Misplaced Pages

talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:32, 3 January 2013 editPrioryman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers27,962 edits →Ending the Gibraltar restrictions: - there's no place for conspiracy theories here← Previous edit Revision as of 17:46, 3 January 2013 edit undoBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers494,938 edits →Ending the Gibraltar restrictions: oppose, however allow more on 29 JanuaryNext edit →
Line 164: Line 164:


* '''Support''' Since the competition, which is now over, was the main reason for the restrictions in the first place, I see no reason for them to remain. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 08:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC) * '''Support''' Since the competition, which is now over, was the main reason for the restrictions in the first place, I see no reason for them to remain. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 08:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. The ] is still a good idea because the topic is still under investigation. The proposal by Prioryman is too soon. Let's wait until Mike Hudson and Kevin Smith issue their report. At the same time, I think Constitution Day, 29 January, is a fine time to bend the rules and <s>dispose of</s> display a set of Gibraltar DYKs to reduce the backlog. ] (]) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


== Going forward with multiple DYK submissions on one topic == == Going forward with multiple DYK submissions on one topic ==

Revision as of 17:46, 3 January 2013

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main PageT:DYK
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut
Archiving icon
Archives
Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals


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


DYK queue status

There are currently 5 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 12:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Current time: 04:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 12 hours

Last updated: 4 hours ago( )


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

Proposals for handling GibraltarpediA nominations were discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options

Starting end-of-year review cleanup

We have far too many old submissions languishing: seven ready for reviewing are over a month old, and another seven are almost that old, from the end of November. Please help review these before the end of the year. Many thanks for your assistance.

In addition, here are six of the oldest Gilbraltar-related hooks that need reviews, which are from October; all are in the special holding area, where it's hard to find them. Gibraltar hooks need two careful reviews, and only some of these already have a completed first review. You can also look in the holding area for many other Gibraltar hooks needing review, most from October and November. Thank you.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Crossed off a couple that I looked at, but still need work. I'll keep them on my watchlist for eventual approval. The problem is that a lot of them (and probably a lot more of the above too) simply have very boring hooks that didn't even manage to hook in a reviewer. If you can't hook in a wikipedian, then how are you going to interest the general readership? ˜danjel  17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

prep2 first hook

"... that Japanese girl group Momoiro Clover Z member Momoka Ariyasu (pictured) claims to be stupid but is actually always studying, even backstage?" Wouldn't this be hyperbole? Is she literally studding all of the time or does she just study more than one would think she should? Shouldn't this amount be quantified?--Found5dollar (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have given the hook a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Can it please be tweaked again? Using "others" is very odd (which others? her parents? stagehands? friends from school?); if instead it says "other members" it reflects the article, which indicates that "other members" of the group (at least two, but possibly not all, which is why "the other members" really can't be used) make the studying backstage claim. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. I agree the original tweak wasn't ideal, but I couldn't think of an alternative that would not make the hook too long, but as it turns out, there is enough information in the rest of the hook to make it clear which "members" are being referred to with no further explanation required. Gatoclass (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed?

Why would one administrator tag the hook for elaboration? At least the notice lasted for one minute. --George Ho (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely ridiculous, I agree. See here. Yazan (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: it was actually there for thirty one minutes. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a valid question, just not an appropriate way of asking it. Prioryman (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ending the Gibraltar restrictions

Back in September, a set of temporary restrictions was put in place on DYKs for Gibraltar-related articles. This was in response to a controversy about the GibraltarpediA project, part of which involved a competition to write or expand articles about Gibraltar and the surrounding areas of Spain and Morocco. These restrictions have been in place for three months but were only intended to be a short-term measure to deal with the controversy.

The original circumstances which led to the restrictions are no longer applicable. There is no ongoing controversy, no issues of conflicts of interest or promotion have been found with any of these nominations, and the GibraltarpediA competition ended yesterday. The frequency of Gibraltar-related articles appearing on the Main Page is low (only 3 in the whole of December to date) and the drive to create fresh articles has now ended, so there is no likelihood of a sudden flood in the future.

