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 16:26, 17 October 2014 editPolentarion (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,662 edits →Older nominations needing DYK reviewers← Previous edit Revision as of 16:35, 17 October 2014 edit undoFram (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors247,761 edits →Shouldn't the hook fact be in the article? Removed one from main page: Reply to rather strange statement.Next edit →
Line 605: Line 605:
:The hook fact and the "discussion" with RTG can be left behind, as far as I am concerned. The wheel warring is now at ], a swheel warring is taken quite seriously and normally always results in an immediate ArbCom case. ] (]) 14:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC) :The hook fact and the "discussion" with RTG can be left behind, as far as I am concerned. The wheel warring is now at ], a swheel warring is taken quite seriously and normally always results in an immediate ArbCom case. ] (]) 14:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::Looks like a very interesting article. Well done for persevering to get this on the main page. I suspect that the scientists would be quite happy to know that their estimation is of the correct order - and it appears that ArbCom is inclined to agree. Apologies. ] (]) 15:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC) ::Looks like a very interesting article. Well done for persevering to get this on the main page. I suspect that the scientists would be quite happy to know that their estimation is of the correct order - and it appears that ArbCom is inclined to agree. Apologies. ] (]) 15:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::You start with two good sentences, and then decline into irrelevant babbling in the final three. Which scientists? Where has it been shown that their estimation is of the correct order? We repeat their estimation, we don't make it more or less correct. What is ArbCom agreeing with? With the scientists? No idea where you get that. And "apologies"? You were not involved with the DYK or the discussion, so no idea what you are apologizing for or to whom. All very strange and confusing, and not really helping anything. ] (]) 16:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:35, 17 October 2014

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 3 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Current time: 22:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 22 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.

Increase to 3 sets a day?

The backlog is now over 300 noms with 54 hook approved, and there is no backlog in the queue. I say it's time to increase the number of sets per day to 3, as 300+ noms has typically been the point when an increase would be made. Thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth posted something similar here a couple of days ago in Hook accumulation. It probably is about time, especially with the final push for the Wikicup underway, and the normal post–Labor day increase in nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I was asked to look into this, and although there hasn't been much discussion I agree with Blue and Bloom. Just don't recall where the bot's adjustment page is... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The critical figure is the number approved, not the number of noms. I agree that 300+ is excessive, but experience has shown that 54 hooks is only enough to fill two prep areas! There is no way that we can sustain three per days with that approval rate! Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
      • 54 approved = 2 prep areas? Do you mean 2 sets? 54/6 = 9, so assuming some duds there should still be at least 7 or 8. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Haven't we been putting 7 hooks in a set? 54/7<8. I think we should wait a little while before going to 3 sets per day. We will likely end up going to 3 sets for a while and soon find ourselves unable to fill prep sets far enough in advance to put them into the queue before the bot is telling us the queues are empty. It is annoying seeing the page run sporadically. Let's wait until the backlog is larger so we can keep on our schedule.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's been 7 hooks per set, but that can easily be reduced to 6. And with a backlog of over 300 (now 335 to be specific), I don't see why anyone should be advocating waiting longer to increase to 3 sets a day, especially when there are 71 approved hooks already. That's enough to build 10 sets of 7 hooks each. At the rate we're going at, it'll take 5 days for that to be used up (not to mention the additional approvals that would take place within those 5 days). Rule of thumb has always been – reduce to 2 sets when under 200 noms; increase to 3 sets when over 300. The time for an increase is now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The number of noms should not determine the throughrate, as Hawkeye explains, so if that ever was a rule of thumb it shouldn't be. I too think that 2 sets a day remains an appropriate rate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • We have me, Crisco, Bloom and BlueMoonset for increase to 3, and Tony, Hawkeye and Nikkimaria preferring to stay at 2 for the time being. Much as I'd love to tweak, I think it might be prudent until a couple more opinions have weighed in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, your vote counting is irrelevant to the current situation. Hawkeye didn't actually specify whether there should be 2 or 3 sets a day, and stated his concern when there were only 54 approved hooks. There are now 62 of them, not to mention the fact that all four prep areas have now been filled. That, along with the 3 queues, covers at least the next 3.5 days, if not more. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it is pretty clear that Hawkeye7 said 3 per day was too much. I don't think WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is relevant here. We are trying to determine a collective consensus on what to do and there is certainly not a consensus to move to 2. It really would be no more helpful for me to bluelink CONSENSUS that it is for you to bluelink NOTDEMOCRACY. There is just not a consensus to go to 3 right now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Per Hawkeye: The critical figure is the number approved, not the number of noms. I agree that 300+ is excessive, but experience has shown that 54 hooks is only enough to fill two prep areas! There is no way that we can sustain three per days with that approval rate! Unless I'm blind, nowhere in that statement does Hawkeye say he's in favour of staying at 2 sets a day or that he's opposed to three sets a day. Taking his quote within the context it was given, he says we can't sustain 3 sets a day "with that approval rate". Since then, the number of approved hooks has increased to 64 (and would've now been over 80 approved had not all 4 prep areas been filled today). That's an increase of more than an entire set. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And your claim that NOTDEMOCRACY is not relevant is simply inaccurate, since the way you derived "consensus" is by counting votes. You previously stated, That still only makes 5 ayes and 4 nays (with TRM below).) If that's not vote counting, then what is? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why the delay? I still see hooks being pulled here and there at the same pace they were back when there were 3 sets a day. Hence, the claim correlating slow pace with quality control is iffy at best… —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I wasn't talking about solely the main page. If you haven't noticed, there's been threads like "Queue1 problems" and "Pulled Perce Wilson from Queue5". The end result is exactly the same – inferior noms by inexperienced users. Slowing down the entire DYK process with slogans like "No need to rush" repeated ad nauseum is like putting a band aid on a bullet wound. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually no, not at all. Keeping crap off the main page is key. If hooks get pulled prior to main page, because they're in queues and prep areas for a little longer, that's a great thing! No need to rush! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"If hooks get pulled prior to main page …" – they shouldn't have to pulled at all. The fact that they are even promoted to the prep areas and then to the queues in the first place is the real problem. Insisting on 12 hour cycles is merely a temporary solution to a much bigger problem (another band aid on a bullet wound). We all know you want to completely overhaul the DYK system. That's fine. But repeating your opinion ad nauseum each time doesn't make it an iota more correct. Create an RFC instead and we can start some meaningful, constructive reforms from there. And BlueMoonset confirmed what I had been suspecting all along – 3 sets a day is indeed the norm. So why don't we go back to 3 sets and see how it pans out? We can always change back to two when we run low on hooks or when there's an increase in the number of pulled hooks. For someone who staunchly advocates necessary change, it's hard to comprehend how you can simultaneously be so resistant to it, especially when this change here to 3 sets has become very much necessary. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think two a day is appropriate too. No need to rush, and the quality is increasing slowly but surely as more people have time to visit the queues before they get to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Our purpose here is to choose a rate of consumption (hooks per day moved to main page) and a nominal number of noms approved-but-not-yet-run-on-MP (including those in prep or Q -- let's call this the approved reserve) -- matched such that, while the approved reserve will always fluctuate, the probability of its reaching zero on any given day is very small.
  • Right now we've got 340 noms on the board, 80 in "approved reserve". For this discussion only the 80 has any significance. (If anything the 260 "excess" tells us large numbers of noms are stalled for unknown lengths of time.)
  • A sample of 28 hooks promoted in the last week suggests that the average time from nomination to approval is (believe it or not) about 19 days, with a standard deviation ("give or take") of about the same amount. (Those who can remember their elementary statistics without painful PTSD relapses should take a moment to think about what that last bit implies.)
  • Here's the complete data (days from nomination to final tick) -- it's a highly variable process: 0,0,1,2,2,3,3,3,5,5,6,4,7,10,11,20,22,23,26,31,33,32,35,38,44,41,56,62
  • How to translate this data into the right rate of consumption, approved reserve, etc. (not to mention what we consider an acceptable probability of running dry on any given day) is complex. However, if we move to consumption of 3*7=21 hooks per day, then the current reserve of 80 is only 4 days' worth. From the data, only about 25% of hooks are approved in 4 days or less. Combining this with the recent nomination rate of about 9 per day means that....
  • Wait a minute.... The rate of nominations (9 per day) over the last month has been insufficient to sustain even 2*7=14 promotions per day, much less 3*7=21 promotions per day. That alone tells us that we shouldn't go to 3 sets per day, and that even 2 sets per day may be risky.
  • I'll complete the above lecture when 30 days of nominations rises to the 21 needed to sustain 3 sets per day. Until then 2 sets per day is the absolute max unless we want to find ourselves running out sometime in the next few weeks. Then that stupid DYKbot starts bugging us, and then my violent fantasies of bot-o-cide begin to return, and...

EEng (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • EEng, your figure of 9 nominations per day is about half what it should be. Since the beginning of August, there have only been 7 days where the nominations have gone below 14 per day, and 6 have exceeded 21 per day. (Note that I'm not counting the days that are still filling under Current nominations, but even there only the two most recent days are below 9.) If you're basing your count on the List of DYK Hooks by date, that table doesn't count already promoted or rejected nominations, so it's useless for determining the rate of nominations.
  • In fact, the average rate of nominations in August was 17 per day. At a promotion rate of 14 per day, the number of waiting nominations will increase, as indeed it has been doing. For the first seven days of September (and the September 7 total of 18 nominations can still increase over the next six hours), the average is currently 18.85 nominations per day. If we stay at 14 promotions per day, our backlog will continue to increase, and it's enormously high already. If we increase to 18 or 21 per day (in three sets), then our unprecedented backlog will start to decrease. We can always back down to 14 per day later if we start running out of approved hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to grab this trout by the tail and give EEng a quick whack!
Arggh! I'm an idiot! I did exactly the stupid thing BMS guesses above that I did. Please, I beg everyone, help me expiate my sin! Whack me with the trout provided at right.
BMS, where did you get the full noms-per-day figures? Are they hidden somewhere? Also, can you give separate figures for (still in review vs. approved vs. rejected)?
I'll resume the above lecture after my ego has recovered somewhat (though the conclusion remains that 2 sets/day is the maximum prudent rate of consumption -- I'll just have to use some ∑s and δs and ∫s and stuff). EEng (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
EEng, I used the brute-force method for nominations: took T:TDYK into the editor and counted the number of templates per day. A bit of a pain, but it works...so long as someone hasn't decided to clean out the promoted/rejected ones in order to reduce the loading time of the page. (This was last done on July 27, so it wasn't an issue for August or September.) I did have to go back into the page history to check August 2, which had been deleted entirely since all its hooks had been promoted/rejected, but that was an easy diff. Unfortunately, I can't give separate figures for the still in review vs. approved vs. rejected, and the one problem with the brute force method is that it doesn't know about special occasion hooks that were removed from their original date. There aren't a lot of them, so they wouldn't have significantly changed my numbers. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to clear up one point BMS makes: the number 300 has absolutely nothing to do with this. That large number means only that there are a lot of noms stuck awaiting approval, but the only thing to do about that is crack the whip on reviews. Unless and until those noms end up in the "approved reserve" (as I call it), this has zero to do with the appropriate "consumption rate" (as, again, I have called it).

