Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quasihuman (talk | contribs) at 15:40, 28 November 2015 (→Fallout Shelter: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut



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 Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon?

The Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following: wording has been part of the DYK nominations page since October 2011, after the test of a required review template that had reviewers checking off all such aspects was abandoned. The new wording didn't say "then indicate that you have reviewed all aspects of the article"; it's clear, given the actual wording coupled with the example that they expected the review be written out. And that expectation has been a part of DYK ever since.

DYK reviewing procedures aren't only in a single review document. Aspects can be found in many places—indeed, there have been many abortive attempts to get everything in one place, but until one succeeds and is approved, the various locations are all relevant: WP:DYKR, WP:DYK, T:TDYK, WP:DYKSG, the DYK nomination template editing window, and probably other locations I'm not remembering at the moment.

The rules do change over time, as consensus for such change is agreed to here on WT:DYK and in various RfCs that have been conducted. But there hasn't been any agreement here to change the practice of several years that reviews should specifically mention which aspects were checked, and many reviewers are careful to make sure that the reviews do mention each criterion checked and how the article/hook measure up to it.

The obvious question is whether the DYK community wishes to continue enforcing full reviews—whether volunteer or QPQ—or wishes to let the requirement lapse or be modified in some way. The usual way to do this is through discussion and consensus; of course, if any reviewer is allowed to continue refusing to follow the requirement and approve review after review, it will become quite difficult if not impossible to ask others to do what he will not, and the requirement withers. I frankly hope it doesn't wither, because the written out review is helpful to promoter and nominator alike, and it has over time improved the breadth of reviewing and the new reviewers to understand what they need to do as part of a QPQ or other review. But if it does become obsolete, it should be because the many DYK participants have decided it is no longer needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain

  • Retain and enforce - For all the reasons discussed on this talk page for years, and for all the hooks pulled, for the most recent (but not only) discussion on Signpost of sloppy work on DYK, and for the outright feuds that have erupted over the sloppy quality of reviews. — Maile (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that the nomination template already has a Reviewers' template in the upper right hand corner. It's a simple check list that makes it easy and convenient to check off the review. It's not difficult to use. — Maile (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain As a long time contributor, I can say it takse little effort at all to actually indicate the aspects that have been reviewed. And its been a requirement for several years at least that the aspects are stated. Lava, its not going to kill you to follow the requirements.--Kevmin § 13:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain and enforce per User:Maile66. As I mentioned in a different thread, for editors who regularly review articles, this requirement could be seen as a bureaucratic hassle, but allowing them to just write "meets all criteria" is an open invitation to new/inexperienced editors to do the same. We have to enforce accountability at the ground level. As a side note, because of the long time it takes to build a prep – due to the need to re-review all the hooks, often finding problems, and returning newly un-approved hooks back to the nominator's court – I don't even bother looking at the ones that say "GTG" or "Fine with me". Yoninah (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah; today - Template:Did you know nominations/Baker Run, Windfall Run - you (1) unilaterally exempted another editor from the newness requirement, and, (2) did it through a conversation on outside the nom template. I considered heeding your call for "accountability at the ground level" [sic] and failing this otherwise excellent nom by Jakec, however, I'm not going to do that as I remain consistent and confirmed in my belief we should be enforcing quality rather than process. If you're going to demand other editors follow the letter of the law, it might behoove you to do the same. LavaBaron (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - while, as Jackob points out below, there are a lot guidelines and criteria and unwritten rules and so forth to DYK, I've never seen these enforced as part of the rule to include all review criteria. I only check against, and include, the list of rules that appear at the top of every review template. All the rules are based off those basic rules. Sure, I forget to write out a criterion or two that I checked the review against, but, if someone challenges the review, it doesn't take long to explain that you simply forgot to mention in the review that you had checked the article against all criteria.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain and enforce. As I noted above, I think it's important to DYK to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. I have long argued that we need better standards of accountability at DYK. This page demonstrates why I think so, but I want to emphasize that the hooks listed there are only the tip of the iceberg. In almost every hook set I review, I find misstated and erroneous hooks, hooks with obvious grammatical errors, hooks that barely make sense, hooks not worth reading, and on it goes. For every hook I pull from prep, there are probably a dozen others that need copyediting or amendment of one sort or another - and I only review a minority of hook sets. Sloppy reviewing is a perennial problem at DYK and we need to be doing everything we reasonably can to discourage it. If anything, we should be looking to enhance our review procedures, not degrading them still further. Gatoclass (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you 100%. And going hand in hand with that is at the very bottom of DYK Prep areas N14: It is the promoter's responsibility to make sure all review issues have been resolved, that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. The promoter acts as a secondary verification that the nomination was reviewed properly. — Maile (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain and enforce. As a fairly new DYK reviewer and nominator, I find the requirement immensely helpful in reminding me to both be thorough in my review (and I hope no one intends that DYK reviews should be less thorough) and include all the relevant areas. On one of my recent reviews I almost forgot to double-check the status of the image included, but the checklist's requirement that each part of the review be detailed in the writeup saved me. I can't imagine any consequence of removing the requirement other than the quality of reviews declining (particularly as newcomers to the page might think all there was to it was writing "good to go!" without actually doing a review) and even more hooks being pulled from prep. Sure, some people might write that they did a full review without having done so, but that fact doesn't mean the current requirement should be rescinded. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think a rule like this would be much easier to maintain if we actually had one or more review templates, the way that GARs do. We've experimented with them, yes, but never developed them enough to introduce them to general reviewers via a stable page with wikilinks to it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple out there, but there are few adherents. It might be nice to have those templates—any idea who might put them together?—though like at GAN, some people prefer to write out their review than tick a bunch of boxes. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create and enforce.
    • The nay votes are completely correct that the current phrasing is revisionist and POV. A full checklist has never been an actual part of the review process, just something occasionally demanded by the admins when it looks like someone has been completely halfassed. "{{DYKtick}} GtoG. -Capt½Ass" The review that started this off—this one by Lavabaron—is a good example of what has been perfectly acceptable in the past: he at least mentioned going through the the checklist.
    • Further, the current review templates are terrible.
    • Further, rule creep has been growing cancerously in DYK and needs to start being cut out.
    • Further, the improvement here is minimal. The halfasses who halfassed their checkmark will now simply halfass seven checkmarks and diligent reviewers will still need to doublecheck reviews.
  • Now, all of that said,
    • this is something people should already be doing.
    • It doesn't take any more time if the editors were already actually reviewing the article properly.
    • Having an even more formal checklist than the one we already have at the top of the template will help avoid obnoxious rule creep by editors such as Maile. The checklist will be the checklist and that will be the end of it. Petty demands for more hoop-jumping will require such editors to gather support for a change to the checklist itself (a higher bar) and make such changes obvious and explicit to new editors.
    • It will hopefully spur some helpful editors to streamline the review process. Using earwig shouldn't be an optional thing available in the sidebar: a link from it should simply be the thing that shows you actually did check for copyvio.
  •  — LlywelynII 23:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rescind

