Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 7 June 2013

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.

• WT:DYK

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 4 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 15:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 3 hours ago( verify reset purge )

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.

RfC: Should a DYK for Wikipediocracy be published?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy? (And if so, what should be the "hook")?

The proposed DYK is here. The form of the hook as of this writing is

• "(Did you know)... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum, is dedicated to criticizing Misplaced Pages?".

There is also an earlier discussion about the matter above. Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(N.B.: for the purposes of internal DYK requirements, if any, that DYKs be processed within a given time after article creation, the time that this RfC is open shall not be counted against the age of the article.) Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• I oppose a DYK for this. The article is back at AFD and is obviously a bone of contention. Warden (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• (N.B.: my original !vote was so bollixed up that I've completely rewritten it. FWIW The original is here) -- Herostratus (talk).
  No, I oppose this DYK, after thinking it over. It's an interesting situation, and I don't have a problem with the article existing, but here we are talking about featuring it on the main page, and in that regard:
  • The article is about a website, and an effect of the DYK appearing on the main page will be to drive eyes to the website. Given that the article creator and most of the main authors are associated with that website, that doesn't sit too well with me, and wouldn't for any website.
  • It wouldn't for any website, but let's face this honestly: this is not Little Sisters of the Poor we are talking about here. While no fair-minded person, I think, could maintain that Wikipediocracy is monolithic or they don't do useful work (as well as being a wretched hive of scum and villainy), the plain fact is that that those eyes will be driven to a website that is dedicated, in part at least, to the destruction of the Misplaced Pages and to the immiseration of its individual editors personally. The Misplaced Pages's rules are not a suicide pact, and anyway the policy WP:IAR forbids us from deliberately abetting damage to the Misplaced Pages, which is a likely result of enlarging the Wikipediocracy community. Let them do their own advertising.
  • The purpose of DYK is to encourage the creation of new articles. To facilitate this, we deliberately allow DYK hooks to be less interesting than they could be (if we used a larger pool of articles to draw the hooks from). This degrades the potential reader experience, and must lower the number of clicks into the Misplaced Pages, lowering our readership capture. We accept this loss in order to maintain the benefit: providing an incentive for article creation. (All this is fine.) Does this DYK fit into that paradigm? No, it doesn't, per the two points above. The article creator and many of the other article editors are not good-faith actors in the DYK process. They are not going to feel pride in their DYK and be motivated to make further constructive contributions. This DYK is a perversion of what DYK was created for and is supposed to be about, and I don't see why we should have to stand for that, notwithstanding that they may have met the technical requirements for a successful DYK (if they have, which FWIW seems debatable).
  • Also, the very fact that it is controversial is, in an of itself, a good reason not to run it, I think. The appearance of the DYK would make many productive editors unhappy. That is not a useful function for DYK to perform, even if one concedes that the editors being made unhappy are wrongheaded, overly sensitive, or even cretinous. DYK is suppose to be happy time. We have plenty of DYKs that won't make a bunch of editors unhappy, so let's stick with them. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC) (Originally 13:57, 24 May 2013 and 16:53, 25 May 2013)

"DYK is suppose to be happy time?" I must have missed that particular guideline! -- Hillbillyholiday 16:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I responded to this in the discussion sections below. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per Crisco 1492. Also, it is an opportunity to show to others that Misplaced Pages is a place strictly adhering to neutral point of view & where even articles of it's critics get a fair chance to get popular. - Jayadevp13 03:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Precisely! We want to show that we can treat articles related to Misplaced Pages, either those which shed a positive light on the project or negative one, with neutrality. That, I think, should be the mark of a professional. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - it's a chance for us to take our criticism seriously, which gives us credibility on WP:NPOV. TheOneSean 11:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the above support votes. It may further Wikipediocracy's interests to have this DYK, but it equally furthers Misplaced Pages's: to be seen not to be sweeping criticism under the carpet is the best advertisement Misplaced Pages could have in a case like this. (I say that both as a Wikipedian, and as a Wikipediocracy member and moderator.) Andreas JN466 05:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no reason why Misplaced Pages should bend over backwards to prove how open-minded and neutral it is. I also dislike the free advertising for a random website. DYK should be restricted to non-promotional purposes, in my opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I separated this into two subsections, for clarity -- Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion on the meta-issue of whether this RfC is even in order

• What? You closed an open DYK nomination to start an RfC on whether a new article should have a DYK? Is there any reason why a new article would not be eligible for a DYK? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have reverted that close, this is absolutely unnecessary to hold a side discussion; you don't get to ban topics from DYK on "I don't like it grounds". The Alt2 hook discussion was going on with no contention at all, and even agreement among the interested parties and independent ones. Let that discussion flow, please. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • A community RfC is not a "side discussion". If an RfC is opened, the purely local discussion involving those (relatively few) editors aware of the discussion becomes the side discussion. Herostratus (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Procedural note: Although this community RfC probably trumps purely local discussions, editors at the local discussion (