  • BMS' nomination figures clarify things marvelously. His number of 17 noms/day includes a few that will end up rejected/withdrawn, but on the other hand it looks like nomination rates have been going up recently, in desperation let's just call it 17 noms arriving per day. That's somewhat more than what's needed to sustain 2 sets of 7 = 14/day, but not enough to sustain 3 sets of 7 = 21/day. So an alternation between 2 sets/day and 3 sets/day is the right strategy. But of course we knew that already.
  • The question, then, is when to trigger the switches back and forth. If we switch to 3/day right now, the approved reserve will start at 4 days, and rapidly become 3, then 2, then 1 -- then suddenly we'll be having an emergency debate on going back to 2/day again. That's no way to run a railroad.
  • Let me suggest two really nice, round numbers which are easy to remember, and safe against the approved reserve running dry -- but not excessively so: 100 and 150. That is:
  • Keep running 2 sets/day until the approved reserve hits 150 or above.
  • At that point switch to 3 sets/day, until the approved reserve hits 100 or below, at which point we go back to 2 sets/day.
  • Notice the trigger points are such that drift from 7 days' reserve up to 11 days' reserve during the 2/day period ("on the way up"), then from 7 days' reserved down to 4 days' reserve during the 3/day period ("on the way down").
  • I know these numbers will seem excessive to the "rushers", but the key number in the above is the minimum 4 days' reserve. I submit that 4 days' reserve is really the least we should want to plan to have ever.
  • This yields a very stable process with changes to the # sets/day only every few months, and we would never, ever run out of hooks. If we can agree on the 100/150 trigger points now (at least provisionally) then we don't have to have a debate every time -- when the approved reserve hits a trigger point, whoever notices that can just change the bot parameter, no questions asked.

Informal tracking of the stats

  • Not to worry, there will be plenty of opposition to a suggestion of 1 set/day with 300+ active nominations. For me, I'd want to see total nominations at fewer than 150 and a single-figure nomination rate before entertaining the extreme suggestion of a single daily set. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
BMS, you're a smart guy (or gal -- never did know which). But you keep missing the point. It doesn't matter how many noms are awaiting approval -- all that matters is the size of the approved reserve, because we can't put noms-awaiting-approval on the MP. EEng (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
EEng, I'm not missing the point. I'm just aware of more variables. We can vary the size of the sets up or down, which allows for fine tuning; if we had (say) 45 approved hooks in the reserve, we could still easily fill two sets a day, since approvals will continue to occur. At the moment, you're one guy (or gal?) with a new theory that's suddenly the be-all and end-all, while there's years of DYK experience that you're apparently unaware of. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
No amount of experience can change the fact that we can't post hooks that haven't been approved. That there are many hooks still awaiting approval is no help at all, unless you think that, when you've bounced a check, you can show your bank a lot of IOUs people have given you and they'll tell you everything's square. EEng (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Resuming normal, non–lecture-format debate

  • No need to rush. A backlog is a good thing actually, and keeping hooks on for twelve hours means that most of the world can see them, I've had several DYKs that have been posted while I slept. No rush. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No need to delay. The whole purpose of a backlog is to build up enough noms so that we don't run out. Unless this wasn't the case before August 2012, having three sets a day has always been the norm since I've been nominating DYKs. Reducing to two sets is only utilized as an emergency measure when we get below 150–200 noms. Now that we're at over 300 noms (and 81 approved), the backlog has clearly served its purpose already. Time to return back to normalcy. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, if "normalcy" is posting garbage to the main page and getting dozens of error reports and allowing hooks to be re-written on the fly while contributors sleep. Slow it down. Current is good. Your version of "normal" is simply not good. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As I replied earlier above, I still see hooks being pulled here and there at the same pace they were back when there were 3 sets a day. It makes no difference whether it's 2 or 3 sets. The end result is exactly the same – inferior noms by inexperienced users. Hence, your claim correlating slow pace with quality control is iffy at best… —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The numbers do not agree with your observations. Compare the one-month periods between 11 June and 11 July (3 sets/day), versus 19 July and 19 August (2 sets/day), at Misplaced Pages:Did_you_know/Removed: 44 pulls for a month of 3 sets/day, 5 pulls for a month of 2 sets/day. Granted there are likely other factors contributing to this, but it would seem there is in fact a very strong correlation in recent months between higher run rate and higher pull rate. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There's no point in comparing stats when you skew them to your favour. You conveniently left out April 2014 (which was 3 sets a day and only 13 pulls) and February 2014 (also 3 sets/day with just 14 pulls). And there would be no pulls for a month of 0 sets/day. So the stats you provided are basically meaningless, because it's obvious the more sets run, the more pulls there will be. Correlation does not imply causation. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is of course why I said only that there was a correlation. I chose the stats period from looking at the history of rate changes - selecting a period of one month starting the day after the most recent change to each rate - before looking at the removals list, so your accusations of deliberate skewing are out of line. Please dial it back a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "our accusations of deliberate skewing are out of line" – let's see. You claim that the "numbers do not agree with observations". Then, you choose a one-month period with 3 sets that is a complete anomaly (there's no other way to describe it) to all the other DYK months in 2014. But you don't disclose the two months with 3 sets that do agree with my observations (and rebut the anomalous month example you gave). When I (correctly) call this out as skewing the stats in your favour, you call my accusations "out of line". Reality check – the only thing "out of line" here is your picking and choosing stats that suit your (and TRM's) argument but don't give the full perspective of the actual situation. It presents an incomplete and inaccurate one-sided picture which, if I hadn't probed deeper into these stats, would have misled others to believe that your argument was correct. Clearly that's not the case. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "I still see hooks being pulled here and there at the same pace they were back when there were 3 sets a day. It makes no difference whether it's 2 or 3 sets" as a claim is not compatible with "it's obvious the more sets run, the more pulls there will be", nor is it compatible with recent data. If you want to look at larger trends to get the "full perspective of the actual situation", it is indeed obvious that more sets per day equals more pulls, not to mention more late-update warnings. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually Bloom6132, I make my observations based on the number of ERRORS and pulls I'm seeing. Subjectively it seems that the quality has increased substantially and that I rarely have to attend to major DYK errors on the main page. This is because there's more time for some of us to wander past the queues because the mad rush to cycle DYKs round has slowed a little. There is absolutely not one single advantage to rushing these to the main page. So you would claim "backlog!", I would suggest this is a good investment in the future of DYK. Keep allowing us time to make sure the quality is on the increase, and continue the education of those reviewers who clearly have something to learn about quality control in Misplaced Pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as only a sometime contributor to DYK (I have maybe about 50 or 100 — we temporarily had the record for most hooks in one article at one time — I thought a whole day was good. Running them through just to get them out of the line doesn't do the articles justice in terms of visibility. Who (and how many) is looking at these articles on the midnight shift {{yes, I know we are global)? I daresay that most people don't constantly monitor the main page. I understand the need to move the queue, but that can't be the only consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
If this were some sort of perfect world, every article would get its own little feature on the main page. It isn't. DYK is set up to give a brief, hopefully memorable mention for a variable number of hours on the main page. It isn't ideal that it can't be a whole day, or even necessarily half a day—I've had some hooks that were up for six hours, when we had to go to four sets a day—but the hook is there and can be seen by anyone who stops at the front page for that period. If we don't "run them through" at the rate they're coming in, then eventually we have 400, 500, or more hooks backed up—300 was a rare event in my experience until very recently. Something has to give if we aren't to have an ever-inflating backlog: either we have to bar the door to newcomers, or increase the flow of hooks going to the main page. Three times a day was the standard when I first started coming here, occasionally varying to two or four times when necessary. We write articles, nominate them for DYK, and take our chances as to when and how long the nomination will be seen. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no rush. 12 hours for a hook is a fine amount of time as it allows most of the world an opportunity to see it and those who contributed to enjoy the fact they can see it on the main page. The reserved turnover rate also allows queues and prep areas to be patrolled more thoroughly and reduce the errors (and major embarrassments that DYK has provided Misplaced Pages in the past). Slow and steady, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
My comment was not meant as an implicit criticism of the administration of DYK. I simply wanted to suggest that there are countervailing considerations, and y'all have to do the best you can to weigh them in the balance. But assuredly there is a balance and a trade off no matter what you do. That's all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the nomination increase is caused in part by the Stub Contest that is running in September, as the rules for stub expansion make every entry eligible for DYK as a 5x expansion (unless they've appeared before), and if the competitors are new or reviewing each other's entries as QPQ the number of unreviewed hooks would go up (I've done extensive research into this by imagining it as a cause; it's a poissin distribution with a standard deviation of a T-test; there, statistic that!). I don't see any reason not to go to three sets a day if the queues and prep areas are kept full, but since it seems that swapping between 2 and 3 sets a day requires days of debate rather than a flick of a switch, it is probably best to stay with two. Belle (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed one from queue (been there, done that)

Yet again, I have removed a hook from the queue for factual errors.

Template:Did you know nominations/Maxwell and Tuke, @Peter I. Vardy, Carabinieri, and HJ Mitchell:. Extra ping for User:7&6=thirteen, your name doesn't seem to work in the "Ping" template!

Nope, it was the fourth-tallest, not the second tallest, both the Mole Antonelliana and Ulm Minster were higher. And of course the Washington Monument, which is perhaps less of a building, but still... We have useful lists for these kinds of things, e.g. List of tallest structures built before the 20th century. I noted that 7&6=thirteen sourced the hook, and proposed it, and that no one actually accepted it before it was promoted by Carabinieri, so at least one step of the review process was missed here.