  • Retain and enforce current wording of reviewing guide which does not require checkbox reviews Nothing is being "rescinded" where nothing has previously been enforced and where conflicting guidance is offered in multiple, equally valid, places. I object to the very wording of the proposal as POV-pushing. There's no evidence the community has ever been "enforcing full reviews." Also, this long proposal contains substantial editorial expository, opinion statements and historical revisionism, and is not a neutrally-worded proposal. A neutrally-worded proposal specific to amending the Reviewing Guide has been advanced below. LavaBaron (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abandon, but make it abundantly clear to all reviewers that they must check the criteria. It is overly bureaucratic, and therein lies the problem. Nobody wants to type out a thousand-word essay explaining how the article meets every single one of the 100+ rules and criteria and sub-rules and policies and guidelines and unwritten rules and secret rules and whatever. What matters is the quality of the review itself, not how many words the review types on the nomination form. It would be easy for system gamers (and there would be a lot of those if we started enforcing the rule) to just slap up a thousand-word essay without actually reading the article. This rule doesn't stop people from making shoddy reviews, or from missing things. Here's another reason it's rather pointless: the prep builders don't just take it on faith; they basically do a full review all over again (but funnily enough, they just have to say "promoted" or "rejected"). So yes, there's no point. Just check all the DYK criteria and say that you've done so, and all is fine. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'm not sure retaining or abandoning it is the right question. I'm very much disturbed by Yoninah's comments which imply to me that DYK's need re-reviewing when being moved to prep. That sounds like a serious problem, and more to the point it sounds like a critical problem because they are not talking about the short form reviews but all reviews in general. Increasing the form of the review won't help with this issue. I think we should be discussing how to address bad reviews... ones that actually miss DYK criteria. Because then we can hopefully be more sure that whatever the review looks like it is of good quality. --Errant (chat!) 14:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Errant, back when I was taking my first steps in assembling prep sets, my mentors noted that assembling did not just involve balancing a set, it was also the point at which a new pair of eyes should recheck to be sure the article met the DYK criteria, since any single reviewer can miss things: hooks might not read well, the hook fact might not be in the article or the given source, a BLP issue might have been overlooked, and so on. Building prep sets take time, at least how I was taught: you should scan each article, spot check a few sources to see if facts line up and close paraphrasing isn't an issue, and see whether any issues leap out at you. Having a review that mentions those aspects that were checked is helpful in this regard: you know what the reviewer has looked at ... and if there's an omission or lack of clarity, you know to check that aspect more deeply. The prep assembly step and the prep-to-queue promotion are the only two places where that sort of quality control can be inserted into the DYK process, and very few admins will do it at the latter step (Gatoclass is the only one I've noticed lately removing hooks at that stage), so prep assembly is currently the most likely place to catch errors. I rarely assembled a set without sending at least one approved nomination back for repairs. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I object to the construction of the proposal. First, I'm extremely concerned this proposal has not been made in good faith and has been advanced as part of a long-term editor dispute. This discussion should be closed until one that is (1) neutrally worded sans editorial commentary by the proposer, and, (2) contains a concise and actionable proposal, is advanced. Second, and most importantly, the proposal has, in addition to its inherent POV problems, been abusively constructed so as to require a consensus to maintain the status quo; as noted elsewhere the reviewing guide only requires a written review must begin with "one of the five DYK review icons" and contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." The way in which this proposal is constructed will green-light an amendment to the reviewing guide if a consensus fails. LavaBaron (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think BlueMoonset intended this as a poll; it looked to me as if he was merely initiating a discussion, but when you !voted on it, others followed suit. I think it's going to be disruptive to start again at this point; however, if you are really concerned, you could perhaps collaborate with another user on the other side of the fence - Maile perhaps - to organize a new statement and deprecate the old one. I'm not going to have time to do this myself. I will add however that any new statement should not present your proposed amendment to the status quo as the status quo position, as I outlined in the discussion with you below. Gatoclass (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal actually presented Maile's proposed amendment to the status quo position. The status quo being the wording that is present in the reviewing guide. To demand that the form the RFC take is in the offer of an amendment to the "unwritten custom" is an utterly impossible standard. Unwritten custom can't be amended because it's (a) unwritten, and, (b) customary. I'm at a complete loss as to why this is so difficult to understand. I'm also really concerned you had the time to close my RFC with a long expository about its problems with "subliminal" POV but, minutes later, find yourself too busy to address this one with its overt editorializing. LavaBaron (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron, please stop claiming that this is all about "unwritten custom". As has been pointed out to you below, the requirement to explicitly reference all aspects of a review is right there in the instructions at the top of the nominations page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gatoclass as has been pointed out to you, the requirement that a review only contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have" is in the Reviewing Guide. I appreciate there is conflicting language, please proactively see this as a redundancy that needs to be remedied by evaluation of each of two equally-valid positions instead of presuming the Reviewing Guide is simply erroneous because of "accepted practice" (your exact words, AKA "unwritten custom"). LavaBaron (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't proposed anything. Nor do I care to.— Maile (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to Gatoclass, I am singularly and personally disallowed at proposing RFCs at DYK unless you or your compatriot participates. And, conveniently, you both say you won't. What an utterly bizarre interpretation of RFC guidelines - RFCs can't be proposed unless all sides agree to have a RFC. WP will grind to an absolute halt once that's applied system-wide. LavaBaron (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NM - it appears Gator shut-down my neutrally-worded RFC as a precursor to lodging his own !vote ... even though he supposedly didn't have time to address any underlying issues. What a joke. Elections in Haiti in the 1970s were more even-handed than this. LavaBaron (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shut down the RFC because I believed it was malformed, and not to do so would simply waste everyone's time. There was nothing to stop you opening a new RFC with more appropriate wording, made in collaboration with others. As it happened though, this discussion then became the default RFC. I agree the opening statement of this one is not appropriate either, but rather than shut down a second RFC, suggested you work with others to rectify that. I'm fairly sure that those who have already !voted retain at this point are not going to change their minds regardless of the wording. Gatoclass (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet your most recent comment [1] was that it "was not technically malformed." I think you need to maybe take a beat. LavaBaron (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your misstatements of my comments are getting rather tiresome. There is no contradiction there. I said I believed the RFC was malformed at the time I closed it, but later conceded that perhaps it was not. Regardless, the RFC statement was still in my view not neutral, which renders it equally invalid. Gatoclass (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you made a mistake in your rationale for closing. We seem to only disagree on the number of mistakes. LavaBaron (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Abort RFC