Herostratus, the history looks like you wrote the above "Procedural note". Yes? Because the way this thread runs, it looks like The Devil's Advocate wrote it. Anyway, I'm wondering if there is a mis-cue in "the DYK will automatically appear on the main page after N days pass"? How does a DYK automatically appear on the main page if it isn't promoted to a prep area and approved and moved up to a Queue by an Admin? Maybe I missed something in the DYK process, but I'm not aware that any DYK nom automatically appears on the main page. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I did write it. Right, a DYK doesn't automatically appear on the main page without going through the procedures you describe. I wrote that as shorthand, meaning that it will appear if it passes those steps. Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is blatant abuse of an RfC for the sake of stone-walling and should be summarily closed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• It is an abuse of RfC and a waste of time. In the past DYKs have been stopped from appearing on the main page because of concerns about whether e.g. Sexy Cora's hospitalization from giving blow jobs or death nth boob-job surgery deserved to be on the main page, on the nomination page (not even here). IMHO, this DYK would serve as an informal apology and resolution to do better with abusive editors (aided by abusive administrators), particularly on BLPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • @ Tito Dutta: Oh, OK, sure. Well, first of all, this has been a slightly contentious nomination so far, and it seems to have aroused some strong feelings. I think that that alone is sufficient, probably. When something is contentious, it's probably a good idea to thrash it out. A case could be made -- I think this is where you're coming from -- is that if a DYK fulfills the DYK team's internal requirements of a DYK nomination, then that nomination must be accepted; it's a purely mechanical process. I'm not sure I'd agree, and I'm not sure that others would either. That's what we're here to find out, partly. A counter-case could be made that the community has a right to oversee DYKs appearing -- we are talking about the Misplaced Pages main page after all -- and discuss any one that they want to. That may be wrong, but in my opinion its not crazy or idiotic.

(BTW and FWIW, it has been established (de facto, as a political reality) that this doesn't apply to the daily featured articles; the Featured Article team publishes what it wants to (which may be a good thing, not sure). Whether this should apply to DYK I'm not sure. I don't think it should, but lack of such a standard could lead to a lot of unwarranted meddling in DYK I suppose (but much doubt). Anyway, that's a matter of whether the DYK team wants to establish that as the prevailing state of affairs and has the support to do so. Probably the best way to determine this would be to WP:MFD this RfC.) Herostratus (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Kiefer... an "informal apology"? Or in short, basically you want this posted to prove a WP:POINT? I am sorry, but that is simply asinine. If this is to be posted, it should be only on its own merits as a qualifying article. If the desire to put this on the main page is based on internal political considerations, then it most certainly should not be posted - any more than we should post any positive-themed naval gazing. Regardless, as I have indicated in the DYK nom, I oppose the posting of this article at this time because it lacks evidence of notability (and yes, I have read the AFD which was snowed under by superficial 'it passes GNG because I say so' comments), lacks non-trivial independent coverage and is nothing more than a WP:COATRACK operating primarily as a duplication of the criticism of Misplaced Pages article rather than something dedicated to Wikipediocracy itself. But that latter part should be expected given there is no significant, independent coverage to be found. Resolute 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  Can't we require that "editors" pass a quiz on WP:Point before they are allowed to miscite it? (Everything I write has a point, pilgrims, so please stop telling me that I am being pointy....) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• So... next time I see a DYK nom that I simply don't like, I can start an RfC on it? Volunteer Marek 17:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, yes, sort of. Subject to the general WP:RFC guidelines, which discourage idiosyncratic RfC's (which are generally disallowed by nature, that is they will garner no support and fail or be WP:SNOW closed anyway). Should you not be able to? We're generally pretty lax about these things -- it's a wiki after all. Anyway, I didn't open the RfC so much because I didn't like the DYK (I may vote to pass it through, not sure yet) but because there was already argument and discussion on the matter. Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Summarily close this RFC. The article was taken to AFD, where it was snow kept as containing sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I noticed the speedy keep and size of the article, which was largely created in two waves by Volunteer Marek and Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I figured that Marek probably would not nominate it since he had not written as much of the articleas Alf had, and Alf was too quiet and nervous to nominate it, so I nominated it for them. Don't use an RFC to make the DYK fail the technical requirements for DYK articles simply because you don't like the subject matter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a summary close as being in order. I think the correct next step, if you don't agree that the RfC is in order, would be to file a WP:MFD on it. Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Now that would be amusing. An MFD on an RfC on a DYK about an article that has survived AfD. This place does my nut sometimes. Harrias 17:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently we would have to nominate the entire talk page for deletion in order to close this shit down too. Nah, we can't just say "this is pointless" and close it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that that's true, at all. The "M" stands for "miscellany" and includes everything not covered by another specific XfD, including sections of pages, I would think. If it doesn't include sections of pages, we can make it so now -- this is a wiki after all -- unless there's a specific rule saying that doesn't. It'd probably be the appropriate thing to do in this case. There are now two entirely different things being contended here:

• Whether this particular DYK should or should not appear on the main page.
• Whether an RfC may be requested on any DYK.