I am therefore proposing to lift the restrictions as there is no longer any good reason to continue them. This would involve:

  • Ending the use of a special holding area for Gibraltar-related DYK nominations. Existing nominations listed there would be redistributed into the daily sections as per any other DYK.
  • Ending the requirement for Gibraltar-related DYKs to be reviewed by two different editors. For existing Gibraltar-related nominations have not yet been reviewed by anyone, the requirement for the second review would be removed and they would only require one review as normal. Nominations which have already had the first of the two reviews would be accepted immediately for promotion. Nominations which have had one completed review and have a second review ongoing would need to have that review completed before promotion.

Going forward, we should return to the status quo ante situation of Gibraltar-related articles being treated no differently from any other DYK, though I would suggest informally limiting them to no more than one a day appearing on the Main Page (which I would think would be sensible for any topic area).

Please indicate below whether you support this proposal. Prioryman (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Why not have the restrictions lifted for all articles which are nominated after the current ones? There is no reason to allow the current ones to not go through the same restrictions we have sanctioned. Let the current nominees follow the normal sanctions; and all further articles go through the normal nomination as all other articles. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is that the current nominations have suffered very long delays in being reviewed, mainly because they are hidden away in a holding area which nobody seems to be looking at. Some articles have waited for two and a half months for their reviews to be completed. That's really unacceptable and counter-productive. I can see no good reason (and in fact you offer no reason at all) for this situation to persist. I proposed merging current nominations back into the daily sections specifically so that we can get away from this problem of the nominations being buried. It makes no sense to treat any nominations differently when there are no ongoing issues of concern. Prioryman (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ending the restrictions and grandfathering all the current Gibraltar nominations into the lifting of the ban. Take them all out of the holding area and move them to the correct date with all the others. The original temporary restrictions vote above was put out there by me, to try to find some resolution to the furor that was happening a few months ago. Putting the restrictions into place, IMO, did nothing to stop that backlash, which kept coming back until it ran out of steam on its own. Then the next topic of rage arose, and then ran out of steam. In restospect, all the uproars of the Fall 2012 seemed more about agenda-driven personalities than real issues. I don't see that the restrictions have accomplished anything. On an average, the Gibraltar articles were often of better quality than a lot of what we generally see. One review - two reviewers - I'm not sure that did anything, either. At the end of the day, we may have lost one of Misplaced Pages's best editors - Anne (ACP2011) who disappeared sometime in late November. Yngvadottir also seems to have been absent, resulting from a different uproar. The only thing all of this has accomplished is to prove it's not the way to attract and retain quality editors. End the restrictions, and with them, the discrimination of it all. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, my reading is that TheOriginalSoni is supporting continued sequestration of the Gibraltar articles nominated during the Gibraltarpedia contest. (See Prioryman's reply above for a similar take.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've corrected my statement. — Maile (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Since the competition, which was the thing that caused this, has ended there is no further concern of COIs with intent to gain a reward. It seems pointless to keep them now so I'd say remove all the restrictions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't have to make a second review, do I? I did review one or two articles, but I still have no interest on Gibraltar-related pages. With Gibraltar-hooplah dying down, restriction is pointless. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Regardless of the motives, no nom that meets DYK requirements should be blocked.--— ZjarriRrethues —  21:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Partial Support, with restrictions: I think the limit on no more than one Gibraltar hook per 24 hour period should be maintained until all the hooks submitted during the Gibraltarpedia contest have been reviewed and published on the main page, and I'm not in favor of lifting the restrictions on who can review these already submitted hooks. Also, no "good to go" reviews on these Gibraltarpedia ones: if there's only one review, I think it should have to be specific about what was reviewed, and including a required mention the neutral/promotional aspect. I'd be fine with having the special holding area closed down and the Gibraltar nominations being put back into the regular list. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "No more than one" in one set is too strict and pointless other than to frustrate promoters. I could be in favor of reviewers mentioning which part of a Gibraltar-related article is reviewed, like one section or another. But that would require nominators to identify a nomination as part of Gibraltar. --George Ho (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