  • Support - As per Gatorclass, this was not intended to be a RFC and "the opening statement of this one is not appropriate." LavaBaron (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The more you post, the more it becomes clear you don't have a good grasp of Wikipedia structure as a whole, and DYK in particular. The one you made is an RFC, because you labeled it so - that's your doing - you're the one who stuck an RFC template on it so it would be posted to Wikipedia editors at large. This doesn't claim to be an RFC, and never did. It's a talk page consensus, which is how things get done here. You can't shut down editors voicing their opinion on a talk page, any talk page. This is not a dictatorship where one editor gets to rule, or one editor who doesn't like to bother with the process can get it all tossed out for them personally. And administrators don't hand down rulings like a Supreme Court. At the end of the day, everything at Wikipedia gets done by talk page, of one place or another, and no lone person has a right to shut that down. And what you tagged as an RFC, that also takes consensus, either direction.— Maile (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What can we do to empower you to post with WP:CIVILity and not launch scathing personal diatribes against other editors, as here? Believe it or not, an actual human being is behind this account with real human feelings, and I'd prefer not to be called a dictator. Not sure how calling other editors dictators contributes to building an encyclopedia, quite frankly. LavaBaron (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And there you go again, misquoting. I didn't call you a dictator. I didn't call anyone a dictator. I said DYK is not a dictatorship. I'm sure you realize that all the time you've spent posting on this page, you could have done a lot of reviews and actually listed what you checked in the review. I don't know what your agenda is, and I don't care, but the process is the process. — Maile (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My "agenda" is to build an encyclopedia. I'm starting to wonder about yours. LavaBaron (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you can explain to us all why it is so difficult for you to just follow the instructions on the nominations page section "How to review a nomination" that quite clearly states:
  • To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

    Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

Not only have you resisted and talked around doing that, but you keep posting hither and yon that the instructions don't say what should be listed. It looks pretty clear. Please tell us why you find it so difficult to follow those simple instructions. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide lists everything. How can you keep insisting the instructions don't say what you're supposed to check? — Maile (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it is a very poor choice of wording to say on a review template: "I'm editing with another editor holding a gun to my head." And whatever topic ban you're referring to in the sentence before that, I've seen nothing like that on this DYK talk page. It has no place on a nomination template. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per the Reviewing Guide you cited, the only requirements in a written review is to place an icon and "be sure to give a thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." I always stamp an icon and I always give a thorough explanation of problems or concerns. I really do believe you still think the Reviewing Guide says something else. You should really take a moment to read it carefully, slowly, and deliberately. Wikipedia is not a race. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Conclude?

It's been a few weeks now, and the discussion and !voting seems to have come to a natural end. Have we come to a consensus? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no; a new RfC should be opened in view of LlywelynII's observations - as this is a proposed creation of policy it should be a properly formatted RfC, policy should not be made by cliques in backrooms - also, as two different admins have held this was not neutrally worded, whether it's closed or not it will simply be an expression of the opinion of several editors and will not be binding on anyone - editors are free to adhere to or disregard this "consensus" as they see fit LavaBaron (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any other opinions on whether consensus has been established? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to reuse reviews for QPQs if a nomination has been (correctly) rejected?