Some people are seeming to say "no" to the second question, so rather than interleaving and confusing the two issues it'd be better to separate them I think. This could take the form of a separate RfC, but that would be confusing and it'd actually be much better to run an MfD on this RfC (if the MfD succeeds, we can probably assume that no RfC's on DYKs should be made in future). There's no hurry, so we can work through these things one at a time. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• As I said over there, the problem I have with this is that it was a drastic big step in the dispute resolution process that didn't seem to be necessary. RfCs should be called to help settle prolonged and intractable debates, which that DYK discussion really wasn't, once it went got past the initial ERMAHGERD TEH WIKIPEDIOCRACY commentary. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't agree that it's not contentious (beyond the knee-jerk opposition you describe), based partly on my reading of the thread higher up on this page. But if you're right, the RfC will be accepted with flying colors and only a bit of time will be lost, so why not see it through? Herostratus (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm getting confused as to where to post stuff now. This independent, neutral and professional source looks at WO's involvement in exposing the Qworty incident. And they are coming from a completely different angle. -- Hillbillyholiday 18:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'd rather just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, just like everyone else is; at this point, all the discussion is on the merits of the RfC's existence, not with the question you posed. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Close this: This is an out of process RfC on a non-issue which is sorting itself out as we speak. Although my own views on Wikipediocracy are fairly public knowledge, I must stress that we do not prevent articles from running just because the subject is related to Misplaced Pages or because we don't like it. This goes for the Wikipediocracy article and, ironically enough considering the forum's reaction, the Sarah Stierch article. Both are/were neutral articles which can/could stand on their own legs and thus get/got the same chances as every other article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, if it's a non-issue, what's the problem? Everyone will vote "Yes" and the DYK will go through. Go up to the Survey section and add your Yes to the cavalcade of unanimity there and Bob's your uncle. You could also read my argument there: it doesn't matter if the article was about Saint Alda, DYK exists for a specific purpose, and this nomination doesn't fit it. That doesn't have to matter to you, but it matters to me, and notwithstanding that you think that that's not a fit subject to even be discussed (individual DYK nominations are not a good venue for discussing larger issues like this) I respectfully submit that it might matter to other editors. Or maybe not. I'd rather know, since I prefer data to no data. Herostratus (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Close, by Crisco, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Close - Crisco is right about this. Prioryman (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there've been a number of editors contending that this is out of process and should be summarily closed. Any uninvolved editor can close an RfC. I don't think it'd be a good idea to summarily close this one, since it's not clear that it is disallowed I don't think. But I'm sensitive to the contention that RfC's on DYK's are out of line (I don't agree with it, but I suppose I could be wrong), so here's what I suggest:

• Let this one go through. It's too late to stop it now without drama, and it's only one RfC -- the Misplaced Pages will survive.
• Go to the thread I've opened here: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment#Question re RfC on main page issues. and (if enough people go there and support the proposition), add the suggested text to the page. This will prevent this situation arising in future.

Does this seem like a reasonable way to address this question of legitimacy? Herostratus (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 wrote, in the Survey section, {{xt}"Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial.}}

Well, "being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria" is exactly the problem. (That's why we're having an RfC, and so why I'm writing in this section, to expound on why this RfC is a necessary and good to have.)

The established DYK criteria is essentially or wholely technical: is the article the right age, is the hook the right length, does the article have enough refs, and so forth. That's all well and good as far as it goes. My understanding is that considering matters such as (say) "Will publishing this damage the Misplaced Pages" or "Will publishing this maybe cause some editors to feel bad" or "Will publishing this maybe cause a firestorm of angry debate on various Misplaced Pages fora" or "Will publishing this maybe end up in the news" or whatever is not really something that DYK is set up to well consider.

You DYK folks do sterling work which we all sincerely appreciate, but maybe you are getting a little too close to your own work? Llook at the larger picture. DYK exists for a reason. The larger Misplaced Pages community is interested in and feels a stake in what appears on the main page. One may think that's silly but it is what it is.

No one likes having a boss, but most of us have them. The DYK folks have one: the larger community. If the Misplaced Pages had a paid professional Editor-In-Chief to answer these questions, she'd surely insist that potentially problematic main page material pass her desk. The main page is important! We don't have an Editor-In-Chief because (for good or ill) we have community decision-making instead, so the larger community serves this function.

Geez, if I were you, I would want the larger community to help me out with these questions. This is a hard question! You have enough to do without have to handle stuff like that without help. That's what an RfC is for: to help. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion on the merits of the question asked in the RfC

• Comment The main question of the RFC asks Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy?. Now, the question immediately indicates that there are some reasons for which the article/hook should not go on the main page? But, what are the reasons— that has not been clarified. Guesses— a) all/mostly unreliable refs; if so, please add tags and templates in the article b) fails notability; please add tag and take to AFD if needed c) CoI/written like advertisement/neutrality disputed; add templates if applicable and discuss at talk. These tags and/or AFD (if applicable) will help (read "stop") both the review and the reviewer ("immediately"). --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Or is the opposition to Wikipediocracy appearing on the DYK section of the main page actually due to its exposure of serious COI concerns with GibraltarpediA, which was blatantly spammed across the main page for months? Hmmm...one has to wonder, given the stuff regularly posted.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As to the merits of whether or not the DYK should appear, here are some of the points made at earlier discussions:

• Whether the article is stable is perhaps open to question (it appears that it is being or recently has been actively edited).
• Whether the entity is notable is perhaps open to question.
• Most of the creators and editors of the article are associated with the entity. This could possibly bring conflict of interest questions into play.