I note that the incorrect claim seems to be one that is repeated often in the UK, e.g. in GSCE's, but that doesn't make it correct of course. Fram (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not check the factual accuracy of the added statements (about the rankings of the building). WP:Truth. Hypothetically, if I had, I would probably have taken the oft-repeated statements from WP:RSs at face value, and they are in the article. I took them at face value. Wile the Washington Monument is a man-made structure, I don't know that I would classify this obelisk as a building. I did bring up the procedural issue of the review process to User:Carabinieri as to the change in the hook, as I thought there might be static.
The original proposed hook is still absolutely reliable namely:
This from the Washington Monument article: "Upon completion, it became the world's tallest structure, a title previously held by the Cologne Cathedral. The monument held this designation until 1889, when the Eiffel Tower was completed in Paris, France." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps when you tried to close it was impeded by someone's comment that went beneath the "Do not write below this line" line. I've moved that. 7&6=thirteen (☎)
I was the one who moved the nomination to PREP. I reviewed the alternative hook suggestion. This source appeared to confirm the fact. Obviously, I wasn't aware of those other buildings. I felt that the original hook wasn't very interesting, because without that additional information it just stated that "architect X designed buildings Y and Z".--Carabinieri (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
That "architect X designed one of the most famous buildings in Britain" (or any other country) is quite interesting if you ask me. But that only goes to demonstrate that "interesting" is subjective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Does it strike anyone as odd that the article body opens, "The Blackpool Tower Company was founded by London based Standard Contract & Debenture Corporation in 1865, when it bought an Aquarium on Central Promenade with the intention of building a replica Eiffel Tower on the site." -- ? EEng (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ancoats Hall, The hook is wrong, please check your facts

Ancoats Hall is/was on the main page, I created it but knew nothing of any nomination here. The hook is wrong. It was not built to house a museum of any sort, it was a replacement residence for the old hall and used as such for many years. Please check your facts, preferably with someone who has actually read the article. J3Mrs (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. Template:Did you know nominations/Ancoats Hall. @23W, Poritrin, and Hawkeye7:. The article makes it very clear that the hall was demolished and rebuilt, and that it was much later used as an art museum, but indeed doesn't say anything indicating that it was "rebuilt as an art museum". So, after all the hooks that were recently removed from the queue, and my request to have a little bit more quality control (and for which I got quite a backlash from some people here), now we have one that got on the main page. One that wasn't even supported by the article, never mind some sources. Good going... Fram (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: there's a bot in the works, designed to notify users when someone else nominates an article which they wrote. I thought it was already operational long ago, but upon looking into it, I see that, although it may be ready, it won't be online until about a month from now. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Alas, some editors have such a low opinion of DYK, they might well delete such bot posts as "rubbish" without bothering to read? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We could change the nomination template to require a signature from the nominator. That would notify (via Echo) any other editors whose usernames were linked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, cause obviously the thing that was the major problem here was that the article creator wasn't notified... While it isn't a bad idea to improve such notifications, ignoring the fact that a clearly incorrect hook made it to the mainspace, hot on the heels of different hooks that were pulled rom the queues for similar reasons, is much more harmful to DYK. Fram (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I wasn't ignoring it, but my time machine is out of service at the moment, so I can't go back and prevent it from happening, though I will do my best to prevent it from happening again. Now, maybe the reason that you get a "backlash" is not anything to do with DYK, which is run by editors who do their best but are fallible, but because you're an arsehole. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I've given you a well-deserved NPA warning for that on your talk page. I don't blame people for being fallible, but for making up excuses in the style of "we can't do a FA quality check on every article" when all that was asked was a better check of hooks. As seen here, and way too often before, this is sorely needed. I'm glad to hear that you'll do your best to prevent this from happening again. That's all any of us can do. Fram (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
          • You can do the proverbial with your NPA warning for as long as you insist on berating good-faith but fallible editors while contributing nothing. Your last two sentences seem to imply that you recognise that that approach is unhelpful, so perhaps we can leave it at that and agree to take a more constructive approach in the future? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Thanks for confirming that finding errors and preventing them from reaching the main page is "doing nothing" in your book. A great start for the "more constructive approach" you proclaim to want. The only editor I berated was the one that indicated that checking hooks was too much effort. The others I asked nicely to be more diligent. I have no plans to change my approach to this. Fram (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Likewise, I'd say User:HJ Mitchell's propoal is one that would improve things, even if some editors ignored it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • HJ Mitchell, Re your suggestion, did you have in mind something whereby the article creator gets a notification just like they do when something is linked to the article? Latest target date for the bot mentioned by Mandarax to go live is first week in November. What we requested from the bot creator is that anytime a nomination template is created, if the nominator is other than anyone on the Created/Improved part, those individuals would get a notification. — Maile (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • How about not waiting for 'bots and just requiring DYK nominators to manually notify article creators? It's not hard: DYK rules already limit qualifying articles to those with a recent, thus obvious, creator or expander(s). There is no good reason why this can't be done, and done from today.
It won't solve the problem of bad hooks, but it would help. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to decrease to one set per day