I nominated ten articles and did not read them carefully: Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese submarine I-179 and Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese submarine I-157. Since each of the articles duplicate 1357 characters of prose (and there is less than 1500 characters of new prose per article) the nomination should rightfully be rejected (apart from one article). Since I have already done the ten QPQ reviews, am I allowed to use these reviews as QPQs in future DYK nominations? sst✈discuss 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Gatoclass (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll allow it. LavaBaron (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requirement of QPQ for first-time nominators who have received 5 or more DYK credits

Looking at this: Template:Did you know nominations/Impossible Is Nothing (Iggy Azalea song) This is the first DYK nomination of Coolmarc, but he already has five DYK credits, due to other editors (including myself) nominating articles he promoted to GA status for DYK. DYK rules mean that in this situation Coolmarc has to supply a review. The five free nominations exemption is designed to allow editors to understand how a DYK review should be done, but Coolmarc does not have this opportunity, and may supply an inadequate review if required to do so. Should the rule be revised to instead say that the first five DYK nominations do not require a QPQ, instead of credits? sst✈ (discuss) 09:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coolmarc's articles were reviewed in the normal way... even though Coolmarc was not explicitly the nominator one imagines they saw the reviews in the same way as a self-nom. --Errant (chat!) 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd always assumed that the 5-free rule was for nominations the editor themselves have made, not articles that were nominated by a different editor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also understood it that way. Someone could write lots of articles that are nominated by others, but only the nominators have to do a QPQ to help the backlog at DYK. Yoninah (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should the wording in the rules be adjusted to reflect that it's only articles a given editor nominated that count towards their 5-article get-out-of-QPQ-free card, then, if that's how we're interpreting the rule? FWIW I agree that only articles a given editor nominated themselves should count; otherwise we're going to have too many 'reviews' that have to be done over. I know my first couple of attempts at reviewing other people's nominations weren't up to snuff. And there's no reason to expect that someone credited as a creator or expander of an article by another editor who nominated the article for DYK is going to follow the review — they may not even be aware of how to do so. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main page now down to 6 hooks (from 8 originally)

Aaaargh!

After removing the very unclear Zoka Zola hook (see above), I now also removed the Turtle Park hoos for being incorrect, even though it only had about one more hour to go on the main page.

Template:Did you know nominations/Turtle Park, @Tavix, Vesuvius Dogg, PFHLai, and Casliber:

  • ... that Turtle Park contains concrete sculptures of seven turtle species that are endemic to Missouri?