And here's a point I'll add for my own part:

• While there aren't any specific rules or guidelines I can point to regarding this matter, the whole issue of intent here could have some bearing, if one is inclined to consider such matters. Whether we're being trolled here, whether that matters, what we should do about that (if anything), to what extent we as normal human beings with normal human emotions should have to put up with stuff like this, and how any of this actually improves or is intended to improve the Misplaced Pages, are all questions that might arise in the minds of some. (I do note that the nominator features prominently on his user page the motto "Make articles, not drama", which, given that he made this nomination, is I suppose intended to enrage, or maybe sarcasm is the intent. Whatever it is, I don't much care for that sort of thing. Again, that may not be germane, but we are supposed to here to try to get along and to improve the Misplaced Pages, and how much shrift we are willing to give to folks who aren't is a reasonable question I think. The Misplaced Pages is not a suicide pact.) As a counter-argument, "We're bigger than that" is a valid point, which is why I haven't made up my mind yet. Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Added later: I talked to the nominator, and he wasn't trolling, and I was wrong to say so, and I apologized to him. Rather, he really was surprised at the notion that anyone would want to discuss the appearance of this DYK on the main page, beyond issues such as whether the hook is the right length and so forth. This in turn was extremely surprising to me, but I guess that's just a failure of imagination on my part. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 wrote, in the Survey section, {{xt}"Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial."}}

• OK. We just disagree on this I guess. Of course I'm not advocating a flat ban on featuring controversial topics on the main page. Each case is different. But, yes, if a topic is controversial -- is likely to cause a non-trivial number of editors to feel sad or angry when they see it appear (surprise!) featured on the main page, for instance, or have other bad effects -- that is certainly a factor that tends to militate against doing so, yes. Why would it not be. (Of course, we are not discussing whether the article itself should exist; if we were, "No, the topic is controversial" would be pretty weak tea. This is different.) Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources and DYK

My question is, how exactly do primary sources factor into DYK nominations? Because there are a fair amount of primary sources in use in the article that are referencing a fair amount of content that doesn't otherwise have a secondary source. What are the normal DYK rules about this? Silverseren 01:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

They are reliable for certain details and most of the sources being used are reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are being used conservatively for a small number of details, a quote and two sentences about contributors, where their use falls well within policy. Even without those sections the article would still be over the 1500 character limit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I should think that standard SPS procedure should be followed: non-controversial, non-self serving, actually about the subject itself. As of my writing there is no rule against using SPSes to source a hook fact — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A new proposal for "stale" old articles

In my opinion, one of the project priorities should be to get articles on really notable topics which have been unedited in years and are severely lacking up to a decent status. But at present we lack a mechanism to do so. I wondered if anybody would be interested in introducing a new scheme for DYK in which "stale old articles", e.g those which have not been significantly expanded beyond 1kb in the last two years, have lower expansion requirements for DYK. I'd propose something rather like a x2 expansion like for BLPs or a 3 kb requirement for stubs which are under 1kb of prose which would give editors an incentive to focus on improving what we have. I'd also propose that a number of people get together and decide say a bank of 1000 or so articles which all parties can agree on as "core" which are very important but badly in need of expansion and do a similar thing. We badly need to attract people to expand them, I;ve proposed an monthly award system but given the foundation's stance on such things DYK seems the only way to try to get more editors expanding them, What do you think?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Misplaced Pages:Today's article for improvement, or something like it? And, BTW, what happened with TAFI going on the main page beneath DYK? It was there one day, and now it's not. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, I now see under the section "Failure" on that page, that being on the main page didn't help the project, and they yanked it. — Maile (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, because in my experience people rarely fall for that. I'm simply talking about lowering the requirement for articles which haven't been expanded over 1kb within the last 2 years and reduce x5 to x2 expansion for them to encourage more editors to expand "stale" articles.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Bring it up to GA, and then make it a DYK. Sorry if I seem to be pushing my proposal too much, I'm waiting for the Main Page RfC to close.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As you can see by the lack of response and decision making over such things, not many at DYK really care about improving quality of wikipedia or DYK.... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Be bold, add it as an option, and wait for someone willing to revert and discuss it. Idealistic I may be, naïve even, but it's worth a try, and I've seen it work before.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I thought about this for quite a while, and went back and forth a little, but I don't think there is a need to change the rules for this sort of article. If the article is below 1,000 characters, then a 5x expansion shouldn't be an unreasonable proposition. My worry is that if we allow a significantly smaller expansion, (particularly a 2x) then we will see lots of "padded" articles appearing at DYK. It works for unreferenced BLPs, because not only is information being added, but references are as well, which in most cases requires a complete rewrite of the article. I would be more likely to support a 2 or 3x expansion rule for similarly stale articles between 1,000 and 2,000 characters, but I don't know if we are getting beyond "DYK-style" articles there. Harrias 07:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

QPQ proposal

There has been much discussion recently about a lack of reviews for DYK noms and whilst reviewing and promoting hooks I have noticed that there are frequently nominations made by someone otherwise not involved in the article. I propose that there be a minor change to our rules so that the person who nominated an article must give a QPQ if they have more than 5 credits. Otherwise we risk being overwhelmed by articles which haven't had another article reviewed and so increasing the backlog. Reviewing an article isn't that hard, so this would only be a minor inconvenience to those who could otherwise pick up hundreds of DYK credits for little or no effort.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Nominating other people's work for DYK is an important contribution to the DYK process that should not be discouraged. It recruits new contributors to get involved in DYK (I'm one of many frequent participants who first got involved after someone else nominated an article of mine) and it tends to add to the diversity of the subject matter here. Moreover, it's often a lot of work to nominate someone else's work -- a lot harder than reviewing a nomination. It requires screening new articles for basic eligibility, looking for possible hooks, and reading the cited sources to make sure they support the hook and haven't been plagiarized. It's usually necessary to do some editing to an article before nominating it. Then, after the nomination, the nominator needs to address the issues that come up during review -- and it's harder to do that with somebody else's work than for one's own work. QPQ was intended to elicit participation from people who would otherwise only use DYK to showcase their work; don't make it an extra hoop for people who are already going far beyond that. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, I agree that nominating is important, and that sometimes it is a great deal of work (assuming the nominator is doing those things you list, which is not always the case), but what about those situations where the article's creator (or at least one of them) has more than five DYK creator credits already? In that case, either could give the QPQ, but I think it's worth considering the possibility that someone is expected to, if a particular author or authors have been tapped for DYK that many times. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That was going to be the alternative to my proposal, because I saw that if my original proposal was rejected, it leaves open a loophole for gaming, where two users, or even a larger group of users, could have most of the group expand an article, and one other nominate without a QPQ, and take in turns with each other's articles.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Instead of creating a new rule that could prove to be problematic for good-faith nominators (such as a contributor who regularly nominates the work of someone whose English is good enough to translate articles, but isn't good enough to write effective hooks or evaluate other people's hooks -- and whose articles likely require some cleanup before they can be nominated), I suggest case-by-case "handling" for people who are gaming the system. If somebody seems to be gaming DYK, the DYK regulars can tell them something like this: "Look, you aren't violating the formal DYK guidelines, but we think you are gaming DYK -- and creating work for the regular volunteers without shouldering a share of the workload. Because you aren't being fair to the rest of us, we're not going to review or promote your recent nominations until you do some QPQ reviews." --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Older unreviewed nominations

The following are older and unreviewed; the rest may have issues, have been approved, or needs another review. I won't list others that need another review; perhaps someone willin this section, but I'll do so in another section. --George Ho (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Approved or not, I will strike out nominations that are already reviewed. --George Ho (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• May 17: template:did you know nominations/The Joy Luck Club (film)
• May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties (four-article hook)
• May 9: template:did you know nominations/Bachata Romántica: 1's
• May 7: template:did you know nominations/Larry Itliong
• May 9: template:did you know nominations/Birthplace of Simón Bolívar
• May 15: template:did you know nominations/2005 Dickies 500
• May 16: template:did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by Romeo Santos
• —: template:did you know nominations/Old Nassau
• —: template:did you know nominations/Theodore Garman
• May 17: template:did you know nominations/Palacio de la Legislatura de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires
• —: Template:Did you know nominations/Francisco Esteban Gómez (two-article hook; only Battle of Matasiete needs a review)
• May 19: template:did you know nominations/Dirty Laundry (Kelly Rowland song)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Cinderella (2013 Broadway production)
• May 20: template:did you know nominations/Thonningia
• —: template:did you know nominations/T-Dog (The Walking Dead)
• May 21: template:did you know nominations/Transdev Melbourne
• May 22: template:did you know nominations/Zarafshan Range

Prep 4 Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat

The current hook reads; ... that Singaporean politician Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat is cited as "Singapore's first Malay minister"? Why is it "is cited as" and why not simply "is Singapore's first"? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "... Jumat was "Singapore's..." Harrias 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Texas gubernatorial election, 1998

Since George Ho has reverted my adding Texas gubernatorial election, 1998 to the "unreviewed" with a note "unreviewed ONLY", then I will say it here. I did not review that nomination, but George might see that otherwise. What I did, was state that the hook itself was factually incorrect. The editor responded with what he "could say", but never offered a new hook. What he had suggested was a word-for-word lift from a source in the article. I ran Earwig just to see what it would bring up, and then ticked it for a new reviewer. I did not review the article. Personally, I feel the editor may be manipulating things to push a political myth without looking like they're having a POV. Given how much that rankles me, it would be better if the article was actually reviewed by someone else. I am not going to review it. It can stay out there until the longhorns mosey along home, but the article remains unreviewed. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... I'm reviewing it now.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations that are constantly stable and is ready for re-review

I don't list nominations that have not been "stable", even if they are right now. The ones that do not count as "stable" are nominations whose:

• one of hooks may be hugely inaccurate or misleading or outdated cited by a source, reliable or not
• articles may have major issues that would be resolved too long or impossible to resolve (inadequate expansion doesn't count as "major", even if not minor)
• articles are/were nominated for deletion and then resulted as something other than "speedy keep" or "keep" without close rationale
• amount of reviews is too many