We're now down to bare bones and it appears we've had a recent upsurge in pisspoor reviews resulting in a number of hooks being removed. I suggest we resort to one DYK update per day (as per TFA, TFL and TFP). I had some hope that the quality was improving, and I still believe it is, but we don't have anywhere near enough hooks in prep or queues to sustain two sets a day for the moment. Sorry WikiCup guys, rushing things through just isn't working. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose – "I had some hope that the quality was improving" – that's not what you said a few days ago when you pompously proclaimed that "DYK has stablised nicely with an improved quality of late". Basically, you made one claim in order to get DYK down to two sets a day, and you're now doing a complete 180º and claiming the exact opposite in order to further decrease to one set. Could you please make up your mind and decide which argument you want to stick with? And with regards to your claim about the WikiCup – prove it. You did the same thing in July's Signpost when arguing with J Milburn, and you're doing it here again. Substantiate your claims, show us your evidence or shove it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    The one thing I will say right away is, where are all the hooks?! Once again your hysteria is obnoxiously and toxically destroying any logical discussion. I haven't reversed any position at all, I've just noted a sudden "upsurge in pisspoor reviews" (perhaps you hadn't noticed, just look at the previous four or so sections here!). You're making yourself look more and more idiotic by the post, but hey, perhaps that's something you've striving for. You've excelled. (P.S. I didn't argue with Milburn, I stated my position, he, like you, didn't like it. Get over it, the rush for points in contests is clouding several people's judgement!) (P.P.S. As User:EEng asked you, what's this big dog thing you have with rushing hooks through? What's the point of it? What are you trying to achieve? Why are you so freaking angry about it all? I'd suggest it'd do your health some good to just chill out a little...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, the quoted statement comes across as a contradiction...because you omitted "and I still believe it is", thereby distorting its meaning. —David Levy 20:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think the problem with DYK is The Rambling Man. No, I don't have any evidence. No, I don't have any arguments. Stop asking me for reasons and evidence. Get over it. I'm just stating my opinion, man. No, of course I'm not being divisive. Just chill out. I'm not arguing with anyone. It's The Rambling Man's Fault. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    Good work Milburn. I never attributed the issues at DYK to any single editor. In fact I just want quality output. That relies on the numerous editors who regularly pass pisspoor quality hooks. I'm not starting the discussion all over again. Your "input" is disappointing, but just as I expected from someone running a competition designed to rush mediocrity to the main page. A pity really, it could be so much better. Similarly your "input" here could have been helpful and effective, but no, it was just childish, cynical and ultimately harmful. DYK is currently dying (once again) and all those screaming for something different are doing absolutely nothing about it. Other than screaming. (As for evidence, see above, pulled hooks a-plenty, as for arguments, see here, reduce the throughput, improve the quality... what, Milburn, are you actually trying to say?) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    Here and elsewhere, you have asserted, without trying to provide any evidence or argument, that whatever problem you choose to say exists at DYK is the fault of the WikiCup. You have then refused to provide any evidence and argument (and even brushed off the possibility of engaging in reasonable discussion- "I didn't argue with Milburn, I stated my position, he, like you, didn't like it. Get over it"). My point, which, unsurprisingly, you've missed, is that what I said about you is exactly what you say about the WikiCup. When I say it, you respond with BLOCKCAPS and call me all kinds of names. When you say it, others have got to "get over it" and "chill out a little", and our motives are questioned. I really don't care what you have to say about DYK, but your insistence that everything is the WikiCup's fault is bordering on the obsessive. J Milburn (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've actually said that WikiCup makes the situation worse, that's all. We've already agreed that we disagree on this, why you keep trying to restart an argument with me is odd, bordering on an obsession with me. I don't like it, stop doing it or I'll call the Wiki Police. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    We haven't agreed anything of the sort. You've asserted, I've pointed out that your assertion is baseless. If you don't want me to keep challenging your baseless assertions, stop bringing it up, especially in such an arrogant way ("Sorry WikiCup guys, rushing things through just isn't working.") J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    We haven't agreed that we disagree? Then why are you continually disagreeing with me? You're starting to make no sense at all. I think you need to remove yourself for a while to calm down. Or better still, review some DYK hooks! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Don't tell me what I have and have not agreed to, and don't tell me what to do. Again, if we disagree, it's because you make baseless assertions and then will say anything to avoid actually backing them up. If you're not going to provide any evidence or argument, stop with the sniping. J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've had counselling about this and it seems like you need it too! Just relax and stop denying the sky is blue! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    All I'm saying is that you haven't provided any evidence/argument for your claims and that you'll do anything to avoid doing so. Especially given the you're now suggesting that I need counseling rather than actually addressing the issue, I don't think this is particularly controversial. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    J's right – you've just been smokescreening the issue all along, claiming people need to "relax" and "calm down" (as if you know their emotions) and using that as a illogical reason to dismiss their arguments and proof. Meanwhile, you operate with the deluded notion that we need to provide diffs for claims we didn't make, while you can make any false unsubstantiated claim about DYK and the WikiCup without a shred of evidence. It's good that you went for counselling because it is clear that you are in desperate need of it. You've exported this discussion elsewhere to an AFD I started, where you blatantly lied about how an AFD cannot lead to the renaming of the article (Truth: the third sentence of WP:AFD clearly lists it as one of the options). It's quite evident that the discussion here is causing you to personalize this issue and is clouding your judgment elsewhere on completely unrelated matters. For shame! —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    You've been advised many times in several locations by various editors to try to control your emotions. I'm afraid this is yet another example of you needing to do try hard to do the same. Please try to stay calm and on-topic! Good luck with your AFD and good luck defending your position in which you and Milburn strenuously believe there's no call from the remaining WikiCup entrants to increase the rate of DYK. Did you read this page from top to bottom and also the archives? No? I didn't think so. "For shame!" (great quote, I'll using that wherever possible!). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    Prove that I'm not calm (right you can't, as it's another one of those silly unsubstantiated arguments you're so good at making). I honestly don't need to heed "advice" from admin hypocrites like you or your tag team partner, who tried warning me to "stop over-personalis things" and then proceeds to do exactly just that . You can try getting as many people to warn me as you want TRM, but in the end you and others of your ilk have no credibility whatsoever. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    Your paranoia is of significant concern. I have no idea who HJMitchell, nor have I ever interacted with him/her, so please your hysterical accusations of "tag teaming" need to be refined. You also need to learn how to make diffs work for you. The first showed nothing, the second was nothing to do with anything related here. Your "concerns" (or "opinions") over admins are certainly fascinating for you but unless you intend to do something about it, I'd focus on the matter in hand, that of the WikiCup finalists (nearly 50% of the finalists) yearning for an increase in the DYK rate. Meanwhile the rest of the community are advocating quality over quantity. You seem to have no answer for that at all. Whatever credibility you thought you might have had has evaporated some weeks ago. For shame! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    Your lying is of significant concern (not to mention your paranoia with the WikiCup). Lie #1 – early 50% of the finalists yearn for an increase in the DYK rate. What utter rubbish. Only me and Cwmhiraeth have called for an increase (25% of finalists), while there are 4 non-WikiCup finalists who oppose your silly plan. That was actually previously mentioned, but since you're an egomaniac with a WP:DONTLIKE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU syndrome, of course you wouldn't have picked up on that. Lie #2 – I have no idea who HJMitchell, nor have I ever interacted with him/her. Actually, you interacted with him less than a month ago. Explain this discussion. And don't even get me started on private emails, or is that something else we need to talk about? So what "credibility" were you talking about again? Right, you got none to speak of now, so shove it … and don't let the door hit you on the way out. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    Your whole attitude is of significant concern. Of course, you have your paranoia and your little contest to keep you going. The rest of us will just get on with improving Misplaced Pages rather than going for little trinkets to validate your existence. (For what it's worth, when you claim " What utter rubbish. Only me and Cwmhiraeth have called for an increase (25% of finalists)", of course you overlooked Cas Liber who also said "i reckon we go to 3 sets/day." and you overlook the fact that Adam Cuerden has withdrawn, that makes it "three out of seven", do the "math"! Anyway, this is done now, it ceased to be productive the moment you lost the plot for the umpteenth time. Go shout at someone who cares about your opinion, although I don't see anyone matching that description anywhere around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Does WP:CIVIL apply to the DYK talk page? If so, can we please cut the personal crap and get back to discussing the actual proposal? I'm interested in learning more about both sides of this debate before making up my mind. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps Milburn and Bloom can just talk about the situation rather than snipe at me personally. Right now we have just two complete queues in preparation for the main page, while we've have had at least four hooks pulled in the past few days. Things are not looking up and the suggestion to slow down the queue (despite the personalised sniping) is intended to help keep DYK running. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Rambling Man that the quantity and quality of prep-ready hooks is way down. Most of our good reviewers have disappeared. I find myself tagging many nominations that have been approved but that still have issues. I don't know anything about managing the number of daily queues, but I am distressed by the downturn in quantity and quality. Yoninah (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@Prototime: See my comment above beginning "Here and elsewhere". My comment is of exactly the same structure as The Rambling Man's continued, well, rambling, but, as you rightly point out, it's ridiculous. Why, then, do we continue to take him seriously? God only knows. J Milburn (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@TRM ust talk about the situation rather than snipe at me personally – we've been talking about the situation all this time; you haven't. You've labelled me "idiotic", called J Milburn "childish, and yet you still try to play the WP:CIVIL card? Hypocrisy at its finest! (P.S. You stated your unsubstantiated position, J asked for proof and you smokescreen'd the issue as usual) —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about. What evidence is required to let you know that if you run out of hooks, you can't update DYK twice a day? That doesn't take a genius, does it? There's no evidence required for that, no smokescreen, and yet you continue to screech and yell and stamp your feet. There are several other editors here who put quality over quantity, it's just that you and Milburn are not among them. That's fine. All part of life's rich tapestry. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't make assumptions about me, that's completely unfair. The evidence I want to hear is the evidence for how this is all the WikiCup's fault. If you don't have that evidence, perhaps you'd like to stop the sideswipes? J Milburn (talk)
Diff where I said "this is all WikiCup's fault" please! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
If it's only mostly the WikiCup's fault, I'd still like to see evidence. If it's neither all nor mostly the WikiCup's fault, why do you continue to poke fun? You made a snide comment about the WikiCup in your Signpost piece, and you make one here. Why? J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Repeat: Diff where I said "this is all WikiCup's fault" please or pipe down and retract it. (By the way, try a search on WikiCup on this page, you might find a surprise!) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear God. Do you enjoy being this obtuse? I didn't say you said it was all the WikiCup's fault. I said "The evidence I want to hear is the evidence for how this is all the WikiCup's fault." The way you take great pleasure in swiping at the WikiCup suggests that you think the competition is at least partly to blame for whatever problem you feel exists, so perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence of that, retract your comments or just shut the hell up? J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
No need to invoke superpowers! Check out the folks here, gagging to increase the rate so they get more WikiCup points! It's obvious. I don't want you to be embarrassed by the whole thing, if you'd like to take a moment to reflect that's fine! Anyway, quality is down, those involved in WikiCup want the rate in increased. These are simple facts. Whether there's a relationship between them, hey, I'll leave that to the independent observer. In the meantime, please remain calm! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? One person who has commented in this thread is currently participating in the WikiCup, and that person did not once mention increasing the rate, nor mention WikiCup points. I am slightly embarrassed, but that's only because I assumed there was actually something behind your weird statements- I now see that you're just deeply, deeply confused. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Remain calm Milburn, seriously. No confusion here! Up the rate for the WikiCup!! Keep the rate low or lower it for quality!! Simple, diametrically opposed views (i.e. we can at least agree that we disagree, as I said earlier!). Simple! Have a great Sunday. (P.S. try reading the "page" not the "thread"! It may help you with your ongoing embarrassment issues!) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
TRM's fantasy: current WikiCup participants advocate an increase the rate at DYK to maximize points.
Fact: No one here is calling for an increase. We're voting on your ludicrous plan to reduce DYK to one set a day. I have not used the argument of maximizing points as a reason to increase, nor am I interested in doing so – evident in that I'm hundreds of points out from the top half (and thousands of points out from first) with less than 3 weeks remaining. And I'm the only one from the WikiCup opposed to your plan. Others who oppose – BlueMoonset, The C of E, Daniel Case, Andrew Davidson – are not part of the WikiCup. Consensus has flatly rejected your deluded proposal. Time to move on. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Fact, if there are insufficient hooks to go to the main page, the rate should decrease accordingly. If you wish to review more then please do so. It is beyond question that WikiCup participants want an increase in throughput. Check this page and its history. Denying it is simply a demonstration of ICANTHEARYOU. "No one here is calling for an increase"? Just a matter of weeks back it was "about time we went three times a day" or more desperately "why not go from seven hooks to eight?". Short and defective memory. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Those in favour of increasing the rate include three of the remaining seven WikiCup finalists. We also have quotes such as: "It probably is about time, especially with the final push for the Wikicup underway" & "(I must admit to a WikiCup-related vested interest here :-) )" (directly with relation to increasing the rate of hooks), and that's just on this single talk page. Those in favour of calming it all down and seeking "quality over quantity" include many long-term editors, none of whom participate in WikiCup. Now then, take that as you find it. I couldn't care less, and I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your contest cronies, but simply put, there's a group who want to push items to the main page as quickly as possible (with no reason why) and there's a group who wish to push items to the main page after a serious amount of consideration and review (to reduce ERRORS and trips to ANI to explain the various offensive and appalling hooks that made it to the main page). I know which group I'd prefer to be part of. And I know that a contest designed to get people to win as many points as possible no matter what will always result in a shortfall in quality. If you need that to be explained, perhaps you shouldn't be running the contest. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The silence is deafening! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: at the moment, there are enough approved hooks to fill all the remaining prep slots, which would in turn cover the next three days. There's no need to change the frequency just now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when (if) the approved reserve (sum of the hooks in Q, in prep, and in the "verified" column of the scoreboard) drops below 50 (we're at 54 now). I continue to champion the following very simply protocol:
  • Below 50 hooks: 1 set per day, until the # hooks climbs back to 100, when we return to 2 sets/day.
  • Above 150 hooks: 3 sets/day, until the # hooks drops below 100, when we return to 2 sets/day.
This gives a very stable, self-correcting system that "wants" to run 2 sets/day, and "wants" to have around 100 hooks in reserve at any given time (that being about 7 days' worth of hooks). And it ends all this arguing. EEng (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
While obviously not the intent, this would effectively set specific numerical targets (with rewards for meeting them and punishments for falling short), thereby encouraging DYK participants to prioritize quantity over quality (either to increase the updates' frequency or to prevent it from decreasing), particularly when a deadline looms. —David Levy 05:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand. You're saying that as the reserve begins to approach 50 (from above), people will start to favor quantity over quality, to avoid hitting that mark? Yes, I can see that. But won't the same thin happen (and in fact we've certainly observed it happening) with greater intensity when the reserve approaches or hits zero? The purpose of the auto-adjust feature is that it makes sure there's always a few dozen hooks available, so that in assembling preps we're never in the position of holding our noses as we scrape questionable hooks, approved just minutes prior, from the bottom of the barrel. EEng (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
We're in agreement that failure to maintain a reasonably large pool of approved hooks is evidence of a need for adjustment. But I disagree that it would be helpful to set precise numerical thresholds at which rewards or punishments (from a DYK contributor's perspective) are triggered.
Basing the update schedule upon periodic assessments of DYK's current state (with both quantity and quality considered) encourages overall improvement. Basing it upon raw numbers would encourage editors to hastily replenish the hooks when fifty or one hundred remain and the clock is ticking.
In other words, editor performance should dictate the update schedule — not the inverse. The general concept that the level of output is a factor is very different from the concept that "we weed to approve seven hooks within the hour...or else!". —David Levy 15:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have plenty of articles up on the nominations page, they just need reviews. There is no need to drop the number of sets. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    You say that as though reaching the nomination stage is the important part (and the review is "just" a formality). Such an attitude can only exacerbate the quality control problem discussed above. —David Levy 11:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As an ordinary nominator/reviewer, I would just like to say I find it very challenging to find a nomination for my QPQs that does not require a complete rewrite or is a full GA article that would take days to review. The review process is exhausting and I can understand why things fall through the cracks. Even when one tries to do a proper job with the best of intentions, it is hard to see the wood for the trees and easy to miss mistakes or just stop at a "good enough" review (although it isn't really, and I admit being guilty of this). I don't recall it being this hard before, something is broken. It seems too simplistic to blame the reviewers completely. What is their incentive after all? I only see a stick here. HelenOnline 09:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Surely the incentive is a QPQ review which means that the reviewer gets to see their name (well, their DYK) in lights on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Sure, but that doesn't address the quality of the review or tackling nominations requiring extra work. HelenOnline 09:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, which is why the tough ones just get left to linger for weeks and months. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Seems to be par for the course all over Misplaced Pages. Either have a massive backlog or a load of half-assed reviews. Pick one. Ritchie333 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Of the two, "have a massive backlog" seems preferable. If maintaining the current pace necessitates tolerating "a load of half-assed reviews", reducing the update frequency is the only acceptable course of action. —David Levy 11:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, things are slow enough already. Maybe we could have a separate queue for the WikiCup-related noms? Not all of us who are frequent nominators are participants in that, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Would you mind saying why you think "things are slow enough"? I mean, what is the necessity in pushing as many DYKs round the main page as possible? We don't do that with other parts of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There doesn't seem to be any numerical evidence to support the proposal. In any case, it's not clear that having a bigger backlog would improve quality. One might equally argue that, if weak stuff is getting through, it's better that it not be on the main page for a full day. Andrew (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No strong opinion on reducing the number of sets, but there does seem to have been an increase in hooks being pulled recently if Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Removed is accurate—we're 10 days into October and already half as many hooks have been pulled as in the whole of September and more than in the whole of August. This suggests to me that something needs to be done, but I'm not sure that reducing the number of sets would actually improve quality control. I don't want to create a blame culture, but reviewers need to carefully check the hooks, and prep-builders and admins need to check things for themselves (or ourselves, I've failed to catch things that I should have recently) rather than relying on the first review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Me too, but that will not solve the problem at hand. Whether a hook is pulled from a queue, or a prep area, or simply marked for re-review on the nomination page, the effect is the same: another review is required. QPQ will never deliver enough reviews to reduce the backlog of unreviewed hooks! What needs to be done — the only thing that needs to be done — is for the people commenting here to go and review 20 or 30 hooks each. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    Why have we got the rush to push more and more hooks to the main page? Why is this part of the main page different from all others? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    No, that isn't "the only thing that needs to be done". Simply increasing turnover won't address matters of quality.
    It's insulting and fallacious to imply that persons not directly involved in maintaining DYK have no right to criticize. Each of us chooses to contribute to Misplaced Pages in accordance with our interests, abilities and availability. If this proposal were based on a complaint that the rate at which DYK hooks are reviewed is inherently insufficient, "I don't see you pitching in" might be a valid response. But it isn't. The concern is that DYK is attempting to operate on a scale exceeding its manageable capacity. The demand isn't that more content be prepared; it's that poor content not be rushed onto the main page (even if that that means delivering less content). —David Levy 06:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Pull or change needed, Queue 3