      • George, if promoters aren't doing this, they're ignoring DYK rules which say to have a balanced and diverse set, which for a small place like Gibraltar effectively limits it to one per set. And if promoters aren't taking a look at the articles they're promoting, enough to determine the subject matter (including Gibraltar), then they're not properly doing their job. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I definitely don't agree with the idea of maintaining any restrictions. I don't see the rationale for making reviewers specifically address "the neutral/promotional aspect" (literally; you don't offer any rationale). Why treat Gibraltar differently from any other topic area on Misplaced Pages? There's also no evidence I'm aware of that this is a special problem for Gibraltar. There hasn't been a single case of a Gibraltar DYK with neutrality/promotional issues. If there's no evidence of a problem what need is there for a special solution? Prioryman (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with Prioryman's statement right above this. In addition, I respectfully disagree with Bluemoonset because the restrictions are a discriminatory practice that never should have been. If DYK doesn't discriminate against any other topic, I don't see how it justifies this. — Maile (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Did you look to see which restrictions I wasn't in favor of lifting for already submitted hooks? Primarily, there are two in terms of who are currently prohibited from reviewing: not Victuallers, and not IPs. Why should these users suddenly be allowed to review these particular hooks, when there were cogent reasons for not allowing it previously? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, I respect your opinion and don't want this to go around and around. I'm the one who thought up both the "No IPs review" and "no Victuallers" aspects of the Gibraltar restriction. I was trying to cover all the bases, without really knowing how to put together an RFC type of discussion. I believe the process was flawed due to my not knowing how to set it up. And hardly anybody voted on it anyway. Victuallers voluntarily recused himself from the process and has not been involved with Gibraltar DYK noms since. Should he renege on this the promoter could require a second review. Somehow, I can't image why Victuallers would want to open that Pandora's box again. I mean, the man did end up resigning from the Wikimedia UK board. As for IPs, are we having a lot of IP reviewers at DYK? How is it handled normally when an IP does a review? — Maile (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I didn't think IPs were allowed to review DYKs anyway; I don't think I've ever seen a review from an IP. I certainly haven't seen any reviewing Gibraltar-related articles. Why are IPs a special issue of concern (I never understood this aspect of the restrictions anyway)? I don't know if anyone's mentioned this discussion to Victuallers (I'll do it next to make sure) but I'm sure he'd be amenable to voluntarily absenting himself from DYK reviews in this topic area. I don't see any need to impose a formal restrictionon him - that seems over the top and I don't think we should be singling people out like that. Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Prioryman, when I set up that RFC type of discussion, I pulled the IP review thought out of thin air. Again, I really didn't know what I was doing, and am not sure now what I was thinking at the time. But it was probably something more along the lines of the subject matter had gotten heated, and I wanted to cover the bases on who might try to circumvent any decision. However, as I say, I had no idea what I was doing. There was no basis for concern. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • At the time, it was my impression that a voluntary absention of Victuallers was not going to be adequate to calm the storm: not only were there major conflict of interest issues involved, but he had mistakenly approved his own DYK nomination of a GibraltarpediA article. Under the circumstances, it seemed reasonable to me that the restrictions should include a specific prohibition against him reviewing Gibraltar articles, and my recollection is that some of the votes specifically cited that provision when supporting the package. Calling it "over the top" seems to be forgetting what happened and why damage control was necessary. The thing about voluntary agreements is that they can end at any time when the volunteer considers it to be reasonable as opposed to when the community thinks it reasonable; under the circumstances, I think keeping this requirement in place until the GibraltarpediA hooks submitted during the competition are all processed is appropriate. As for the IPs, it seems unlikely that an IP would do a DYK review even if at the time it may have seemed like a useful potential loophole to close to help calm the waters, and any such would certainly be closely scrutinized today before promotion to a prep area, so it's probably harmless however it's left. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Suggestion It's Republic Day in Gibraltar on January 29th - we could simply have some Gibraltar themed sets to clear out all the ones currently sitting around in one hit. Miyagawa (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Republic? Gibraltar? Have you had too much brandy butter on your mince pies? Kevin McE (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I think you mean Constitution Day? (Gibraltar definitely isn't a republic!) It's a nice idea but I don't think it's very workable - it's still a month away and there are at least six Gibraltar-related articles ready to go now. And to be honest, it's not an occasion that has much international significance. I think it's a bad idea to flood DYK with related topics on the same day unless there is some kind of major, internationally-recognised event on that day (e.g. the Titanic centenary, Christmas Day etc). Prioryman (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • With restrictions proposed by BlueMoonset. "Projects like Gibraltarpedia are a test of our mission," says Mr Bamkin, adding that the next target is expansion into northern Africa "Morocco, Algeria, or Mali." (BBC News) Poeticbent talk 06:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Victuallers is a remarkable Wikipedian. Our history goes back years. By the same token, the official government-sponsored campaign is far from over, that's why it is best to err on the side of caution. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm. And what if Canada launches a like campaign? Should DYK topic restrict Canada? How about Australia? Or maybe just topic restrict the smaller ones like Tahiti. For that matter, since promoting and improving articles on individual interests is the basis for Misplaced Pages projects, why don't we topic restrict anything connected with these projects? — Maile (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, why not come up with the most absurd possibility? Or, more helpfully, why don't we recognize that DYK needs to be better about handling competitions and other organized projects that wish to use it as part of their methodology? Should we be giving Monmouth or Gibraltar (or Canada, or Tahiti) special attention such as multi-hook sets or lead hooks, or should there be guidelines on what's acceptable and what amounts to conflict of interest? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
comment Thanks to Maille who contacted me. The reason I am not editting Gibraltar DYKs is because I agreed that this was a good idea. The idea of banning IPs and me personally was a bit over the top. I'm obviously not surprised that no one has found even a snippet of promotion, but I am very pleased that it has been generally acknowledged above. I am/was one of the top editors in maintaining DYK and if I say I am not going to do something then you should assume good faith. No editor should be working with DYKs where there is a COI and I would be surprised if any DYK could be approved by an IP address editor. I also looked at the BBC quote above but I cannot see why it is being quoted. What I said there seems to be implicit in our mission statement. I would also like to raise the problem of innocent editors like Anne who have seen there DYK submissions being reviewed in what appears to her in an unfair way. Is there anyone who thinks she is owed an apology? Victuallers (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing like statistics. The RFC proposed idea where on Sept 22, 2012 Victuallers volunteered to recuse himself. Toolserver DYK search shows his last DYK was Sept 11, 2012. He has been good for his word. — Maile (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes I think Anne is owed an apology. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. WMUK is currently under investigation with a final report expected to be made public later this month. Let's at least see what that report reveals about how deep the conspiracy goes and the extent to which WMUK remains a threat to the neutrality of enwp's front page. Kilopi (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The outcome of the review is frankly irrelevant to the discussion. The historical question of how Gibraltarpedia was set up in the first place has no bearing on how Gibraltar-related articles are to be treated going forward. The restrictions were only imposed because there were concerns about COI and promotion in relation to the competition being promoted by Gibraltarpedia. There was never any connection between the restrictions and the review, which was announced after the restrictions were imposed. As that competition ended a week ago, the rationale for those restrictions no longer exists and the editors who proposed and agreed the restrictions agree above that they should be lifted. Citing the review as a reason for not lifting them is moving the goalposts and makes little sense. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way, it's worth pointing out that the review will not be addressing DYK or any other on-wiki matter. Its scope does not extend to "matters governed by the Wikimedia community on the Wikimedia projects" such as DYK. Its outcome will solely be about the governance of WMUK. Prioryman (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no misunderstanding. I read what I link to, including the sentence you quote. Of course they will not pass judgment on on-wiki content matters, but I may use knowledge of off-wiki matters to inform my opinion of on-wiki matters. Kilopi (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Since your "understanding" apparently involves a belief that there is a "conspiracy" (seriously?) I think there's reason to question how based on reality your opinion is likely to be... Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support ending any special restrictions in place. It is important to remember that normal restrictions that allow for variety and balance will inevitably cause a delay when such an influx of related hooks are nominated. While I support removing restrictions, I do not support any special considerations related to expediting their appearance on the main page. --My76Strat (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The set of restrictions is still a good idea because the topic is still under investigation. The proposal by Prioryman is too soon. Let's wait until Mike Hudson and Kevin Smith issue their report. At the same time, I think Constitution Day, 29 January, is a fine time to bend the rules and dispose of display a set of Gibraltar DYKs to reduce the backlog. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Going forward with multiple DYK submissions on one topic

  • I'm involved in the GibraltarpediA project, so I won't make a substantive comment wrt the proposal, but I would just say (as somebody who has been an occasional nominator, reviewer, and admin at DYK for several years) that DYK needs to find a better way of handling influxes of nominations on relatively narrow topic areas. We've had it before (though usually on a smaller scale) and we'll have it again even if there were no GibraltarpediA or similar projects, so I think it would make sense to establish a process that gets suitable articles their time on the main page while ensuring that the volume of nominations doesn't compromise DYK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm putting this in its own section, because it's something to think about on its own. Can you find what used to exist before on this subject? Do you have suggestions of how the mechanics of it would work? DYK editors tend to write about and nominate their interests. Those who enjoy getting involved submit many noms on one subject. One extreme I just found - and these are superb articles - is one editor who has submitted 353 DYKs since 2010 on Science subjects (flora, fauna, minerals, etc). That's a lot. There have also been large runs on horses, sports, governments, bios, geography, monuments, architecture, music and pop culture. How does DYK put the brakes on it? — Maile (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Two ways to do that-
  • Stop all DYKs. Puts he brakes on such extremes.
  • Have a classification and count what which are the topics of every DYK. Have an upper limit for the number of DYKs from one topic over a time period. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Option 1 clearly isn't going to happen, nor should it, so we can forget about that. Option 2 is more interesting. I sought to do something like that for Today's Featured Article by creating Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/Statistics, which provides info on subjects and national affiliation of TFA topics. It was intended to provide a basis for analyses of the geographical and topical variety of TFA. It would probably be possible to do something similar for DYK. However, I would caution that it would require a lot of work given the number of DYKs run daily. Prioryman (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
How? Just add another option to DYK nomination process - Choose any one of the 10 broad topics that cover all DYKs (I suggest the 10 topic range for Peer Review to be a good start.) After a couple of weeks, it will appear obvious which ones of the subtopics needs a topic of their own, and which need to be merged. Once we have a satisfactory topic-wise classification this way, we can easily put an upper cap to the number of nominations that come out of one broad topic (and similar caps for smaller subtopics) in a given week. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no need to put the breaks on. We are already suffering from insufficient nominations, so if you crimp the enthusiasts there will be even less. Instead we just need to maintain a balance on each preparation area. The limits that we had before eg no more than half US related or half Olympics related will be adequate for topics in general. So no more than 4 of any one kind of topic, so no more than half biographies, no more than half music related, or half science related. FOr narrow topics we can limit it to one per prep area. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that's all part of making up a good spread. There should be a variety of topics - for instance, I always try to give a 50/50 split between bios and non-bios, and keep it to a single hook per subject area. Although that being said, it hasn't always been possible, especially in recent months with a lack of US based hooks available (compared to other countries). In fact, I've found myself putting out very UK-centric hook sets because of this. The Olympic stuff was unusual, and it shouldn't come around again for another two years (and even then I think the take-up during the Winter Olympics will be significantly lower than the Summer Olympics). I think that while it might not be necessary as a rule, perhaps there should be a guide to good set construction (if there isn't something along those lines already) and a proviso for nominators that if they nominate a whole bunch of hooks on the same subject then it will take longer for them to be posted than if they nominate on a variety of subjects. Miyagawa (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There seem to be a few different situations here:
  1. Projects like MonmouthpediA and GibraltarpediA, where submission of articles to DYK and their approval are part of the criteria used to award prizes
  2. Competitions like WikiCup, which allow people to submit to DYK as one way of accumulating points
  3. Major events like Olympics or Paralympics, which generate a flood of submissions
  4. Academic classes which include submitting to DYK as part of their program/syllabus/requirement for students
  5. People who find a subject and mine it for many articles, sometimes submitted in batches. Recent examples include Lebanese parliamentary elections and video games; past ones include racehorses and Australian women athletes.
I wouldn't mind seeing DYK establish ground rules about how the first group should be handled: do we bend over backward to allow hooks to come through, to the point of perhaps running multiple hooks in a set or in a day, or do we limit the numbers? Do we have conflict of interest rules about who can review and promote hooks? For that matter, should we be trying generally to limit the number of hooks any one contributor can have in a single set? In a certain period? I don't know the answers, but I do know that there are times when I see a lot of the same names with articles in a set topic area. Some of them end up sitting around a little longer, because of the need to balance sets, but there are sometimes runs of similar articles over a series of sets, which is far from ideal. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute... Will this affect holiday-related hooks, like ones on Christmas and April Fools' Day? --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to find a hard rule. I have written maybe fifty DYKs inspired by one painting and no one minds/noticed (I think). I also ran Halloween one year when every hook was about Halloween for 36 hours. After I withdrew from DYK we had((and have) numerous editors creating Gibraltar DYKs (despite their being no advantage in the Gibraltarpedia challenge). DYK is a wonderful way to bring on new editors - and to get them to give up wikipedia for ever! Most of the regular DYKers have their "thing". Suggest that DYK concentrate on looking after new editors and its regular maintenance crew. Victuallers (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
One thing worth noting is the wikicup this year is rating larger expansions and articles which have been stubs for some years as worth more points. I've at times suggested folks look at stub lists or other areas to add some variety (as we clearly have had runs of birds, mushrooms, olympics and all sorts of topics) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Currently no DYK image on Main Page

Resolved

The lead hook was removed and not replaced. See WP:Errors#Errors in the current or next Did you know.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

My suggested alteration of the original hook was accepted, and it's been restored. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated January 1 date request

Since this nomination has dragged on so long, I am hoping we can get Template:Did you know nominations/Venric Mark approved for the final January 1 queue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thus, I am hoping to target Prep area 3 that will go into queue 5.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Another one mentioning New Year's Day and not yet reviewed is Christophe Coin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Minor Queue 3 edit

In the third hook of Queue 3, only the album's title should be in italics: ''']'''. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 WikiCup

Hi, this is just a note to say that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting soon, with signups remaining open throughout January. The WikiCup is an annual competition in which competitors are awarded points for contributions to the encyclopedia, focussing on audited content (such as good articles, featured articles, featured pictures and such) and high importance articles. It is open to new and old Wikipedians and WikiCup participants alike. Even if you don't want to take part, you can sign up to receive the monthly newsletters. Rules can be found here. Any questions can be directed to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Riin Tamm nominated as AFD

It appeared as part of DYK yesterday, but how was concerns of the notability of the person disregarded until deletion nomination? Can we stop promoting any more hooks whose articles may not pass notability guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  • George, how do you propose "may not" should be handled? Remember, "may not" also means "may well"; the discussion on the talk page at the time used the assessment "borderline", which to me means it could easily go either way. If our reviewer thought it was notable enough, that's a judgment call just like "borderline" was. Should it be required of DYK reviewers and promoters to start an AfD even if, in their judgment, the article seems to just make the grade on notability? That seems to be the only close to foolproof way for preventing articles that just might be insufficiently notable from appearing on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not implying that AFD is required to test notability of a topic. There should be reasonable doubt without setting up AFD. Ngaire Thomas did appear in DYK in 2008, but instead I tagged it for "cleanup" because... the article is badly structured, and the person did only one book, as far as I know. If notability is on "borderline" per talk page or anywhere else, then let's re-review again and consider merits of arguments next time... Oh wait, that was required on Gibraltar-related articles. --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6: Gundicha Temple

Can someone please change the hook to ALT (Template:Did you know nominations/Gundicha Temple)? much more hooky... --Redtigerxyz 05:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Queue 6: Hans Severus Ziegler

The hook says: "... that Hans Severus Ziegler proposed the name "Hitler Youth" for the Nazi youth movement?" - He didn't, he proposed "Hitler-Jugend". (You can speak about it using the English name, of course, but you can't say he proposed that English name.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose he proposed it in his own language, but things are translated all the time; this is English Misplaced Pages after all. There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity here with this translation. To make a change here would sacrifice accessibility to English language readers for some sort of linguistic nitpickiness. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