For example, Wikipediocracy is/was nominated as AFD, so I don't find its DYK nomination stable enough to be listed here. Also, I do not include ones that were promoted by one editor and then unpromoted by someone else, especially when they appeared on the main page for a short time, like chinaman (porcelain). If the nomination is listed for too long and is not constantly stable, perhaps the best to address the nomination would be separately addressing it rather than merely listing it. You can list whatever you feel necessary, but I'll remove ones that are not constantly stable. If I accidentally inserted one that is either constantly unstable or not constantly stable, then feel free to remove it (and then address it separately). --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I only list ones that need re-review. Even unapproved active ones don't need a re-review too soon. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• April 30: template:did you know nominations/Wibault 9 (green-checked)
• May 3: template:did you know nominations/Chris Perez (red-tagged)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Preston Claiborne
• May 4: template:did you know nominations/Protected areas of Namibia (blue-checked)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Noemi Marone Cinzano
• —: template:did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by Sugababes
• May 6: template:did you know nominations/Helmin Wiels (green-checked)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Roberto Carnaghi (questioned)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Slotted line (green-checked)
• May 9: template:did you know nominations/Fredrikke Marie Qvam (green-checked)
• May 10: template:did you know nominations/Birmingham crisis
• —: template:did you know nominations/A Million Ways to Die in the West (blue-slashed)
• May 12: template:did you know nominations/Coffee production in Venezuela (green-checked)
• —: Template:Did you know nominations/Melvin Bliss/Synthetic Substitution
• —: Template:Did you know nominations/Chhota Bheem and the throne of Bali
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Chua Soo Bin (green-checked)
• May 14: template:did you know nominations/Ranjit Sinha (blue checked)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Cathreim Thoirdhealbhaigh
• —: template:did you know nominations/Rob Howell
• May 16: template:did you know nominations/Golden Eagle Regional Park
• May 17: template:did you know nominations/Francisco Esteban Gómez
• May 18: template:did you know nominations/María Gómez Carbonell

Queues empty, preps full

Plus we had two requests for 2June and we only have one in preps and the remaining would make a good lead pic. Admins, pitch in! PumpkinSky talk 20:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but that was only one. More need moved.PumpkinSky talk 21:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin help needed to officially merge/close noms

Now that Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties has passed as a multiple hook, I would like to close Template:Did you know nominations/Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike and Template:Did you know nominations/Lucky Guy in a way that the QPQs are properly transferred and all hooks are still documented as being new. Who knows the proper "paperwork" to merge noms into a multiple nomination?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I closed those two, but there's no magical process for transferring QPQs. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well no one is challenging my QPQs at Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties. Everthing seems fine. Thanks for closing those out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

67th Tony Awards scheduling

We have merged 12 new articles into a total of 6 hooks to avoid hook congestion. Now there are 5 approved hooks and a pending hook, meaning that it is likely that there will be 6 hooks for this Template:Did you know nominations#67th Tony Awards June 9 and 10 date request. I have requested that the four hooks that feature works be scheduled in the 4 primary positions (3rd queue on the 9th through the 3rd queue on the 10th). There are two other hooks that are likely to draw far fewer viewers. They would benefit from being on the main page at their newsiness peak during the 9th and 10th. Could we allow 1 or 2 of the 4 targeted queues to have two Tony Award hooks?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this, as I commented in the previous discussion. But my opinion is still the same: the Tony Award is not something that we want to bend our rules for, having one per set for two straight days is more than enough. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As was I, and my opinion is also unchanged. I agree with Mentoz86: no more than one per set. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we accept x4 expansions?

I've expanded RCSI-Bahrain by 4 folds (if you count from 1 June), but it can be 5 folds if we count from 26 May. I don't think I'll be able to expand it further (unless I rely heavily on primary sources). Do you think this has a snow chance in hell? Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that this article should be treated as eligible for DYK. If you compare the current version with this version from 15 April 2013, the expansion that began on 26 May still falls slightly below the 5x threshold. However, considering the amount of new content that has been added and the dramatic improvement in quality, I'd be inclined to say it's "about 5x", and the fact that the expansion started not 5 days ago, but 8 days ago, doesn't bother me -- that's still very recent. --Orlady (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Orlady. It's very close and, overall, the article is very well done so I think a little WP:IAR can be invoked here. Agne/ 23:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

On an article of that size, there's nothing wrong with a little IAR. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This seems like a good reason to use a bit of IAR. Silverseren 01:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Allow it. PumpkinSky talk 02:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's very generous, thanks guys! P.S. I'm in love with IAR :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• This ×5 rule has been a terrible failure and should be dumped forthwith. Tony (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sudirman, Albertus Soegijapranata, Loetoeng Kasaroeng... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should expansion over a certain number of characters as well? Or a 10-day period of expansion, although I think that one was shot down relatively recently.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The 5x rule was initially meant for existing stubs, so such a limit would go against the initial spirit of the rule. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't have a problem with the 5x expansion rule. It's a good rule that allows expanded stubs to be at a good length. It's just that in this current case, it is so close to 5x and is of such a length that it makes sense to allow it through. Silverseren 02:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK approved but has not appeared?

This DYK discussion was approved by User:Harrias with this edit. It was then moved to prep 4 by User:Bobamnertiopsis with this edit. Though shortly, Harrias undid the edit and promoted the hook with this edit on June 1. On June 2, I received the notification from User:Graeme Bartlett that the hook was added to the DYK, however it doesn't include the fact that was approved at the nomination. According to "Pages that link to "List of awards and nominations received by Romeo Santos" the hook is not in any prep or queue area. Is there something specific that happened here or am I confused? — DivaKnockouts 02:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There is this edit to Prep4 with the summary "swap for timing" where the coronation appeared at the loss of the Qvam and Santos hooks. However, the "give credit" template for Santos was not removed (which is probably why it was added to your talk page). Chris857 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I've placed the hook in prep area 3 with this edit. Thanks for the heads up! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 03:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for sorting it out! — DivaKnockouts 03:32, 4 June 2013 (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) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion sought

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I declined Template:Did you know nominations/Hartland Moor‎, suggesting that the author may like to seek a second opinion. Quite reasonably, that is now the case. Could someone else please have a look at the article and see what they think? --Stemonitis (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sale — Cheap!