What the article and source both say is that cardiac imaging is "usually unnecessary for people...who are having surgery unrelated to the heart" (my emphasis). Heart surgery, no matter how minor, is obviously related to the heart. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pulled, and Template:Did you know nominations/Preoperative care reopened. FYI @Bluerasberry, Daniel Case, Hawkeye7, and Casliber:. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3Queue 3

  • Re steak burger: Does anyone else share my hesitation that something as common as (what appears to be essentially) a steak sandwich is credited to a specific person via an "appears to be" weasel phrase -- with the source being a "roadside-attractions for the whole family"-type book? EEng (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed. In fact this makes very interesting reading, a little more authoritative than a "roadside-attractions for the whole family"-type book. It's by no means a great nor interesting hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Not one of the better-written opinion's I've read, actually, but the point remains. Pull? EEng (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The more I think about this the more I'm sure this should be pulled, but an admin is needed. EEng (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The more you think about it, the more likely you are to come with a feasible reason to remove it other than you just don't really like it? It's crap, but it's DYK-standard. Do you have anything to add? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Um, I gave my reason in my OP: it's an extraordinary claim sourced to a dubious source. I thought you added the link to the court's opinion in support of my concerns, given that (for example) it cites an expert's testimony re 'references to "steakburger" dating back to the 1920s.' (WP:OR, yes I know, but certainly enough to call the article's sourcing into serious question.) It ought to be pulled until this is clarified. Crisco 1492? EEng (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've pulled it, you do the paperwork. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Per all of the above, I have copy edited the article and posted a new hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Steak burger. NorthAmerica 20:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed

Right now we have Queue 3 without a lead hook, which means an admin is needed to supply one. The only one already promoted is the lead hook in Prep 5, so that's probably best to move, since moving Queue 4's lead hook would just mean someone else would need to fix that queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Crisco. The edit button might have been due to my bad template format for queue 4 above, or it might be something way the heck up the page. I'll know once I save this edit. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it was me. Amazing what a bracket instead of a brace can do to an innocent wiki page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Now that the previous post has been archived, I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing. Half of these are from July and August, and are way overdue for completion. At present, only 25 nominations are approved, leaving 320 of 345 nominations unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

*August 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Sutton heritage mosaic

*August 29: Template:Did you know nominations/1978 Sikh-Nirankari clashes

*September 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Chateaubriand sauce *September 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg

*September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Lutefisk (band)

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

6 preps

Now that we have 6 prep sets, I wonder if Preps 5 and 6 could be added to the preview that says "See how this template appears on both today's Main Page and tomorrow's Main Page". Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Some people are never satisfied. EEng (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
It means nothing. Can you point me to the precise page you wish to be updated? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
TRM is right. I was just being flippant. EEng (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yoninah, it's all set. I had to create two new alternate main pages for preps 5 and 6, and add code to the Clear page and all six preps. However, I didn't bother with tomorrow's Main Page, since it only works with preps 1 and 2, as opposed to all six queues and now all six preps for today's Main page. I figured if tomorrow was that important, it would have been available for at least a couple of queues... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Yoninah (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hook wording

Would an admin be able to change "halted on the" to "halted on" in the final hook of the current set displayed? I wouldn't ask but there are still quite a few hours to run on this set. Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) @ 15:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For problems displayed in DYK on the main page, your best bet is to leave a note at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I went there. Rcsprinter123 (spout) @ 19:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I added the in prep -- an American's mistake, sorry. (Viaduct doesn't get much use over here.) EEng (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that's stylistic preference. I wouldn't say the was definitely wrong. In fact, it's referred to as "the Dinting Viaduct" in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
In that case I indignantly retract the mea culpa. EEng (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. Your input may be useful here . Actually not likely, but I'm sure it will be fun.

Terrible DYK on main page right now

.. that Wan Laisheng's teachings on martial arts pre-dated Bruce Lee's by about 50 years? While not technically incorrect, this is a very poor DYK. The detail has nothing really to do with the topic. The only reason Bruce Lee is mentioned in the article is because he happens to be famous; it's totally attenuated from the topic, it's not "about" the individual, and the fact is actually not even directly mentioned in the article but is just an implicit observation from itsa text. Moreover, the detail of fifty years cold have been any other range of time, because this is a petty randow detail. It's not as if these are two terminal ends of some period measured from the first to the most recent iteration. It's just a rather weird detail that raises only because the article decided to mention Bruce Lee, probably because he is very famous as a martial artist. Indeed, the detail abut his "teachings" would imply that he was a renowned teacher or martial arts when he was not (as opposed to the article's subject). He was a renowned movie star. Bad all around.--108.14.111.128 (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to get involved with the DYK process to stop this kind of thing happening again! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary reviewers

While I'm all for thorough checks of nominations, I don't like it when reviewers take it upon themselves to invent new rules. Allow me to illustrate an example.

  • Template:Did you know nominations/Constantin Doncea: nominated August 28.
  • Reviewed October 4, technical problem found.
  • Problem corrected, approved October 8.
  • October 9: a second reviewer comes in and says the article includes too many subordinate clauses.
  • October 9: I fix the "problem".
  • October 14: still in limbo.

(I might add that on October 9, the same reviewer promoted this atrocity, in spite of the chaotic format, two dozen unformatted references and, yes, dubious grammar. I might also add that this is not the first time the same reviewer makes up a rule for me: see Template:Did you know nominations/George Oprescu.)

Is it too much to ask that reviewers not create rules as they go along (no, the rules say nothing about subordinate clauses or even grammar), and that if they do feel compelled do that, they not indefinitely gum up already-approved nominations, but have the courtesy to check back if their capricious demands have been heeded? - Biruitorul 05:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. People should stick to the DYK criteria, not the GA or FA criteria and certainly not be making up their own rules. --Jakob (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me started. I had one reviewer tell me there can't be any tags, which even GA doesn't require. Then something about image placement. Meanwhile we have articles that read like nonsense being approved. EEng (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

3rd opinion requested on Template:Did you know nominations/Davis Run

Can someone give a 3rd opinion on the above-linked DYK nomination since both the reviewer and the nominator (myself) have requested it? Thanks. --Jakob (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio ELs, wrong title, dubious sources, general silliness...

Template:Did you know nominations/Hobby Horse Polo, now in Queue 4. @Serten, De728631, RTG, and Hawkeye7:

While technically all DYK rules were perhaps followed, I don't think that an article like Hobby Horse Polo should have passed in this state.

First, I moved the article to the correct capitalization of the title. And then I removed 2.5 of its 8.2 kB to make it a bit more factual. This included unrelated padding of the article, incorrect statements, a source that had nothing to do with the the fact it supposedly sourced (the first source), general silliness (the image, the PETA lines, the region of origin), and no less than 3 copyvio external links (youtube links with clips from different German stations, all uploaded by the same Youtube user). Copyvio check is a general DYK requirement, and shouldn't stop at the text of the article. Fram (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Carlebach source is the same as in the Polo article, German station videos could be linked via a the First Kurfürstlich-Kurpfälzisch Polo-Club website, the region is still called Kurpfalz or "Electoral Palatinate" and the Not-involvement-of PETA a major asset. The picture due to its caption was rightly used. I agree with the move, the rest is sort of imperial overstretch ;) Serten (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The region is only called the Electoral Palatinate by jokers and/or people stuck in a timewarp, not by encyclopedias. The Carlebach source may have been useful for the polo article, but as it doesn't reference hobby horse polo, it can't be used to source the sentence starting with "Similarly to other polo variants,", a the source does not indicate whether it is similar or not, obviously. The PETA things is your OR / joke. The picture is unrelated to the subject, you create a joke to link it. While you are allowed (or even encouraged) to create articles on notable silly subjects, you have to follow our content rules, not make silly articles. Fram (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
And the polo website probably also doesn't have the rights to host these videos, and even if they had, the youtube channels didn't. Please familiarize yourself with our copyright policies and external linking rules, and don't dismiss copyvio concerns so lightly, as they are one of the more stringently kept policies. People don't get blocked for a funny caption, but repeatedly ignoring copyright concerns may cause you trouble here. Fram (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Lets del with different things different. a) Carlebach doesnt serve as a source for HHP but for other Polo variants. Segway etc would need a source. b) The picture captions clarified that the pic looks like, which is the case, but isnt about HHS. c) The fact that HHS has been on TV establishes notability, and I see the necessity to prove that. That said, refering to the youtube films directly might establish a copyvio, I would have to check that, but refering to the Clubs media page would help in gaining notability, which is - as well in my eyes - needed to for the article. Serten (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
As this is an article about hobby horse polo, both the Carlebach source and the picture are not wanted. We don't add decoration for the sake of it, it should illustrate the topic of the article, not vaguely resemble it if you squint your eyes just right. As for the TV links, no one stops you from mentioning the TV appearances of the passtime, but you may not include the links to any page that contains copyright violations of them. Fram (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
You are right about the PETA links. As to the other stuff, it was in German, I followed the DYK rules: assume good faith and blue tick. I was able to verify the hook with Google translate. ~ R.T.G 12:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I was able to verify the whole article except one section, Origins, and that contained the hook and I was able to verify that so it seemed a go from as far as I could understand, but yeah, I did note the PETA links but I was editing the article and was taken with the hook and it just slipped me by... @Fram: ~ R.T.G 12:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Prep area 5, two birds with one stone?

@Carlojoseph14, Simon Burchell, Mandarax, Yoninah, Victuallers, Sahara4u, and HJ Mitchell:

I have now removed the two below hooks from Queue5 for the reasons given below. Apparently due to a bug in the echo or ping system, the pings didn't work here, so I ping the people involved again. I was not aware of this bug, and I don't think there is any method of checking if your ping has worked (apart from asking, which defeats the purpose of the ping of course...). Fram (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Fram, it is a very bad idea to leave a queue that is the next one to be promoted as you've left it: two nearly empty lines in the middle of the set. Is this really what you want to appear on the main page in a little over four hours from now? I'm hoping an admin will be able to move a couple of replacement hooks in from Prep 1, but if not, the main page is going to look quite messy at 12:00 UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Better messy than wrong. I'll remove the two empty lines. Fram (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no excuse for messy when it's as easy to remove a line as shorten it. Queues should never be left with partial lines, unlike preps. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I know, that's why I removed them immediately after your reminder here. Fram (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Stoned ;) Serten (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Namacpacan Church

Template:Did you know nominations/Namacpacan Church. @Carlojoseph14, Simon Burchell, Mandarax, and Yoninah:

"Reportedly" only in a few Philippine sources, not in a single source closer to the subject (Pius XII), making it look more like a PR stunt by someone in the Philippines than something really reported as having happened. I don't think the sourcing for this hook is sufficient to let it appear on the main page. Fram (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree - this is local Philippine folklore, attributed to a Philippine source. Such sourcing is not unusual for folklore. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Then the article and the hook should make it clearer that this is folklore, not something reported by the Vatican or Pius XII biographers or news reports or... Something like "that it is claimed in Namacpacan (or "in the Philippines") that the image appeared to Pius XII before he died" (as far as that can be sourced correctly). Fram (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that what the word "reportedly" does here? It's an image that reportedly appeared in a dream. Seems fine to me, and I'm very critical of such hooks. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't reportedly refer to some reliable sources, not folklore? It isn't reported in any source that would have any possible knowledge of what was in the pope's dreams, and it is not as if the Vatican is reluctant to talk about miracles (Mary appearing to a pope to discuss a Philippine image of her?) The current hook reads as if it has been reported in biographies of the pope or the like, not that it has been reported in some book but without a shred of evidence that it actually ever happened ("happened" in the sense that the pope ever said this). Basically, if you allow a hook like this, then you can repeat anything anyone ever makes up and add "reportedly" to it, and it would be acceptable (not talking about BLP violations here, I'm not accusing you or anyone of supporting these, I mean simple statements of un-fact). We should try to stick to the facts, not what the PR department of a local church has invented to make it seem more interesting to pilgrims. Fram (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
We're specifically referring to images and dreams reported in the context of a Catholic culture, specifically in terms of the Namacpacan Church, which of course places the event within the realm of folklore. You're picking nits. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
You're specifically referring to dreams reported to be had by a pope, which doesn't place it in the realms of folklore. The hook makes it not clear it all that the reports come from the Namacpacan Church side, and not from the Vatican side. Simply rewrite the hook to make this aspect clear, don't give the impression that this is some widely accepted (in Catholic circles) miracle like Lourdes or something similar. Maria reportedly appeared to Bernadette in Lourdes, right, but the pope did not reportedly have such a dream in any reliable, well-sourced sense of the term, some Philippines fabricated this claim out of thin air as far as we can tell ("folklore" is a very friendly way to describe this). It's bad enough that we repeat this, but we should at least make it clear that this is something of a very dubious nature, even within the context of Catholic miracles. The "folklore" aspect isn't at all clear from the hook. Fram (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
First, religion is religion. Folklore is Folklore. If the bunch of eager priests around the deathbead would have provided a pic for Pius in no time to hold it, I would tend to dismiss the story. I have proposed another hook, and I use the theological Criterion of embarrassment for the hook and as well here. The story is neither dubious nor a miracle at all, but quite appealing and very much useable for DYK. Serten (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Janet Colquhoun

Template:Did you know nominations/Janet Colquhoun. @Victuallers, Sahara4u, and Yoninah:

Really? I think she would have answered that she only had blind faith in God, and that she would consider our hook rather blasphemous. Some here consider it probably "quirky" and "interesting"... It's not as if it is a central theme that everyone who has heard of her considers to be crucial. One 1824 source mentions it on one page, so using that to create this dubious hook really seems to be quite a stretch. Fram (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The book was about her belief that blind faith was a defend able religious position that is this side of antinomianism. This page has blind faith in it. Misplaced Pages has blind faith in it. This is a fact. Blasphemous?... that is just too silly. The Free dictioany says blasphemy is "The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God" ... so strangely this may be relevant??? I strongly suspect that few people have heard of her. What has that got to do with it? If you think she is un-notable then say so. As you say "some" do find it quirky and interesting. What rights do you have to deny them their view? How is this process meant to work if you are going to behave in this manner with no rhyme or reason given apart from you don't like it. Can you please provide a reason for pulling this hook? The opinions above are just that. You should state a defend-able reason for discounting the views of your peers Victuallers (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You seem to be reading things in my comment that aren't there at all. I did not call her notability into question, I called the notability of the "blind faith" aspect of her work into question. Following your arguments, you would be equally happy with a hook that said "that Janet Colquhoun had engaging qualities in her work"? The words "blind faith" appear one (1!) time in her works, which is as often as "engaging qualities" and less than e.g. "strong faith". The hook is a play on words which has in fact very little to do with the subject, just like your defense has very little to do with either the subject or my criticism of the hook. Misrepresenting a subject and misleading the readers in this way is not helpful, "quirky and interesting" though you may find it. A hook stated "that Janet Colquhoun had secret pleasure in her work" would be equally quirky and interesting (or not), and a lot more truthful. Not a hook I would support, but a lot less objectionable than the one presented. We had the same problem (though degrees worse still) with the "jesus has risen today" hook a few months back. I hae no idea why you insist on playing the same game here but with loss of all the witticism of the original (its only redeeming quality, basically). Mangling the English language to get a quirky hook really isn't a commendable quality of a hook. Fram (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
My very real objection is that you offer no defend-able reason for pulling the hook and disregarding the views of your peers. Even if the English language was, in your opinion, mangled, then it does not distract from the idea that others did not agree with you and you disregarded their views. The book is about blind faith, she herself believed that her good works would save her soul and she needed no evidence of that because she had blind faith in her beliefs and the salvation that would arise from her work. The idea that you can work out what she would consider blasphemous implies that you are claiming the kind of insight that she too claimed. I suspect that this removal is not improving the project. Victuallers (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Strange, I've defended my reason multiple times now. As for disregarding the views of my peers, I brought it here when it was in prep, and got no reaction, positive or negative. That I disregard the "view of my peers" as in the views expressed in the review and promotion is hardly my concern, I do the same in e.g. the below hook, and effectively in all the hooks I or anyone else pulls. "The book is about blind faith", you are aware that the hook and the article are about a person with a life, including 5 books? The hook is not about a book. Perhaps that is the source of your confusion? The rest seems to be some insight you suddenly have in her convictions, that she had blind faith that she would get salvation from her work? Please indicate where you get that from, I don't see it in the article or the sources. She had blind faith (probably) in God and her religion, and she probably believed or hoped that her works were good, God-approved, but that doesn't translate to her having blind faith in her works. Compare it to some youth sporters, who can have blind faith in their coach, and try their best to get into the team by their works, their efforts; but that doesn't mean that they have blind faith in their efforts. It's the same kind of leap you make in this hook, without any justification from the sources. Fram (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • The hook is neither sourced nor appropriate. The lady went on two day riding tour instead of using a two hour sunday train travel, that said, she had got stamina and "blind faith" is something else. Alternative proposed. Serten (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Serten The hook was sourced. Fram removed the sourcing. I have replaced it. In her first book she concluded that "blind faith offers the only hope from the the 'bottomless pit'. She was a philantropist who was involved with several good causes and her writing notes that the "fruits of faith will be evident in good work". This is quoted and is from a reliable third party source. The Oroginal Research above and supposition about her beliefs is not relevant. We have quotes based on 3rd party sources and these sources are checked by reliable editors. Rewriting the hook to flatter an editor who mistakenly removed the hook may be necessary to protect a very shaky position. But it is rewriting the hook to flatter an editor who mistakenly removed the hook and it is a very shaky position. Victuallers (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Sorry, thats not sourcing the hook. Something like "... that Janet Colquhoun saw blind faith as a path to salvation?" would be appropriate. theology is a science, and should not be dealt with it in Sokal/quantum gravity style. Serten (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
          • I have now tagged the DYK nomination as a clear "no". The article creator is now presenting statements made by a critic of her work, as if they are quotes from Colquhoun or her works. I presented my reasons here. Such tactics are completely unacceptable. is the diff. When you write "in her first book she concluded", followed by a quote, then that quote should be in that book, not in the interpretation someone gave of her books. To use this as support for your hook is indicative of the quality of the hook and the reasons I pulled it. Fram (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination

I'd like to submit Erich Sbraccia for DYK. The hook is "Did you know Erich Sbraccia made his pro wrestling debut at age 14 as a "junior member" of The Brotherhood?" The sources are citations #4 and #5. Thanks. 72.74.200.209 (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's new enough (should have been created/expanded in the last 7 days). This is not the place to nominate either, there is a process to follow at Template talk:Did you know. Sorry. HelenOnline 19:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@72.74.200.209 and HelenOnline: Actually, it was moved to mainspace on October 11, so it's eligible for another four days. Also, IPs can't create template pages, which is probably why the IP posted here. --Jakob (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. HelenOnline 05:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 Done. As usual, please keep an eye on the nomination and respond to any issues which may arise. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Florence Pernel (currently in Prep 6)

I really don't think this article is of suitable quality to be the lead hook. Sure, we have a nice photo, but the article is three paragraphs long, barely long enough (1816 characters), contains no section headings in the body, and is full of red links. The content that's there looks decent, but, frankly, it looks a mess. What do others think? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me at all. If it were up to me every DYK article would carry, for the duration of its hook's MP appearance, a banner saying, "This article, like all WP articles, is a work in progress. If you think you can help improve it, click <here>." If we're lucky, some Florence Pernel fan will see the hook, visit the article, and be inspired to pitch in. As far as I'm concerned, we should see DYK as a way of attracting new editors to articles that could use help, instead of pretending we're showcasing "polished" material -- a hopeless aspiration given DYK's fundamental mission. EEng (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with EEng. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The whole idea of DYK is to display unfinished content, in order to get more users to contribute - the more red links etc., the better. The new GA at DYK notwithstanding, DYK doesn't need to be fully polished. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I remember a Russ Meyer quote on the line "I got my films shot in no time while those guys in Hollywood just start scratching ass" but haven't found it. However Nothing is obscene providing it is done in bad taste. She's cute, her article has now three section titles and the redlinks are redlinks. Done and dusted. Serten (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Davis Run in Template:Did you know nominations/Davis Run

I am not sure about that article being the right thing for DYK. The article should be a "readable summary of everything within the scope". I dont expect each such article to equal Thoreaus Walden pond or sillyness is a must ;) but this article imho lacks love of the subject, "1 Corinthians 13:2, while his other creek articles suggested for DYK contain valid cultural and usage background. (Jakob doubts the "entire article has to be interesting" (just the hook). Now I would like to know wether "raising interest" is of relevance for the DYK process or not and wether that should be part of the review policy. I would like to have as well a third opinion on my review. Serten (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I can assure you that 1 Corinthians 13:2 is not one of the criteria for DYK eligibility. On a more serious note, there is nothing in the DYK rules that states an article must be interesting (or written with "love of the subject") – only the hook must be. 97198 (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
And even the rule about the hook being interesting is never, ever enforced. EEng (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
1 Corinthians 13:2: If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have a citation at the end of each paragraph (as a rule of thumb), I am nothing.
Then the Davis creek of wisdom may flow ;) I think its a sort of heritage of my experience with the deDYK, Schon gewusst - they tried to change topics now and then and even imposed a Bach cantata proposal cap, poor user:Gerda Arendt. the main page task was seen as to attract readers, not to get rid of them. Serten (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Considering that, could someone please do a full review? (also, it'd be great if someone could review Template:Did you know nominations/Corn Run -- it's been languishing untouched for over a month). --Jakob (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Scottish religion

Prep 2 contains a hook I nominate a while back. The original hook was "that Scottish religion in the seventeenth century included intense conflicts between Presbyterian Covenanters and government forces (execution of minister James Guthrie pictured)?" The image was removed, which I'm fine with, but now the hook reads "that Scottish religion in the seventeenth century included intense conflicts between Presbyterian Covenanters and government forces execution of minister James Guthrie?" That doesn't make grammatical sense. Could this be fixed, please?--¿3family6 contribs 21:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like EEng fixed it. The entire set has since been promoted to Queue 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Small is beautiful. Still, removed one hook from the queue, again...

Sometimes, hooks just aren't up to the job and need to be pulled. That's the way of the world.

Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern swamp crayfish @G S Palmer, Mike Cline, Hawkeye7, and Casliber: did you know

No, I didn't know that, and neither does the cited source. The hook fact is sourced to , which has the section title "World's smallest crayfish" (aha!), and the first line beneath that title "One of these new species, named Gramastacus lacus, holds the title of being one of the world's smallest crayfish." (emphasis mine). Oops, that's not the same, obviously. The original paper doesn't mention the hook fact either. And that's probably for the better, as the Eastern swamp crayfish has a max "length of 21.32 millimetres" (rare). According to the original paper, "Females mature at approximately 12 mm ", and "Reproductively active females are recorded between 12 and 18 mm OCL".

However, the Gramastacus insolitus seems to be smaller, according to the IUCN Red List: "This species attains a maximum adult size of 13.2 mm OCL, while the minimum size at sexual maturity for females of this species is 7.2 mm OCL" So it looks as if the reliable (not popular) sources on this subject indicate that Insolitus is probably smaller on average than Lacus (the one from the hook), and the source used to reference the hook and verify the DYK does not indicate that it is the smallest either, if one actually reads the article and not just the headlines. So how did this ever get nominated, reviewed, promoted and moved to the queue? Hook pulled, obviously. Fram (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 on that nomination appears to be sound. I've removed the questionable claim in the article per Fram's comments. I, JethroBT 10:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Fram: I honestly wasn't trying to pull a fast one - I just took the source at face value. I liked both hooks, so I would be equally happy running the second one. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think anyone deliberately tried to get incorrect information on the front page (my reaction would be quite different in that case), I usually blame some carelessness only. It's just baffling sometimes that at least four people check a hook (or are supposed to check a hook), and still such things slip through the cracks way too often. Fram (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It's cause we're human and shit happens. As long as people respond to pulled hooks with "mea culpa" and suggest alternatives or withdraw, the issue isn't as bad as some make it out to be. Plus, it would be interesting to see what the overall proportion of hooks that get passed through are, in fact, "piss poor". Ritchie333 14:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
According to Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Removed, in September 16 hooks were pulled for a variety of reasons. This means that in that month, about 1 in every 25 hooks was pulled (if my maths are correct). For October, we are now at 14 hooks pulled in 16 days, or about 1 in every 15 hooks. Considering that these are all hooks that have been nominated(1), reviewed(2) and promoted(3), this is rather alarming, even when one takes into account that not all these pulls were uncontroversial (cough). Fram (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
At least most of these are getting pulled before they hit the main page, partly as a result of the slower turnover, partly as a result of more eyes on the queues and prep areas from a number of reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Possibly part of the problem is my perception that actually failing a DYK nomination is akin to saying something like "a pox on your article", and while I've done it, it seems to be the exception. If you compare that to GA and (especially) FA reviews, the proportion of rejected stuff is probably higher, but people don't seem to take it so personally. Perhaps if we all just took reviews with a more critical eye to try and find problems instead of "new enough, long enough, hook is in English, good to (sorry, 2) go" the problems might be alleviated? Ritchie333 14:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Well definitely agree with that. There seems to be an unwritten understanding that, as long as you nominate something, and puff it out, regardless of whether it has an interesting hook (or in some cases, a referenced hook!), it will be guaranteed a main page slot at some point in the future. We don't do that anywhere else. 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs)
Thirded, if that's a word. They don't need to be scrutinized like a FA or even a GA, but achieving basic factual accuracy should be DYK's starting goal. Ed  17:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
"Fourthed": the rarely-fail approach to DYK has never made sense to me, particularly given the big discussion a couple years back about how DYK is not for improving articles. We don't as much failing-right-away as GAN, but failing should be "easier" than it is now. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to what Fram says, some of the pulls were uncontroversial. I pulled one because the nominator asked for it to be run on a particular date, and Yoniah and I pulled another because it didn't fit in the assigned slot and there were no free prep areas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to what Fram says? I said "not all these pulls were uncontroversial", you say "some of the pulls were uncontroversial". If you see that as "contrary", then I begin to understand why you promote some of these incorrect hooks after all. Fram (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Internet Slowdown Day (Queue 2)

...has been compared to the January 18, 2014 Internet Blackout Day?

The article says it was 2012 not 2014, so does my memory. 137.43.188.70 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Has now been fixed by The Rambling Man. Probably just a typo. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
True, but the question is, how did it get all the way to being ready for automatic loading onto the main page with such a glaringly obvious error? I expect we'll still see the "speed up the queues" brigade overlooking this kind of fundamental error.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It does make one question the effectiveness of these 'multiple layers' of reviews. Ed  17:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

On the main page: "... that the 1967 West German sex-education film Helga – Vom Werden des menschlichen Lebens featured scenes of childbirth which were the first to be shown publicly in Germany?"

What, exactly, was/were the first to be shown publicly? There's a murky but unclear association to "scenes of childbirth" (only because of the plural words) and redundant references to "Germany". Expressed in shorter, and ultimately clearer, form: "... that the 1967 sex-education film Helga – Vom Werden des menschlichen Lebens contained West Germany's first publicly shown scenes of childbirth?" Ed  17:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)`

Note: I've changed T:DYK to my suggested wording. Ed  17:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Not the only problems. I was able to make this hook far cleaner by removing uninteresting and unnecessary information, added a necessary apostrophe, and used active voice to show who denounced Zhang Xi and discarded his ashes. Ed  17:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect hook on main page

For some reason the approved hook of my DYK nomination has been changed without my knowledge. The approved hook is "that years after Zhang Xi died, he was denounced as a traitor and his ashes were discarded?" (see nomination page), using the passive voice as in the source. But the hook on the main page now reads "that the Communist Party of China posthumously denounced Zhang Xi as a traitor and discarded his ashes?", which is incorrect. Although the CPC did probably denounce him as a traitor, it was not mentioned in the source, and the CPC almost certainly did not discard his ashes. Most of the vandalism during the Cultural Revolution was done by the Red Guards, who were radical followers of Mao but not part of the CPC. I don't know at which stage the hook was changed. Can an administrator please restore the original hook ASAP? -Zanhe (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@The ed17: I just saw your thread above after posting my message. Please restore the original hook ASAP. Thanks! -Zanhe (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've changed it, but I find it surprising that we can't say that the Communist Party was the one to denounce him; it's not like anyone else could have, and the sky is blue. It was my mistake to conflate that with his ashes. All that said, I'm not a fan of the passive voice here. Ed  18:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for changing it back. I'm not a fan of the passive voice either, but it's better than OR. It's a bit simplistic to cite WP:BLUE here. The Communist Party was not a monolith, and the whole Cultural Revolution was the result of a power struggle between Mao and much of the rest of the CPC leadership. So it's better not to say who denounced him unless we have reliable sources naming them. -Zanhe (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for DYK/Stats

Hi, I've made a few suggestions here. Per suggestion #2 specifically I'd like to propose updating Template:UpdatedDYKNom and Template:UpdatedDYK so that they point to the correct DYK/Stats rules rather than to User:Rjanag/Pageview stats. Does this sound like a good idea? -Thibbs (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rotating the preps to the queue

It has been a long time since the queue have gotten overdue, but they are getting close. Could someone rotate preps 3 and 4 to the queues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DYKUpdatebot o/ ~ R.T.G 12:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the hook fact be in the article? Removed one from main page

The illustration from Power of ten uses trillion as an example. At the top of the large block it says 1,000,000,000,000 = 10 (large because the text is small)

Template:Did you know nominations/Molecular gyroscope @RTG, Jinkinson, Hawkeye7, and Casliber:

  • ... that a molecular gyroscope (pictured) can spin at 2,400,000,000,000 revolutions per second?

I have removed the leading hook plus image from the main page, as the hook doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article at all (it wasn't there at the time of the nomination or the promotion apparently either, it's not that it has been removed since). The queue had only been filled some 21 minutes before it was moved to the main page, so I didn't have time to catch it there. I'm not claiming that the hook fact is incorrect, I don't know, but a hook fact should always be included in the article. Fram (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"...and the rate for inertially rotating p-phenylene without barriers is estimated to be approximately 10 per second." @Fram: Which is shorthand for 2,400,000,000,000 RPS. ~ R.T.G 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
So put it back quickly or we won't get the proper stats! ~ R.T.G 12:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"approximately 10" is shorthand for 2.4 * 10? That's, um, rather imprecise. We don't say that the speed of light is approximately 10 km/s either, do we? Any reason that the hook has the more precise figure, and the article the very wide approximation? Any reason that the hook fact couldn't simply be included in the article as it is, and that no one seemed to notice this? Fram (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we did, not long ago @Fram:. We can't see things like light and molecular gyroscopes. You can't measure individual revolutions, two and a half trillion of them per second. This article is about the beginning of recording those speeds. And it's not a wide approximation at all. It is a directly precise one. It gives a single speed for each test condition. There is no one speed of light. It is a spectrum. 10 is not only a precise figure, it is the exact same figure as 2,400,000,000,000. (see Power of ten). Add it back! ~ R.T.G 12:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
How so? 10^12 is 1,000,000,000,000. (≠2,400,000,000,000) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with 78.26 here, I'm not following your logic or maths here at all. Power of ten doesn't seem to agree with you either (not a surprise, but I checked nevertheless). Fram (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I added the "2.4" to the article, because that is what the source said, which directly supports the hook. Now that the article and the hook match, I don't see why this can't be added back to the mainpage. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Fram: From Power of ten, "Trillion (Billion) 12 1,000,000,000,000 T tera" It's completely precise. It should say 2.4 times 10. If it doesn't, then that's an error. ~ R.T.G 12:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Fram are you serious?? Did you not know that 2,400,000,000,000 = 2.4 x 10?? Re-added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's what Fram is saying. What is odd is this: "10 is not only a precise figure, it is the exact same figure as 2,400,000,000,000." which is completely false. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
What TRM said. Casliber, did you even take the time to check this section and the article history before coming back in, guns all ablaze, to wheel war on this? You were wrong to add it to the queue, and you were wrong in your assumptions on readding it (edit summary) and in posting here. You should know by now that I'm perfectly serious when I remove DYK hooks. Fram (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the original hook was unreferenced in the article. And then a false assertion was made to suggest that two vastly different numbers (in fact, the point of the hookiness of the hook) were, in fact, the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Or you could say that part of the equation was omitted erroneously, but whos tellin. ~ R.T.G 13:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Sheesh, I know what a trillion is. Not only did none of you read the article when checking the hook, you don't read what is said here either. Now User:Casliber has reinstated the hook (which is technically wheel warring), claiming "(err yes it is)" as edit summary / justification, ignoring that it wasn't at the time of his promotion of the hook to the queue, and that it wasn't at the time of the removal of the hook by me. First checking here was obviously too difficult. I'll not remove the hook again, tempting though it is. Wondering whether, if all the people that reviewed the hook didn't even notice that the fact wasn't mentioned in the article, we can even trust such an article, obviously never crossed his mind. No, we need to have it back on the main page as soon as possible, because of, as RTG so clearly and bafflingly put it, "the stats"! If you consider the stats more important than getting it right, then please stay away from DYK. If you make statements like "10 is not only a precise figure, it is the exact same figure as 2,400,000,000,000. " after your error has been pointed out, then stay away from any scientific article. Fram (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm afraid we're all talking past each other, instead of collaborating. The article has been fixed (per RTG, it was a omission typo), the DYK hook has been restored, now that it has been shown to be correct. That should satisfy us. Kittens for everybody! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's more that there seems to be some ongoing and increasing decline in standards once again. This hook wasn't checked properly, that's the whole point of this thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec) That, plus the sense some people have that getting things on the front page is more important than checking and correcting. RTG demanded repeatedly to get this back on the main page before it was corrected, claiming that there was no problem. Casliber rushed to put it back, not bothering to check this discussion or the page history, and then rushed here to proclaim his disbelief, again apparently not bothering to check the discussion and the facts. The hook should have been checked against the article by 4 people. Add to all this that Casliber should not have reinstated the hook without checking the discussion per WP:WHEEL (no admin should have done this without checking the discussion, but least of all Casliber). Not "kittens for everybody" (although a cuddly kitten for you, 78.26, is well-deserved). The problems with DYK are seriously worrying by now, the rate of problematic hooks is getting way too high. Fram (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Quoting a fact does not equate pointing out an error. It's fixed. I've realised my error. You don't need to berate me. I was the nominator. It's a good DYK. I'm glad to have spotted it and known it would be interesting to see how many clicks it got. I'm glad you've spotted and corrected errors made by the reviewers and authors. That's it. I'm telling. ~ R.T.G 13:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what? You're "telling"? What does that mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not telling. ~ R.T.G 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Now you really got me curious, what did you "threaten with telling." OR did someone threaten you? I don't get what yo are pointing at, but writing an edit summary as if you have some secret or as if someone else has made a serious error which you are threatening to tell is not the way to resolve a conflict. Starting with "Quoting a fact does not equate pointing out an error." may be correct in many instances, but not here. That you read over your error many times before someone else fixed it does not mean that no one pointed out the error, again and again. Would you have slowed down and read what you were writing, you might have found and fixed the error yourself. Instead, you were demanding to get it immediately reinstated because of the stats. That's a very worrying attitude. Fram (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Fram:, I've put it back (telling). If you want to fight about it I will. You think that an interest in the stats is an unhealthy DYK attitude? Come on. I only nominated it. Am I being berated? A fact is always a fact, including such as, pointing out an error is not the same thing as displaying a fact, even if you displayed the fact but didn't point it out.
Telling someone that you are telling is a classic infantile response synonymous with "Waaah!" and "No!", that I expect the odds to be good that any native level English speaker so spot it for what it is when it is that, but you are quite right to voice your suspicions and it is quite incorrect of me to use such frivolous text, even though the matter had been resolved with no telling needed, I should not have been telling at this particular time... ~ R.T.G 13:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Not if I expected to be stood under anyway. ~ R.T.G 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
"If you want to fight about it I will." Fight about what? I think I'll simply ignore you, as I can make heads nor tails of your responses here. Some of your sentences are perfectly clear and lucid, and then you add things like "A fact is always a fact, including such as, pointing out an error is not the same thing as displaying a fact, even if you displayed the fact but didn't point it out." which doesn't make any sense no matter how you look at it. Fram (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Fram: ...but displaying a fact has only a relation to pointing out an error based on that fact. Even in retrospect, by your response, I do not see indication that the particular error (omitted 2.4x) was one you were aware of, so you can't beat me up for it. You said it was not mentioned in the article, at all... and yet, without even looking, there are half a dozen references to the item dealt with in the hook:frequencies of meloecular rotation... ~ R.T.G 14:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen: Isn't this now cured. It really now belongs on the main page, and remedial steps were promptly taken,
We have fixed the problem, and have only an unresolved failure to communicate. Fixing the blame and discussing the cause was important only so that we can learn from it. Further carping about this is not constructive.
Aren't we beating a dead horse?
Can't we move on? Please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The hook fact and the "discussion" with RTG can be left behind, as far as I am concerned. The wheel warring is now at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#DYK wheel warring, a swheel warring is taken quite seriously and normally always results in an immediate ArbCom case. Fram (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a very interesting article. Well done for persevering to get this on the main page. I suspect that the scientists would be quite happy to know that their estimation is of the correct order - and it appears that ArbCom is inclined to agree. Apologies. Victuallers (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You start with two good sentences, and then decline into irrelevant babbling in the final three. Which scientists? Where has it been shown that their estimation is of the correct order? We repeat their estimation, we don't make it more or less correct. What is ArbCom agreeing with? With the scientists? No idea where you get that. And "apologies"? You were not involved with the DYK or the discussion, so no idea what you are apologizing for or to whom. All very strange and confusing, and not really helping anything. Fram (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Category: