Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:27, 9 October 2014

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 3 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, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 22:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 22 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.

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)

• with 72 approved and some stuff in queue. i reckon we go to 3 sets/day. there'll be more for a few weeks from the stub contest. Probably die down in November. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Casliber (or another admin): could one of you adjust the bot's update times to three? I was going to ping Gatoclass, but he hasn't been active for 2 weeks. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you have a link, I can handle it... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 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)

• Don't forget Cwmhiraeth for increase to 3 – she was the one who initially proposed this in an earlier thread above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• That still only makes 5 ayes and 4 nays (with TRM below). This looks like no consensus right now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• P.S. the current count is 322 noms with 3 empty queues. Factoring in the 21 hooks needed in those positions we are barely at 300 nominations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:22, 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)

• You are really grasping at straws. There is no reason to pretend not to understand what Hawk is saying. Even Casliber, who is on the aye side counts Hawk on the nay side.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm grasping at straws? Of course, because there are more people supporting an increase to three sets. Grow up! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Why the rush? The slow pace has really helped people to look at hooks for quality control, essential for the survival of this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 14 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 don't agree. I see far fewer pulls from the main page. Can you substantiate your claim? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 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)

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

• At this moment we've got 88 approved-but-not-promoted, and 27 in prep or Q, for an approved reserve of 115. The moment that hits 150 I'll join those calling for 3 sets/day, with the proviso that when the reserve drops 100 we return to 2 sets/day. EEng (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Just now 278 noms under review, 109 in reserve. EEng (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Just now 287 noms under review, 98 in reserve. If the reserve drops to 50 I'm gonna suggest we switch to 1 set/day. EEng (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• Just now 287 noms under review, 95 in reserve. EEng (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• After the next update (in order to be comparable to the numbers above) we'll have 290 under review, 92 in reserve. EEng (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Just now 96 in reserve, 297 in review. EEng (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• 98, 308 EEng (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• 107, 297 EEng (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• 96, 299 EEng (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• 92, 298 EEng (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• 92, 304 EEng (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• 91, 307 (04:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC))
• 78, 313 (02:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC))
• 76, 317 (05:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• 59, 328 (00:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)) (not sure how we got from 76 to 59 in 24 hours)
• 63, 328 (12:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)) (9 hrs later)
• 72, 321 (02:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC))
• 68, 325 (05:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC))
• 62, 324 (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)

Increase to 3 sets a day? (revisited)

On 10th September User:Bloom6132 wrote:

"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?"

Two weeks later we are now up to over 400 nominations, with over a 100 approved, including those in the queues and prep area. That's about 4 weeks-worth at the current rate of throughput, and more piling in all the time. (I must admit to a WikiCup-related vested interest here :-) ) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be now. I think if they move through more qucikly we'l be reviewing noms more quickly too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In the past two weeks our reserve has been generally dropping (from 115 to just under 100, though in the last few days it's risen to 107). Had we increased to 3 sets/day as proposed two weeks ago, we'd now be at zero reserve and missing updates. The proposal seems to be that we should now increase to 3 sets/day, so that two weeks from now we can be at zero reserve and missing updates.

And I'm sorry, but to bring in the number of under-review noms as an argument for increasing the consumption rate is utter nonsense -- only the approved reserve counts. And "if they move through more qucikly we'll be reviewing noms more quickly too" is the most dangerous thinking I can imagine on the subject -- translation: "If we run out of hooks we can just start rushing the reviews like we used to" -- fun times, yeah!

I repeat that when the reserve gets to 150, then we go to 3 sets/day. When it drops to 100, back to 2 sets/day. And if it ever gets to 50, then 1 set/day until the reserve recovers. If there's a big backlog of noms in review, do something about that, but planning to update at an unsustainable rate is suicide (metaphorically speaking, of course).

EEng (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Do not increase. Currently hooks stay in the prep areas and queues long enough for some quality reviewing to take place. Quality is increasing. Rushing them to the main page will compromise that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The question of increasing or decreasing is not getting resolved because (I think) it is linked to more fundamental questions - as TRM notes above. Is DYK a way of slowly curating a smaller number of articles onto the main page so that we show that Misplaced Pages has no/few errors or is it to encourage a larger number of (new) editors to be encouraged by wider exposure at the cost of showing a less perfect/more honest view of new articles? If we want to have great hooks with high quality articles then in the limit we need to increase the backlog so that everythig has to wait and very few articles are published every day. The alternative view means that we publish very quickly with a minimum wait time so that editors see their work more rapidly. Surely the question is, how many articles should be in the queue and how long should they wait? If the answer is just "lots" and "as long as possible" then I'm not sure that this allows any room for compromise. Is there a consensus of what an average wait should be? Is the purpose to allow reviewers time or to deter new articles? If it is just to allow time then how many weeks do we want/want to invest? Balanced views requested. Victuallers (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think a fortnight would be a good target for straightforward nominations to be reviewed, pass through the system and get to the front page. That there is such a large number on unreviewed nominations is a result of a QPQ only being required when the article is a self-nomination. There is a need for willing reviewers to voluntarily work on the backlog to bring it down to reasonable proportions. I used to do this, and aimed to review two articles for every one I nominated. But in the present atmosphere of fear and recrimination, not many wish to review articles voluntarily only to be criticised as I was here, where Fram wonders whether I should review any hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Because of QPQ and contests like WikiCup, it's important that these hooks are held before being posted to the main page so that independent reviews can be conducted. Therefore two sets a day allows for a few diligent uninvolved editors to have a look at the hooks proposed for the main page. An eight-hourly turnaround is too quick, as proven in the past with the vast number of pulled hooks and the odd visit to ANI to discuss why DYK allowed such distasteful rot through to the home page of one of the most visited websites in the universe. Think quality, not quantity guys. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Right. We want to encourage double- and triple-checking of hooks, and discourage rushed promotions. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's about quality rather than quantity. DYK has very little to do with newbies—those who even know it exists would be totally baffled by the rules, the extra rules, the rules that aren't quite rules, rules that are more stringent than FAC requirements, and daft demands somebody just made up. And that's assuming they can navigate the mass of templates and transclusions in the first place, and that they're not put of when somebody is incredibly rude about an honest mistake (cf. Cwmhiraeth, who is far from the first person I've heard say that). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A bit of history: I wrote my first article, it was deleted, someone helped and nominated it for DYK without telling me a thing, I got this message about a problem with the nom ... - learning by doing ;) - 2 sets a day is fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

An increase to 3 sets a day is long overdue. It's disgraceful how the no-increase side can continue to claim that an "eight-hourly turnaround is too quick, as proven in the past with the vast number of pulled hooks." Unfortunately, you haven't been able to provide any solid proof – either here or in the previous thread – and that line of argument was already long disproven when I called you out on your stat skewing and deceit. The only response you guys could muster up is "Subjectively it seems that the quality has increased substantially". Sorry, but providing wishy-washy subjective points of view here doesn't cut it at all. You guys would have eaten me alive if I had rebutted your skewed biased stats with a mere "Subjectively it makes no difference whether we're using 2 or 3 sets," but it seems you don't believe in holding yourselves to the same objective standard. Back up your unsubstantiated claims with objective facts, or don't bother making them at all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to increase number of prep areas

• On a tangent, what would folks think about increasing the number of prep areas? That would allow more sets to be assembled while also allowing sets to mature and get plenty of eyes. I try to leave sets in the prep area 12-24 hours before moving them to the queue, and I think other admins work to similar timeframes, which can create a bit of a bottleneck when there are four full preps. Perhaps having a fifth or sixth prep (to match the number of queues) might add a little more flexibility and reduce the backlog of approved hooks at T:TDYK? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think that would be a more positive step. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that would be a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This one's a no-brainer. Prep and Q sets are f-r-e-e, and there should never be a time someone feels like putting a set together, or promoting one from prep to Q, and there's no place to do it -- and remember, if you find a few hooks-with-image in a row that you want to promote, each needs its own prep set. Let's double the number of prep sets from 4 to 8. No kidding. EEng (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't see a major issue here. More queues populated for longer means a continuing adherence to good quality, providing opportunities for the hooks to be reviewed by those without vested interest in churning over DYK for competition points or badges of honour. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a positive. Just go for it HJCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Also agree, but an admin will need to enact the proposed change as Template:Did you know/Queue is fully protected. C679 16:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Paging Shubinator. EEng (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I've created Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5 and Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6, and added them to Template:DYKqueuenav, but I can't work out what to do at T:DYK/Q—when I preview it, prep 2 shows up twice but the new prep 5 doesn't show up at all. Somebody cleverer than I will have to look into that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It was on this template. all good now (I think.....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a great idea, and I'm glad it's been implemented. We'll all keep our eyes out for any other glitches. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cas! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to increase number of hooks per set from 7 to 8

Since there's been resistance to increasing the number of sets, how about the number of hooks? That's traditionally been a way to make smaller increases or decreases in the run rate of hooks. This would increase our burn rate from 14 to 16 hooks a day, an extra 14 hooks a week, as opposed to the extra 49 hooks a week that a third set would bring. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Oppose. Once again, it doesn't matter how many unapproved noms are pending, only the number approved, and as seen in my tragically overlooked #Informal_tracking_of_the_stats, for the last few weeks our approved reserve is just barely holding in the low 90s, and actually sagging a bit, at the current burn rate. EEng (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support – Once again, the "No increase" side tries to scaremonger, this time using the "approved hooks" sidestep. "ur approved reserve is just barely holding in the low 90s" – that's way over what it should be (it shouldn't even be getting close to triple digits). Adding merely two more hooks a day will certainly not adversely affect the number of approved hooks we presently have. Time for a long-overdue increase of some form. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, what is with you? All your posts carry this hysterical theme of some kind of political conspiracy against increasing the burn rate. Scaremongering??? A bit overwrought, don't you think? Your intense interest in this wouldn't have anything to do with your desire to come from behind in the WP:WikiCup, would it? If so, why don't you get the judges there to base the scores on when DYKs are nominated -- assuming they eventually are approved and actually do appear -- but without worrying about when they appear. That way you can stop nagging us to help you rack up your silly points. (BTW, The approved reserve is now down to 76 from 92 two days ago.) EEng (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If I'm so concerned about racking up points in the WikiCup as you claim I am, why is it that I have not a single DYK nomination in the pipeline? And why is it I have only one other piece of content in the form of a GAN? Clearly, it is you who's baking up a silly conspiracy that ultimately turns out to be a pack of lies. I knew you'd act like this, but I didn't think you'd be this ignorant beyond belief. Thanks for proving me wrong. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That word overwrought comes to mind again. I didn't "claim" you were racking up DYK points for Wikicup, merely asked if that's what was going on -- which would have, if true, at least given a rational explanation for your explosive behavior on this issue. Unfortunately, you've proved me wrong on that, so I'm out of rational explanations for you behavior. So why is it this is such a hot button for you? EEng (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're "merely ask if that's what was going on", then why do you order me to "stop nagging us to help you rack up your silly points"? Obviously you're making a dishonest claim about me, and now you're lying to cover up that earlier lie. Why am I so passionate? Well, three sets has always been the norm at DYK. As BlueMoonset succinctly put it, "there's years of DYK experience that you're apparently unaware of." Unfortunately, you're under the false impression that your new theory is "suddenly the be-all and end-all" at DYK. What a "perfect" combination you have – arrogance & ignorance. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No amount of DYK experience can change the facts that we can't post hooks that haven't been approved and that at 3 sets/day we'd be out of hooks in 10 days. Neither is a "new theory", but common sense and arithmetic.

Still hoping to hear why you care so much. You're arguing this like it's a debate on abortion or same-sex marriage. EEng (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"t 3 sets/day we'd be out of hooks in 10 days" – do you seriously not know what this debate is about? We're not arguing over 3 sets a day; what BlueMoonset proposes is adding one hook to each set (i.e. running more 2 hooks a day, increasing from 14 to 16 hooks a day). Obviously you didn't bother paying attention to what he had to say – what a surprise. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You quoted BMS' reference to my so-called "new theory" and that reference was, indeed, in the context of going from 2 to 3 sets/day. Therefore, to reinforce that it's arithmetic, not some "new theory", that's behind my concerns about increasing burn rate (whether a little or a lot) I applied the givens of that discussion. Do you honestly not see how much you're embarrassing yourself with this desperate flailing? You seem to be coming unhinged.

In the last 10 days our approved reserve has dropped from 96 to 59. If things keep going like that, we'll be out of hooks in about 10 days even at the current burn rate. When it drops to 50 (which is only 3.5 days' reserve at 2*7/day) I'm going to recommend that we go to 1 set/day until the reserve recovers to 100. We should never intentionally allow the reserve to get below 4 days.

EEng (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

i don't think you should be lecturing me on arithmetic, especially after you embarrassingly acknowledged how you're "not sure how we got from 76 to 59 in 24 hours". Do you care to explain that? Or have you just been making up numbers from the get-go? Because the one common denominator I've noticed from the "No increase" side is their proclivity to fudge stats and make shit up. And your delusional "recommendation" of reducing to one set a day is another shining example of that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• I only record the stats as they exist at the moment I snapshot them. I'm not responsible for why the data is what it is, though it's possible I mistranscribed one day's figure. It's the sign of a good statistician (I have degree in statistics, BTW) to honestly acknowledge apparent anomalies in the data. In any event, it has no effect at all on the 10-day delta, which is certainly there.
• If we get down to 50, then we are going to go to one set per day. The only question will be whether we'll do it in an orderly fashion, by planning to do so, or haphazardly, by heedlessly tapping the well completely dry and then sporadically updating every 14-30 hours as we desperately scrape sets together.
• I ask again: why do you care so much? (And before you ask, I'll answer that question as it pertains to me: I care because I don't want WP embarrassed by the irregular updates, and errors resulting from desperate hook-scraping, that obtain when the reserve runs dry.)
• "Or have you just been making up numbers from the get-go?" I wish I could believe you're kidding, but apparently you're not. You really do seem unhinged.
• I'll let you have the last word now. Make it your best performance ever!

EEng (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose no need to rush things through, DYK has stablised nicely with an improved quality of late. Also, adding additional hooks will unbalance the main page layout unnecessarily. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You've clearly lost the plot if you think adding just two more hooks a day is in any way "rush things through"? And your argument of unbalancing the main page layout is a weak straw man argument. We've decreased to six hooks a day in the past; we can just as easily increase to 8 without a problem. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're the one losing the plot. Try to remain calm and discuss things rationally. You've been asked to do so several times now. Your hyperbole is unnecessary and doesn't do you any favours at all. Look forward to your hysterical responses to the other editors who oppose your position, not just mine and EEng, or is that something else we need to talk about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per TRM. If we've on average got three score and ten years on this planet, a few days delay to get your hook onto the main page won't kill you. Ritchie333 08:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Quality over Quantity. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Making personal attacks on editors who make proposals here illustrates the poor manners of some contributors. I will resist making personal attacks on those who feel that their view can only be achieved with italics, Emphasis and slogans. Can we increase the quality and not the quantity of these "contributions" that follow a well mannered proposal? Victuallers (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I have been contributing to DYK for nearly four years and I have previously never known there to be such a large logjam. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I have been contributing to DYK for years too, and there sure is a logjam! Last time we had this was when the Gibraltar kerfuffle forced reviews to be doubled up. At the moment we are down to 20 approved hooks in the pool, 21 in the queues, and 21 in the prep areas, which means (a) we have insufficient hooks to assemble another 7-hook prep area and (b) we are close to the 50 threshold for going to one set per day. But there are still over 300 unapproved hooks! I'd like to know where the people who said we don't QPQ because they will review all the hooks got to. Now would be a good time! Apart from "review some hooks", I have only one suggestion: cancelling all the remaining July hooks to avoid wasting any more reviewer resources on them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose—the fewer hooks that make it to the main page, the longer those that do can stay there. It's a circular feedback process—increase the quality and impact of what gets through, and they'll deserve a longer shift. Start flushing them through like a waterfall, the way it used to be, and any old thing will get through. Tony (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

" ... that did you know is not available on Misplaced Pages mobile?"

Does anyone know if there is a really good reason for this, and if not, how we can get DYK on the mobile edition? It's one of the best parts of the main page. Way more interesting than the stale articles from In the News that seem to never change... —Gaff 23:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not seeing WP:FP, WP:DYK, or WP:SA/WP:OTD. Also the sections below FP are missing (Other areas of Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages's sister projects, and Misplaced Pages languages) are missing. It is just WP:TFA and WP:ITN. I am curious what the larger issue is here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. I often look at the main page on my mobile and always have to switch to the desktop view to get the good stuff. All you seem to get by default is the FA and ITN. The FA is often quite obscure or boring like the monthly typhoon/hurricane while ITN is just repeating recent news headlines which are already familiar. The display has to scroll already so there doesn't seem to be a good technical reason why it shouldn't scroll through the other main page sections like DYK, On this day, Featured picture, &c. How is this controlled and where can we go to get it expanded? Andrew (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Given the number of problems with DYK, are we sure we want to expand the number of pages this section appears in? Ed  15:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll bite... @The ed17: what problems are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs) 02:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not available on mobile? A blessing. Tony (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Careful. Let's keep religion out of this. Remember when I was at ANI for "blasphemy"? EEng (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Promo joke by CEO of hook subject company about a competitor acceptable as hook?

Template:Did you know nominations/BlackBerry Passport, @ViperSnake151, Rsrikanth05, and Yoninah:

• ... that according to John Chen, unlike the iPhone 6, bending the BlackBerry Passport "needs a little effort"?

Is it really a good idea to repeat the "joke" the CEO of a company made about his new product compared to a competitor as a hook here? How is that neutral and factual information? A hook should contain real information about the subject, not what the CEO of the company has to say about it... I haven't pulled it yet, want to get some more opinions first. Fram (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just realised that my entire comment didn't get posted when I had reviewed, including my signature getting clipped. My point was to say that I'd actually go for the first one, but the second one is more appropriate. The latter half, for some reason got clipped. Apologies for the mix up caused. the second one is what I'm supporting. I'll wait for Vipersnake151 to also provide an opinion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The joke would be a POV violation if we ran it on DYK in my opinion. Maybe for April Fools Day it might be acceptable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a 2nd hook that was more neutrally worded, "... that BlackBerry CEO John Chen joked about the iPhone 6 "bendgate" incident while introducing the Passport?". Why not just use the alt? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Since no one, including the reviewer, actually wants the hook, I have pulled it from Queue4 where it had been moved to in the meantime. Fram (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Question on lead hook in Prep 4

Template:Did you know nominations/Acquacotta was promoted by another editor to the quirky slot in Prep 3. I felt that the accompanying picture was much more interesting for the lead slot in Prep 4, so I moved it. But now that I look at it, the hook doesn't seem so hooky. I discussed this with the page creator on his talk page, and he came up with this ALT:

ALT2: ... that acquacotta (pictured), an Italian peasant food dating to ancient history, was originally invented to make stale bread palatable?

The second part of the ALT was my suggestion, based on the article and sources. I would prefer not to pull the hook in order to tweak it. Could I go ahead and change the hook while it's in the prep set? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion please: Template:Did you know nominations/Manhattan Vigil

If anyone has time to weigh in at Template:Did you know nominations/Manhattan Vigil, I'd be very grateful. There's been quite a bit of back-and-forth between the nom and the first reviewer that seems to have reached a deadlock. The nom is a friend of mine and she asked me to have a look. I don't doubt the reviewer's good faith, but I think they're being a little harsh. They've dismissed three or four proposed hooks as "uninteresting" and "TV trivia" that I thought were quite reasonable. I'd appreciate it if somebody with a bit more distance would intervene. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've provided a full review. I agree that the first review was pretty unreasonable. 97198 (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Poverty in Cyprus (now) in Queue 6

I was pulling this hook from Prep 4 for the reasons stated in Template:Did you know nominations/Poverty in Cyprus (not just on a whim; though that would be fun for me I suspect it might upset people), but I edit conflicted with HJ Mitchell who moved it into Queue 6 (and out of reach of my grubby paws). Can some admin please pull it (or if you think my concerns are unwarranted re-close the nom and laugh imperiously) Belle (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I've pulled it for you. Give me a minute and I'll find a replacement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No wuckers (just wanted to see if we had an article on that, and we do), until the WMF finish the "another editor opened this file for editing some time ago so may get an edit conflict later" tool, you have no way of knowing. Belle (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Haven't got credit

Hello DYK experts, few days ago I have started an article which was nominated by MelanieN for DYK and credited me as the creator. Today it appeared on the Main page. I noticed now that I haven't got the credit. See my talk page history, I haven't got the credited. Although I was listed in the nomination page as the creator but I haven't got the credit. @HJ Mitchell: Please give me my credit manually. Thanks, Jim Carter 10:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added the notification to your talk page. If you knew the article appeared on the main page, why do you need a notification? If having the banner on the talk page is important to you, why didn't you add put it there yourself?--Carabinieri (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Carabinieri: It is important for me because I have to add it to my list of all my DYKs in my user subpage. And why should I come up here and ask for notification? It is absolutely not my duty. It is the DYK projects duty to add that banner to my talk page. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It must've gotten lost somehow. Sorry. However, in general, one only needs a notification of something one isn't aware of. And like I said, you could've just added that banner yourself if you that's something that you care about.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Carabinieri: For me that banner is like a barnstar. Have you ever awarded yourself a barnstar? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't suppose Carabinieri ever demanded that somebody else award them a barnstar either, so that analogy doesn't really work. If it got missed, it got missed; it's nobody's duty and the DYK notification police aren't going to come after you for adding it to your subpage (though how would I know? I'm not in the DYK notification police; at least I don't think I am; I applied once but they never notified me whether I'd been successful). Belle (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK notification is sent by a bot - the DYKUpdateBot. The bot did notify me about this DYK, so it was just a technical glitch of some kind that it didn't notify you. Thanks for doing it manually, Carabinieri. I don't know about Jim Carter, but I wouldn't have a clue how to make one of these banners manually. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the template that gets the bot to notify the article creator got left in Prep 3 when this hook was moved to Queue 4. I don't think this is a big deal. Since Jim Cartar was aware of the hook being used anyway, he didn't really need notification. Why don't we get rid of notifications to people involved in the DYK process? They clearly don't need them. Those banners only promote people thinking of DYK as a reward, which only makes the review process more difficult.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of why DYK is the way it is

Quoting from above:

It is important for me because I have to add it to my list of all my DYKs in my user subpage ... It is the DYK projects duty to add that banner to my talk page.

EEng (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

The Mahanoy Creek hook appears to be using ALT1, but the nomination approved the original hook, not the ALT. Can someone please fix this? It would also be nice if the picture from the nomination could be added, especially since it was specifically approved by the reviewer. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Both hooks have clearly been approved with green ticks. While a reviewer can express a preference for one of the approved hooks, the person putting together the prep set is free to choose between any that have been approved. There are also far more nominations with pictures that there are picture slots, so some invariably have to run without. The preparer appears to have decided to feature the picture of the acacia cultriformis in that set instead of the one in this hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: But now that I think about it, the hook being used seems rather uninteresting. I'd like request that it be changed to from the ALT to the original hook. (And given how many hooks with pictures I've submitted, I just find it a bit strange that not one has gotten to the main page). --Jakob (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I generally don't feel that "X has been described as Y" hooks are very interesting, because they don't say that this description is accurate or that this description is relevant in any way. That is why I chose the ALT.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Queue 5

The quirky hook at the end is a rather unquirky 215 characters long. I disagree with EEng's attempt to fix the original. Agreed, the grammar wasn't great, but now it's too long. Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You could shave "productions" off the end and thus save a dozen characters. If 15 characters makes that much difference. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you could shave off the entire "(which also supports radio productions)". It's really overkill for a hook. — Maile (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It was difficult to compress some convoluted info into 200 characters, but I managed to do it in the nomination. As for the altered version now in Queue 5, remove "productions" and replace "television" with "TV" (resulting in 197 characters), but keep the "supports radio" part. As I noted on the nomination when I added that part, the hook isn't really logical without it: it said he didn't like something on the radio, so he got rid of his TV. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 4 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; at the moment, only 22 nominations are approved, leaving 330 of 352 nominations are unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

• July 25: Template:Did you know nominations/PLDT HOME: The Last Home Stand
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/ZMapp
• August 6: Template:Did you know nominations/St. Augustine Parish Church (Bay)
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Transfiguration of our Lord Parish Church (Cavinti)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Dispatch (sternwheeler)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Lutosławski
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Jovan Albanez
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Gun politics in the Czech Republic
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Turn Me On (Kim Kyu-jong EP)
• August 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Mostafa Salameh
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/MBTA kickback schemes
• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series
• August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Karlos Labajo
• August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/HOP Ranch
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/United States Navy systems commands
• August 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Tafelberg School (two articles)
• August 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Emile Diou
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Our Lady of Candelaria Parish Church (Silang)
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Barton Currie
• August 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Hugh Bolton Jones
• August 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Lem (satellite) (two articles)
• August 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Davis (baseball)
• August 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Jalmari Jaakkola
• August 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Mason County Sculpture Trail
• August 29: Template:Did you know nominations/1978 Sikh-Nirankari clashes
• August 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Todd Lake (Oregon)
• August 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Stewart Gray
• August 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Kiswe Mobile
• August 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Enrique Zileri
• August 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Twitterature
• August 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Steinway Vertegrand
• August 31: Template:Did you know nominations/George Bacon (CIA)
• August 31: Template:Did you know nominations/B.T. Lalitha Naik
• August 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Market Basket protests
• August 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Achhe din anne wale hain
• September 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Saints Row: Gat out of Hell
• September 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Buck Flowers
• September 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Free Money Day
• September 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Preoperative care
• September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Endell Street
• September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/M+
• September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Walker (American politician)
• September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Heather Dewey-Hagborg

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) 04:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

DMV

In the United States, the DMV is known as the department of motor vehicles. Please change DMV to German Metal Workers' Union as soon as you see this. I'm guessing someone high up is having fun and it's not benefiting anybody. 98.17.2.187 (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"DMV" as an abbreviation for German Metal Workers union is not widely known outside Germany. It's bad form for an encyclopedia to make bait and switch moves like this (intent or not) because DMV is widely known as the Department of Motor Vehicles in the USA, among other "DMVs" within the USA and worldwide, see DMV. Surely somebody should be watching this that can easily correct the error. 98.17.2.187 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Did You Know?" section is supposed to be a little light-hearted, at leat some of the time. So, yes, that "bait and switch" was intentional and supposed to draw people to click on the DMV link.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Another one that may need to be pulled until the facts are straightened out.

I saw a hook in one of the prep areas that says "that upcoming film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon II: The Green Destiny is the first film to be released on Netflix?", but I have already seen 2 of the films on Template:Netflix that were released on Netflix.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: This source says that it is the first feature film to be released on Netflix. Perhaps that is what the hook means to say? --Jakob (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be pulled. The change may even make the hook uninteresting. It needs to be rejudged, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Can BlueMoonset look at this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Pulled. The sourcing isn't definite that this will be the first feature film released directly to Netflix ("will likely be the first one released"), and when the nomination was approved, the article had three bare urls, which are not allowed for DYK-nominated articles. I think the hook wording is problematic as well, as Tony notes, though I doubt the fix will be uninteresting as Tony posits. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Very similar hooks

In Prep 6

• ... that despite the upper reaches of the Crooked Run being acidic due to acid rain, the creek is still considered Class A Wild Trout Waters?

In Prep 2

• ... that despite being infertile and acidic, Little Crooked Run is considered to be Class A Wild Trout Waters?

I don't think it's a good idea to have two so similar hooks only a day apart. Could we at least split them up a bit more, if we don't change one? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Since the latter hook is not the one that was approved, despite being promoted, I'm going to pull it. (Crooked Run started out with a different hook, but the acid was suggested by the reviewer. Such is luck.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 6 October 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!

• ... that the architects Maxwell and Tuke designed Blackpool Tower (then Britain's tallest building and second in the world to the Eiffel Tower) and, later, the even taller New Brighton Tower?

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:

• ... that the architects Maxwell and Tuke designed Blackpool Tower (pictured) and the even taller New Brighton Tower since demolished. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

• Thanks for letting us know, Fram. Given how often it's repeated (and as a Brit who lives within a couple of hundred miles of Blackpool, I'm sure I've heard that claim a few times) it seems an easy mistake to make. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've restored it to the queue, less the "second-tallest" claim. Could somebody re-close the nomination in my name please? I can't figure out how to do it without making a mess. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done. You probably didn't subst it. In addition to doing "passed=yes", you also have to do "{{subst:DYKsubpage". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:02, 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)

Another day, another hook removed from the queue

Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Lippe @Oceanh, Cwmhiraeth, Carabinieri, and Casliber:

I start to wonder where people get the idea that the quality of DYK has improved and less problems occur. I have now removed from Queue 2

• ... that General Cristóbal de Mondragón was 91 years old when he commanded the Spanish troops in the Battle of the Lippe in 1595?

The hook fact is sourced to an 1876 book, which I can't access at first sight. However, more modern scholarship (not Misplaced Pages, but actual good sources) dispute the 1504 birthdate of Cristóbal de Mondragón (and the corresponding age of 91 at the time of the battle), placing his birth in 1514 instead, or as uncertain 1504/1514. This would make him 18 when he joined the army, not a rather late 28, and 81 when he lead the battle, not the rather extreme 91. Online available sources for the 1514 date include this onethis, thisthisthis... Note that the Spanish Misplaced Pages also lists his year of birth as uncertain, 1504/1514. Apparently the wrong date of 1504 was corrected to 1514 as early as 1906, but over a hundred years later this error is still being retold, and now almost graced the main page of Misplaced Pages. Please, if you have a hook that is based on a 1876 book and which makes a rather remarkable claim (not impossible, but unlikely nevertheless), go the extra mile and try to find out whether this is still supported in more recent sources. Fram (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I assume good faith when I review articles. In this case the source is not on line and the fact that he was 91 years old at the time, which is repeated in the Misplaced Pages article about him, is not easily verifiable. What a good thing it is that we have Fram to go that extra mile and show us all up! How dreadful it would be to propagate this (questionable) falsity through DYK (a 12 hour appearance) while leaving the articles concerned unamended for eternity! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It probably isn't easily verifiable because it isn't true? It wasn't too hard to check though... but your sarcasm is noted. No idea why you bring up good faith, that wasn't questioned at all, and I don't think there was any bad faith involved with the creator or nominator. But if by "assuming good faith" you mean "blindly following the article", then you are a) incorrectly using WP:AGF and b) not really fit to review articles for DYK. As for your last sentence: if you can't see that getting something removed from the DYK queue (where it gets a massive amount of views in the 12 hours) is urgent, while correcting the articles is much less urgent, then you need a better perspective. And if you can see it but choose to ignore it for rhetorical purposes, then please cut it out as it only reflects badly on yourself. Fram (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you have told me before that I am a bad reviewer. By good faith I mean that the process of bringing this article to GAN and having it reviewed there mean that I can accept its content without having to question it, but I can see I expressed that concept badly. As a matter of interest, do you plan to amend the articles? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've put another hook in Q2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is DYK, not FAC. We simply don't have the resources to give every nominated article that kind of scrutiny, and we rely on volunteers who are more often than not unfamiliar with the subject area. And even if we did have the resources to give every article FAC-level scrutiny, it wouldn't be an effective use of those resources. DYK's purpose is to showcase, for 12 hours, a selection of new content that's of a reasonable quality. Yes of course we should try to ensure that those articles are of sufficient quality and that the hooks are accurate, but it's not reasonable to expect DYK reviewers to know that there are conflicting sources on an issue they known nothing about. While it's commendable to remove (possibly) inaccurate hooks from the queue when discrepancies are uncovered, it is unreasonable to criticise DYK reviewers/pre-builders/administrators for not uncovering it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not asking you to give the article FAC scrutiny. I'm asking people to give the hook, one bloody sentence, FAC scrutiny. If that is too much too ask from you, then don't review or promote articles. If that is too much too ask in general, then just shut down DYK. Please don't use strawman arguments to defend your position though. Fram (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You are of course free to propose that DYK be shut down. Liberal use of bold text and dismissing other editors' comments as "strawman arguments" is not going to make your argument stronger. It's my opinion, and one I would wager is shared by many of those involved with the DYK process. Now, in this specific case, the fact was added to an article by an editor who presumably believed it to be accurate; it was nominated for DYK by a second editor, approved by a third, and moved to the prep by a fourth. It sat in prep 6 for nearly 20 hours, where five other people made edits to the set before Cas moved it to the queue. All that scrutiny and it still made it to the queue.... There are two possible explanations for that: 1) that all 10 of those editors are incompetent and should not be allowed near the encyclopaedia lest they trust what appears to be a reliable source, or 2) that we're all human, that we all make mistakes, and that in this particular case the (possible) error was not easily spotted, especially by non-expert volunteers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Nothing in your reply indicates that your original argument (about FA-quality checking of the article wasn't a strawman). Just like your "ten people checked the set" argument is a strawman (or at least a fallacy), since there is no indication that those 10 checked for accuracy or checked all articles, they may have checked for grammatical errors only, or only those topics they take an interest in, or whatever. However, the people I pinged are the ones that explicitly approved the hook. And of course, going from "should be more diligent in checking hooks" to "are incompetent and should not be allowed near the encyclopedia" is also some dubious rhetoric. Anyway, I'm a non-expert volunteer, and I spotted the problem easily. But of course one can't expect such things from people who believe that fact-checking one line is such an impossible task and too much too ask. No wonder so many problematic hooks make in into the queues and probably onto the mainpage as well... Fram (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Fram, how do you think a layman would have known that this person's date of birth is disputed? I would guess that maybe one in a thousand DYK nominations happens to be reviewed by an expert in the relevant subject matter. For the other 999, this project does not have the resources to find experts to review them. So the laymen reviewing nominations are naturally going to verify the hook based on the given source, not on their own knowledge of the subject or other sources about the subject. Also, at the OP, we're pulling a hook every few days instead of a few hooks a day. I'd call that an increase in quality. --Jakob (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We all make mistakes. In this case, the hook was sourced to a book which looked reliable. The reviewer didn't believe that being 91 years old was impossible, and may not have thought to find other sources or even known where to find any other sources that disagreed with the year of birth, particularly since a GA review should have checked all the sources as good as possible. Antandrus has a nice essay on this, with a similar problem that people get Antonio Vivaldi's birthday wrong due to using bad sources. An expert (or someone knowing more about the subject) spotted the problem, pulled it from the queue, and the error was fixed. So, we've avoided a bad hook and a trip to WP:ERRORS. End of story. Who's for a nice cup of tea and a sit down? Ritchie333 15:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No idea what gives everyone the idea that I'm an expert on the subject. I never heard of the man or the battle before today. Common sense, inbred curiosity, some basic searching skills, and some feeling of responsability for what we showcase on the main page. That's all it takes. Fram (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but if you charge in like a bull in a china shop, the odds are less that people will learn those skills off you, rather they'll just get upset or annoyed. Ritchie333 16:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

TBF, Fram's tried many different approaches, and none of them seem to be working well. Ed  16:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Fram is absolutely correct here. What we need is an "extraordinary hooks require extraordinary sourcing" line in the DYK rules to address this. The initial hook claim was extraordinary, and it should have been checked further. Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think Fram really deserves the grief he/she is being given. This error was somewhat difficult to catch, since it was backed up by sources that appear reliable. So kudos to Fram for catching it. Clearly, the lesson here is that everyone involved (myself included) needs to be a little more diligent in ascertaining whether hook facts are true. I've been guilty of missing a false fact during a review myself (see above), so I'm definitely not pointing fingers, but I vow to try and do better in the future.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a question

Can an article that was previously approved in DYK be nominated again in DYK after passing the GA status? Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Two appearances on DYK are not allowed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not as the bolded blue article. You can mention it as often as you like if you find a new related fact, look at Template:Did you know nominations/Louisa Venable Kyle, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 06:35, 8 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 and PoritrinHawkeye7:. 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)

• DYK/Discussion pages