The Hall of Lame

It's back again. Today's winner is:

"Did you know ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 38 Squadron was equipped with DHC-4 Caribou transport aircraft for 45 years?"

Well no, I didn't know that. Wow.

Runner up: "... that Michelle Nunn, CEO of Points of Light, the largest organization in the U.S. devoted to volunteer service, is considering running for the U.S. Senate, where her father once served?"

The runner up borders on being political spam. Who approved it? Tony (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, for the RAAF hook at least, that is at the very least somewhat interesting for those familiar with military matters. Can you imagine the USAF using Thunderbolts (WWII) in Operation Desert Storm (1990-91)? That's how out of date those planes were when they were finally taken out of service in that squadron. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'd guess that Tony isn't particularly conversant with military matters because as someone who is, I can say that fact definitely is surprising. I'll go and have a look at the article now to find out the story behind this... Prioryman (talk)

• WP's main page doesn't aim exclusively at military experts. If the hook can't convey a surprising aspect to normal readers, I think it shouldn't be displayed. Tony (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• In which case you should suggest a change to the DYK rules, as the currently written ones do not specify a general audience. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I approved the Nunn hook. Given that the election in question isn't until November 2014, I figured it wasn't an issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I moved the RAAF hook to the prep area. I didn't know anything about the airplane and I wouldn't have visited the article if I hadn't been checking it for promotability, but I recognized that there are people who are very interested in military aircraft and that 45 years is a long to use any one airplane model. If DYK limited itself to topics known to be of widespread interest among people who visit Misplaced Pages articles, it probably would only feature current topics like reality TV, popular music, hot video games, and the latest iPhone model. Let's not go there! --Orlady (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• No, all that is required is that the point of the surprise or interest be clear from the hook to main-page readers. This should have been weeded out long before it got to the main page if no better alternative hook could be conceived; but I'm guessing that no one even bothered to improve it. Tony (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  Tony, if you wanted a stray poll, "45 years" is enough to draw attention of non-specialist. Move on. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  What is notable about 45 years? If this is the best you can come up with, DYK should be terminated, or at least drastically reformed so that GAs can at last gain a little exposure, with much better material. Tony (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  Several editors are trying to convince you that it is a pretty long term for a military piece of equipment, especially an aircraft. Hooks are not about "better material" - you'd have to shift your criticism to the article for that. Materialscientist (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  Tony, that you do not find it interesting or unusual does not mean nobody does, or even that barely anyone does. I yawn a little bit wider every time I see a sports hook, but there are a significant number of readers who go berserk for them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's not the topic: it's the hook. Tony (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• And most of the hooks for sports-related articles are... sports related, and at times barely penetrable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Today's winner: There are so many candidates it was hard to choose. I settled for "Did you know that Ravi Shankar, the world-renowned Indian sitar player, was a musician from Varanasi?" Errr ... it's a fact, yes, but is it a suitable DYK hook?

  Runners-up: again abstruseness abounds for anyone who isn't already an insider for the topic—this seems to be increasingly prevalent. So we have "... that Zainal Abidin acted in over 150 films but won only two Citra Awards?" ... Um ... OK.

  And "Did you know that Tom Collins resigned the presidency of RCSI-Bahrain over the alleged government cancellation of an ethics conference?"—Wake me up when it's finished.

  May I ask why prehistoric "hill complexes" feature twice in the current shift? This is very bad control of theme. Tony (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Sigh. And that's why there are links, for those who are not "insiders". If rules required, for instance, "... that Zainal Abidin acted in over 150 films but won only two Citra Awards, Indonesian film awards which have been likened to the Oscars?", then I (and most active DYK editors, I should think) would rather just not go through DYK. Requiring every term to be familiar to Anglosphere readers is just ensuring that Anglosphere topics are even more dominant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • "Requiring every term to be familiar to Anglosphere readers is just ensuring that Anglosphere topics are even more dominant."—you're going down a rabbit hole there. "Did you know ... that Zainal Abidin acted in more than 150 Indonesian films, but won only two of the coveted Citra Awards?" – that would be a tiny bit better, at least providing a cultural anchor and pointing to the reason for the irony. And no, visitors to the main page should not have to click forward and click back, once or even twice, to get it. Bad idea. Tony (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Citation for "coveted", Tony, per the DYK criteria? I agree that it's true, but verifiability is not truth. I don't think I said readers need to "click forward and click back, once or even twice, to get it". If they get it, good. If they don't get it but are interested, even better—they've learned something. If they don't get it and don't click, no biggie. Very few DYKs get the same level of attention as a TFA or POTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What Tony's complaint boils down to, I think, is that a fair number of DYKs are of specialist interest - mushrooms or Bach cantatas, for instance. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. Many editors are specialists too, but there's no requirement that DYK topics should be "populist", nor should there be. I think the range of topics - including those which are perhaps rather esoteric - is a good thing, in that it exposes readers to subjects that they probably would never come across from their usual daily reading. Prioryman (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Singapore; frequent DYKs lah

We are seeing many hooks related to Singapore recently. I guess not much fuss has been made yet on Talk:Main Page about this. (Birds are still being attacked there.) Before people start doing that i think we should avoid second Gibraltar episode. I am sure the admins who promote hooks take care that no two Singaporean hooks are showcased in same set. But i don't know if each consecutive set is scanned that way or not. Admins should take care that this doesn't happen. Maybe we can have a hold down area for Singapore also. Double review like Gibraltar is unnecessary. The main concern is that almost all hooks have "Singapore" or "Singaporean" in them and that be alarming. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, they are almost all the work of two editors, and neither of them (to the best of my knowledge) are getting paid to place information about Singapore on the front page. One is a university professor who has his students write articles, using their own user names, about Singapore's law and legal climate, while Bonkers The Clown is just a very productive editor. The main issue with Gibraltarpedia was the fact that the government had helped pay for the program and was offering some incentives. Nothing like that here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the Gibraltar issue. That's why i did not propose double reviews. Articles are not a problem here. (You see, birds also most probably don't pay editors to feature their snaps. But still they attract criticism.) We simply need to space out these hooks properly. Hence a special standby area for them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• See, in my opinion "second Gibraltar" is scaremongering. DYK always gets people complaining about the frequency of certain topics. Last year it was horses and paralympians, right now it's Bach cantatas. Gibraltar was... something else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Have changed the name of the topic if you think its being used by me to scare people. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• AGF for Dharmadhyaksha, but agree with Crisco 1492 that this is nothing to be alarmed about. DYK tends to have runs on topics. I think the Gibraltar dual-review and sectioning out (and I'm the one who did the RFC that created it) proved nothing, except that DYK has its own closet of anxieties that can be easily rattled by a few whose motives are in question. We should not repeat that mistake ever again with any topic. Where do we draw the line? How many promoters and admins want to spend their time flipping up and down on the nomination page to make sure they included something from the appropriate sections? We should stop worrying about topics and concentrate on the qualifications of the individual noms. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh how did I know this would transpire sooner or later. No scandal here, sorry. The SG gov. would never do things like that. Singapore is already popular enough. (COI) I admit though that I love Singapore deeply. :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And thanks Crisco. Appreciated. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Too many articles on Singapore lah! That can't be possible, ah. :-) Prioryman (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• You've gotten the hang of the slang, eh? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Apologies to those who've already seen this quip elsewhere, but a reliable source already stated that it's very rare for any topic to appear on DYK "more than once", so we must all just be imagining it :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I must be faking all my trophies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• For editors who think this is an urban legend, some examples are given below.

For editors who assumed my proposal was in good faith, thanks a lot. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

To put this in context, we run about 2,000 DYKs a month. You're raising concerns about running 6 or 7 in the course of a single month. That's about 0.3% of the total. I hardly think it's overrepresented given the number of DYKs on other topics. Prioryman (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere about the "too much Bach" claims, the DYK process runs those nominations that are (1) submitted, and (2) pass the criteria for inclusion. If you submit valid nominations about topics that are not to do with Singapore, then they will appear in DYK - thus bringing a lower proportion of Singapore-related DYKs. If you do not do so, then nothing will change. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I simply pointed out a possible future commotion which could be avoided by a simple scattering strategy. In case you find it unnecessary, its okay. But when someone comes complaining on Talk:Main Page, do remember this. Sorry for wasting your time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not worry, I have lots of it. My memory is like a goldfish, but even that will be sufficient to remember this until the next time someone comes complaining on Talk:Main Page - because that happens at least twice a week. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, goldfish do have relatively good memory ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You even took the effort to make a table... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

7 DYKs for June 2013 as of 7 June 2013! New worl (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Heck, there are times where I kept up two articles on Indonesia per day... been over a year though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Above, Prioryman claims that we run about 2,000 DYK's a month. In reality, we run now 7 per batch, 3 batches a day (= 21), max 31 days a month, is 651 DYKs a month only. Even with 4 batches of 8 (did we ever have that rhythm?), we only come close to 1,000 a month. Fram (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's embarassing. :-( I was thinking of the total over three months, which was under discussion elsewhere. You're quite right about the monthly totals (3 x 651 = 1,953). Prioryman (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Prep 4 Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

The promoted hook on Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India should be rescheduled till the article is cleared of NPOV issues. Discussion started on talk page of article. Also split discussion happening at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_4#Category:Anti-Muslim_pogroms_in_India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Better hook needed

At Template:Did you know nominations/Gender inequality in the United States. Reviewers think my hook is too boring (with which I agree), but they propose alt hooks which are factually incorrect or otherwise problematic, I am afraid. Perhaps somebody new can come up with a better hook? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Queues empty and no preps built

... PumpkinSky talk 12:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could you build one so I can move it to a queue? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I did not have time at that point, but someone has filled two preps and I'll now try to fill the other two preps, approved hooks allowing.PumpkinSky talk 21:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that there are three approved hooks ready for prepping at T:TDYK#Gibraltar-related articles that have been reviewed twice, and approved for main page. Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong hook

Why isn't the hook for Bancroft Shed, currently on the main page, the one that was agreed at Template:Did you know nominations/Bancroft Shed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• DYK/Discussion pages
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment