, no claims of it being "one of the most unusual". The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
In case anyone is as lost as I am, the article in question is Template:Did you know nominations/Lou Marconi. 17:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Village pump discussion, any tool that was Dispenser's was not migrated to Labs. What this means for DYK is that on the nomination template, the Dab links and External links tools are no more. Also, if you've been using Reflinks to clear up bare URLs, that's gone also.. — Maile ( talk) 23:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The article now in prep 4 on the composer Mansoor Hosseini is based on a translation from the Swedish article mostly by Hafspajen with me filling in a few bits where he got stuck. Gerda Arendt requested the translation and did a lot of work on it subsequently to get it to a DYK worthy state, so it is only right that she should get the credit. The problem with the article is that a lot of the Swedish article is almost a straight lift from the cited reference [5], and this closeness in structure and wording has been carried over in the translation (of course it has, because Hafspajen and I are excellent translators. No sniggering at the back!). I think the hook should be pulled until the close paraphrasing can be sorted out (but if consensus says it isn't a problem, I will swap sides and try to pretend that I never wrote this.) Belle ( talk) 23:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 00:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently "... the final version of The Saint on radio ran for 16 months ... " but I'm seeing nothing specific in the target article to substantiate that, moreover I'm seeing a crappy "for this version, which ended. October 14, 1951.[3]" I'm sure the people that reviewed the article and the hook knew what they were doing, but this needs to be tweaked before it hits the main page. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Tim Frick's hook is referenced by a YouTube video, since when did that become reliable? More importantly, why is it interesting that a bunch of six-year-olds have a twelve-year-old "coach"? It happens all the time. I thought dyk hooks were supposed to be interesting. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I asked when YouTube became a reliable source, not who claimed to produce this video. As for "cute", read dull and not at all interesting and entirely commonplace. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Done
Yoninah (
talk)
21:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
For the past two days I've been watching and waiting for those prep sets to be filled by all the people you drove away from DYK. I took the plunge, spent between 30 minutes and 90 minutes to assemble each set, held my breath and posted it. Bingo! In rushes Rambling Man to pick apart and dissect anything he can find. May I point out that you will find much more fodder for your red pen on the nominations page? There are plenty of hooks that have been approved that you can criticize, nitpick, and fault while the nomination is still open – which is obviously the most appropriate and accepted time to make changes. Think a hook is dull? X it out on the nomination page, rather than arguing with the prep builder who thinks it is interesting. You might also consider rolling up your sleeves and making the necessary tweaks to a hook or article (really now, spouting off over a misplaced period?) rather than criticizing the prep builder in front of everyone else on the talk page. I really miss the days when civility was upheld as one of the 5 pillars on DYK, too. Yoninah ( talk) 21:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
No thanks, I'll continue to keep the queues and prep areas on my watchlist and do my best to stop errors and dull hooks from getting to the main page. Cheers! The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
While the DYK process remains as it is, review each hook as if it has never been reviewed. That's what I'm doing. If you do that, and do it properly, then last minute corrections, pulls, ERROR reports, trips to ANI can be avoided, or at least reduced. Until you do this, or fix the system that produces erroneous hooks, don't blame me for finding issues in most queues. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Ignore him. People who are in it for the attention tend to go away when they don't get any. Prioryman ( talk) 22:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
One hook suggests (arguable) that a sailor's corpse was scattered in a dinghy and a few lifebuoys ... though I don't believe that is what is meant. 15:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Lady Gaga's G.U.Y. video duration claim is not inline referenced in the target article. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
A beautiful example, BTW, of why WP has rules re OR and PRIMARY, and why secondary sources are our primary sources (ha, ha, little joke there...). While a robotic look at the little MM:SS display on youtube may, technically, justify a statement of "almost twelve minutes", there's a least a good chance that a secondary source would distinguish the wheat from the chaff. EEng ( talk) 15:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 17:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This conversation arose between two highly respected editors on the Talk page of a recent DYK article. We felt it would be selfish of us not to share it with our esteemed colleagues.
Hey, I thought you were going to tell us all about Dr Young and the FDA? It's obvious that Rectal dilator is in need of its own article? Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have completed Prep 2 but need someone to load it into the Queue, is anyone available? Gatoclass ( talk) 10:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Promoter still needed. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng, per your request above. As important as this is now becoming, I would like to suggest that the Prep guidelines be consolidated and clarified so anybody and everybody can understand them with no gray areas. It's no wonder there is confusion on this. I found all these mentioning how to handle the preparations:
And I frequently see unlinked references to the "Suggestions page", and have no idea what that is. I'm still looking for the Klingon language supplement to the supplement to the regular rules as amended by that elusive Suggestions page, because it's probably out there somewhere. Really, the prep areas are a hot button issue. Please make these guidelines as concise and easy to understand as possible. All on one page, perhaps bullet points, with as few words as possible. We shouldn't be having personality spats over this. We should be getting this down to be understood. If someone could come up with a separate RFC on what the prep guidelines should be, it would probably go a long ways towards healing here at DYK. — Maile ( talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
These are the only two pages that really detail the Prep guidelines, and are somewhat duplicated but not exactly
I have condensed them below. EEng, what you were earlier looking for is N14, and I did not condense that one - it's as it was originally written. I found nothing that specified the Prep person has to check for copyvio or paraphrasing. I shuffled it up to the top, because I don't think it should have been at the bottom.
I don't believe N1 should even have a number, but should be an introductory stand-alone paragraph. N10/J8 specifically focused on the Preparer's right to trim a hook, and did not mention changing the hook's wording. N7/J5 seems strange to me to even have to mention it - it's worded as it was originally written. Fellow DYK travelers, please review and offer comments below the rules. — Maile ( talk) 22:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Great work! Some suggestions:
N8: Hooks on the Suggestions page that include images often get verified first. Users sometimes then just go and grab a bunch of the nearest verified hooks for the preparation areas, which can often include several of these verified picture hooks. Not every submitted picture can be featured in the picture slot of course, but since only one picture can be featured per update, try to leave the good picture hooks behind for another update if you possibly can.— Maile ( talk) 23:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel ( talk) 23:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The following is a rearrangement and copyedit of (I hope) everything above, incorporating (I hope) the comments so far, none of which I think needed discussion. I've removed redundancy and excess verbiage, and made some slight additions and rewordings which I hope will be non-controversial.
Thoughts so far? EEng ( talk) 03:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments should be droll and include inside jokes if possible.
This way the admin doesn't have to edit and subst the nom pages, tinker with the hooks, etc. His/her job is "read only" -- look over the nom page, check the hook through to the source, etc. If everything goes well he/she has nothing else to do but move the set to Q.
If there's a problem the admin pulls the hook from prep (leaving a hole, or filling the hole if he wants) and reopening the nom page. (I don't think we need to consider this as "/Removed", BTW. In fact I'm not sure what /Removed is really for anymore, as long as anything pulled gets its nom page reopened.)
To reinforce: I think it compromises the "checking" step to mix it with the "select/modify-hook/arrange/credit/etc" step. Separate them, giving the first to the prep builder (which can be several people each contributing one or two hooks) and the second to the admin promoting to Q.
[Striking suggestion for now so as not to derail the first step, which is to just organize the current rules. -- EEng ( talk) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Given all the information above about promoting to a prep, this is almost funny. The only place I find where it mentions specifically what admins are supposed to do in the promoting process is Wikipedia:Did you know, way down at the bottom:
and
and
So, the admins get simplified instructions. Hmmmm. — Maile ( talk) 22:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Sarama: I'm sorry to notice this so late, and not to know where to report it. But the Sarama hook is wrong. As the article points out, in nearly all versions of the Ramayana Sarama is a heroine character. It is only in the one version, mentioned in the last line of the article, that she is seen in a negative light. At a minimum it should say "in post-Ramayana literature" rather than "in the Ramayana" but strictly it is only in the Sita Puranamu in Telegu. 174.88.8.213 ( talk) 10:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Shubinator, has there been a change in the coding of DYK Check recently? Maybe my memory is off on this. But I was just running a routine check and it read "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (2251 days) ". I remember that the time period was recently changed from 5 days to 7 days. Maybe I missed something in all the discussion on this page. I don't understand either the 10 days or 2251 days mentioned. — Maile ( talk) 13:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
An article I would like to write a DYK for was previously nominated and rejected in 2013 because the 5x expansion was over four weeks old. Since then, the article was promoted to Good Article status and is now eligible. Am I able to nominate a new DYK hook for the article? If so, where would I place the nomination as the original (rejected) nomination exists on the page where one would normally nominate it. MJ94 ( talk) 20:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
On the nominations page under July 1, if you click on Astronomical Society of New South Wales, it brings up Template:Did you know nominations/Did you know, which opens a blank page. To fnd out what was meant, I clicked on July 1 and found out the editor manually input the text for Astronomical Society of New South Wales directly under that date and inadvertently created a blank template as above. To correct that, I created Template:Did you know nominations/Astronomical Society of New South Wales and replaced the prose under July 1 with this template. However, something is not correct. If you click on that nomination under July 1, the old blank page template still pulls up. Can an admin please correct this? — Maile ( talk) 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
... "that Thea Austin has had five hits as a member of three groups?"
I checked the rules ("The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it, since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable. (Note, "extraordinary" is used here to mean "out of the ordinary", not "exceptional to a very marked extent.") Nominations are to be rejected if the claim made in the hook is not present in the source, or if the source is not a reliable source.") and I checked the article, but I couldn't see how the article and its hook met the rules. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
... "that's a remake"
Per WP:MOS, ("Uncontracted forms such as do not or it is are the default in encyclopedic style; don't and it's are too informal. But contractions should not be expanded mechanically. Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable; occasionally contractions provide the best solution anyway.") we avoid contractions. I made a minor correction yet it was reverted twice. If this isn't fixed now, it'll be picked up at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Your recent post to my talk, "I'll just wait for main page and report ERRORS" typifies your blow-it-up, take-no-prisoners attitude. A more construct approach would be to say (as I will now)...
Let's see what other editors think. EEng ( talk) 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Currently we have "that parodies a movie that's a remake of another movie which is based on a book", why not "that parodies a movie which is a remake of another movie that was based on a book"? Or are your grammar bells shaking and jangling about this? If you like, I can recommend places to have your bells waxed, just let me know. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
... "but had a son who became"
Awkward and clumsy phrasing, should be "but whose son became". I made a minor correction yet it was reverted twice. If this isn't fixed now, it'll be picked up at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
With that additional information, you're right and I've changed the hook to read
Nonetheless, you do see, don't you, that the text you kept trying to install made no sense? EEng ( talk) 21:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
... SITI: An Iconic Exhibition of Dato' Siti Nurhaliza ...
I'm struggling (mainly because its white text on a black background) to see where the hook's claim that the exhibition "is among the first of its kind in Malaysia where the main subject is solely based on a single celebrity". Any pointers from anyone who can read inverse colour text would be helpful here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday, we went 20 hours without a new update because nobody built one. We need more updaters! Don't worry too much about loading a hook with an error, I check all the hooks before promoting to the Queue in any case. Just make sure that as a minimum you have read the nomination page discussion and have selected an approved hook or ALT, that the hook is interesting and that the article looks presentable, I can pretty much do the rest. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 13:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Preps are empty again, we need more updates. Updaters - don't worry too much about loading a hook with an error, I check all the hooks before promoting to the Queue in any case. Just make sure that as a minimum you have read the nomination page discussion and have selected an approved hook or ALT, that the hook is interesting and that the article looks presentable, I can pretty much do the rest. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 03:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to start moving DYKmake and DYKnom's innards out of userspace and into the template namespace. While I'm doing this, the credit templates in the preps and queues might not work. Should be done in under an hour. Shubinator ( talk) 16:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
For the current set I noticed missing dyk credit on the talk page of Frequent subtree mining, and similarly missing credits on the creator's talk page. This hook was moved from one prep set to another, without the accompanying credit template. Similarly, there is a wrong dyk note on the talk page of the pulled Thea Austin, and undue credits on the creators' talk pages.
I would recommend that those who move hooks between prep sets, also move the credit templates accordingly, because it is much more time consuming to clean up manually afterwards.
I normally do not check this, only checked now because I was the one who promoted the hook (frequent subset mining), so I don't know how frequently this happens. Oceanh ( talk) 10:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This will require some tedious changes to templates and bots, but if the format of the prep sets would allow the credit template(s) for a given hook to be immediately adjacent to that hook, that would help a lot, not to mention making setting up the sets a bit easier. IOW:
*... that blah blah hook1
{{DYKmake for hook1}}
*... that blah blah hook2
{{DYKmake for hook2}}
*... that blah blah hook3
{{DYKmake for hook3}}
EEng ( talk) 18:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"Corfu Channel Case" should be italicized as a case name. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 00:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Copied from my Talk EEng ( talk)
As to the amount of gold, the print source (several actually) state it in kilograms. I have no objection to adding troy ounces except that it would probably push the hook over the limit.
I disagree with the term "using" insofar as the claim wasn't used to satisfy the ICJ judgment. The claim stemming from the judgment was settled at the same time that the claim to the gold was settled. Arguably, the judgment wasn't really satisfied, but that's another topic entirely. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Admin help needed above, I posted a notice on the talk page of creator/nominator Gronk Oz on how to create a nomination. I've always thought the instructions at T:TDYK are fairly simplified in setting up a template. The nominator's response to me makes me understand why we sometimes get newbies manually creating the nomination directly beneath the T:TDYK date rather than the template. It seems there are three other instruction pages: Nomination and NewDYKnom, which has a link to Template:NewDYKnomination. Too many instructions in too many places. Comments, suggestions? — Maile ( talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that is, as you say, consensus. Nonetheless, I'll think about some kind of userspace thing as a prototype. Thanks again, Mat ty. 007 19:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, this moved up so fast I didn't see this. Lead hook is only 13 words, and two of them are "Australian". Seems repetitive. Could we change one? Would it be offensive to say "Aboriginal" instead of "Indigenous Australian"? If not that, then how about changing "Australian ambassador" to "his country's ambassador"? Also, this may not be important, but am mentioning this to be sure - the image is copyrighted, but the licensing seems to say it's OK to use it with proper attribution. — Maile ( talk) 16:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng ( talk) 16:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Not blaming anyone involved in this specific case ( Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Clarence_Elkins) but it's a shame that arbitrary criteria about byte counts and nomination dates keep us from DYKing a man who, imprisoned for murder, cleared himself and proved who the true killer was, from prison (!) -- while we happily pass the most boring crap imaginable 10 times a day, just because someone did a better job of padding the article with fluff. EEng ( talk) 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Look at Prep3 right now (reordered):
The first four pass at least a threshold requirement for "interesting" because they relate something out of the ordinary or unexpected. The last three are (I am sorry to say) utterly pedestrian. Rehearsal for a music video took four days -- not surprising (I guess the ballet aspect might be considered somewhat different). Person X won a medal in event Y -- well, someone was going to win it. Actress A's first big role was in Production P -- every performer had a first role.
So, yeah, I'd say about half of hooks are dull as dishwater. One of DYK's problems is a determination to be like the Special Olympics -- everyone gets a medal! EEng ( talk) 20:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This hook is cited by an inline reference which dates 26 July 1962, i.e. the (actually caveated) claim of "rarity" was made almost 62 years ago. The hook needs to be changed to the more accurate "was" a rare example, or we should have some evidence that "is a rare example" is still a valid claim. In other words, pull until this can be adequately fixed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 01:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there anything anywhere suggesting we could/should/must use a consistent variety of English within a single set of hooks? The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Any reason why the game rules are not simply "rules"? Also, the link to billiards redirects to the non-specific Cue sports article which doesn't adequately specify the "American billiards" described in the target article. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Now in Prep 1: ... that the closeness of Friedrich Bohl, former head of the German chancellery, to then-chancellor Helmut Kohl spawned the phrase "No Kohl without Bohl"? - I read it a few times and still don't know what "closeness" should mean here. Also "former" and "then-chancellor" seems kind of doubling. Also the phrase was probably not used so much in English. Is it just me? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
dunningota
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).