How about this to satisfy both sides: "... that Hans Severus Ziegler proposed the name "Hitler-Jugend" (Hitler Youth) for the Nazi youth movement?" Sasata (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that works. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone with admin powers please take care of it? This hits the main page in about three hours. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Allen3  21:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Cobscook Bay hook

The Cobscook Bay hook (currently in Prep 3) contrasts a 1935 scheme to generate electricity to a current one, but while it used vague language—"new tidal power scheme is now active"—to match the information in the article from a July 2012 source, the project actually went on line in September 2012, a fact that had not been included in the article. I've updated the article, and boldly changed the part of the hook quoted above to "new tidal power generation method succeeded there in 2012".

I would, however, like someone to check my work to make sure I've adhered to all the DYK rules in terms of article and hook sourcing, accuracy, paraphrasing, and sustaining the hook's interest. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've just revised the hook again, as the 1930s scheme was not abandoned in 1935 but at least a year later than that. Since the year it stopped when additional congressional funding was not supplied is not clear—it could be 1936 or 1937—I've restructured the opening on the hook so it says "a mid-1930s attempt" rather than "in 1935 an attempt". BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Second review needed?

I just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Soldier Artificer Company. As it appears to be sufficiently Gibraltar-related to need a second review (the discussion above doesn't seem to have finished yet), I thought I should drop a note here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear from the discussion above (which, assuming the usual week being allowed for it, is due to close this Thursday) that the second review requirement is going to be discontinued. Given this, I don't think there's any point in asking for a second review. Prioryman (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I've moved it into the Gibraltar holding area where it's now with a number of other recent hooks that only have a single review and no mention of a second as a possibility. My assumption has been that the second review requirement was likely to be lifted, so it seemed like a poor use of reviewing resources to point people at them when so much else needs reviewing. If the situation changes over the next couple of days then we can revisit, but I doubt it will: if the double review requirement is lifted, a bunch of hooks will suddenly become fully approved, presumably this one among them. However, until that final approval icon is added to this particular nomination, it won't be ready to go with them. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Old unreviewed hooks for the new year

It's a new year, but we have many old DYK submissions that need reviewing. Since a couple of these old ones are huge multis, I'm starting up a new section for them; also, with the GibraltarpediA competition having ended, it's past time for getting those hooks reviewed. Many thanks for your assistance.

The two megamulti hooks are:

Finally, here are five Gilbraltar-related hooks that need reviews, three of which are from October; all are in the special holding area, where it's hard to find them. Gibraltar hooks still need two careful reviews, and while two only need a hook review and one has a completed first review, two do need the full treatment. You can also look in the holding area for other Gibraltar hooks needing reviews, though a few are also lacking their required QPQ.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)