Endemic: "being unique to a defined geographic location,", "organisms that are indigenous to a place are not endemic to it if they are also found elsewhere." So, are these seven turtle species really endemic to Missouri, or just indigenous (or native, like the article says)? The species are the Common snapping turtle (lives from Canada to Florida, so not endemic), the Mississippi map turtle (not endemic as well), the Red-eared slider, and so on. None of them, as far as can be determined since not all species are named in the article, are endemic to Missouri. None. Why did no one catch this? If you don't understand what "endemic" means, don't use it. Fram (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why not just change it to "native/indigenous" then rather than remove it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to say the same thing - as you're an admin Fram, just change it and maybe put a note on the article's talk page explaining the wording issue. Was there a need to kick up a fuss here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was needed, as too many people obviously don't check hooks (or check hooks they don't understand). If the hook isn't correct, how am I to know that the rest of the article is up to par? The Review clearly was deficient, so off it goes. Fram (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: are you saying that you know how to fix things but you are removing them as a punishment? I'm not sure that you have the mandate for such behaviour. If you are claiming that you are clever enough to find errors in Wikipedia then that's fine, well done. Fix it and move on. At the moment you are causing disruption and I assume that is not your aim. Victuallers (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am claiming that if I note that a review was not done correctly (like here), I remove it because the most important thing is that we don't knowingly present false information to the reader on the main page. Then can follow a more thorough check, to see whether I was correct or not, and whether it is a lone error or some farther reaching problem. Take e.g. the Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo a few sections up. Both hooks were approved, one was put into prep but removed again as the fact was no longer in the article. I was then asked to put the other hook in (remember, it was checked!). Instead, I looked a bit further and noticed that that one as well was highly dubious (or rather that the whole article was dubious as a WP:SYNTH version of two contradictory sources).
So, in the spirit of "better safe than sorry", I simply remove the hook from prep, queue or main page and let the review process work it out (although in this case I would prefer not to run it again, as it already was on the main page for 11 hours).
I notice though that some of the regulars here (and I'm looking at Victuallers specifically) rather attack the person finding a problem than actually caring about the error. You seem to have your priorities still completely wrong, if you think that the disruption is caused by the person removing a blatant error from the main page. Fram (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus here is that the removal of the hook was inappropriate. We are all freaking volunteers, and even major commercial websites can have typos on their front pages. WP:ERRORS exist for a reason. sst✈ (discuss) 14:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The review looks fine to me - due diligence was done, a wording issue was found and fixed, we are all human and not perfect. After all, Fram didn't follow instructions at the top of the page which says, in a red box, "Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here". Looks like an attempt to make a mountain out a molehill to me - the disruption is not about removing an error from a main page, it is talking excessively about it in an attempt to seek justice. Now I'm off, have fun folks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With "the review", you mean my check or the DYK review? If you mean the DYK review, then no, due diligence clearly was not done. It's not "a wording issue", it's a completely different meaning which was essential in that one sentence. "We are all human and not perfect", that's true, that's why no action is being taken against any of the people involved. That doesn't mean that the issue shouldn't be raised here, to increase awareness of the problems. As for the red box at the top, do you know why that is there? For non-admins, so that they can post the error at a page where people who have the necessary rights to change the main page (admins like you and me) can swiftly see it and take action. History has shown that posting errors on the main page (or even the queues) here doesn't always get the swift necessary reaction. That's the reason for that red box. Not that once the error is removed from the main page, you are not allowed to discuss it here, where most of the DYK regulars can be found (after all, once it is removed, it is no longer on "the current Main Page template version"). But I notice that you join the crowd of DYK'ers who want to protect their fiefdom at all costs apparently, and don't really care about what is put on the main page through this project (you can add SSTflyer to that list as well apparently). I'm happy to see that far from all editors here think the same way though. Fram (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, now you are commenting on editors. I just said that we are volunteers, we all make errors, and errors are unavoidable. Not everyone has perfect English. If we require every DYK reviewer to be able to understand the definition of "endemic", we would have even less participation from editors not from English-speaking countries, which usually have inadequate content coverage. Are you sure you want to drive productive editors away from the project just because of one misused word? sst✈ (discuss) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand the words in a hook, don't review it. That seems rather obvious to me. Reviewing is (among other things) checking if it correct. If you can't even understand it, you are not able to do that check and should stick to checking hooks and articles you do understand. This is not what happened with Vesuvius Dogg (below), who understood the word but didn't know that it had a different, more restricted meaning when discussing animals (or plants for that matter). And no, I don't want to drive any editors away from here (I have done so in the past with people who made way too many errors, but that's a different story). But I have serious questions about people who care more about keeping a hook on the main page than about whether it is right or wrong, or people who don't know the difference between an error and a typo. If you claim that "The consensus here is that the removal of the hook was inappropriate. " then you have a strange reading of consensus, and your priorities wrt DYK wrong. Fram (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: there was nothing wrong with that word. In this case, it's a synonym for "native": ""natural to or characteristic of a specific people or place; native; indigenous." I fail to see why you got so worked up over a minor "issue". -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help you if you still fail to see it. Fram (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, Tavix, sst✈ (and others): I am fully willing to fall on my copy editor's sword here, appreciating how endemism is currently defined on Wikipedia. In my QPQ, I confirmed that all the species of turtle replicated in concrete within Turtle Park are indeed "native" to Missouri, and in retrospect, the word "native" would have more accurately suited the hook. Only belatedly do I see the secondary definition of "endemic" (at Merriam-Webster) defines it as "restricted or peculiar to a region or country". Merriam-Webster's primary definition is looser, i.e., "belonging or native to a particular people or country" or "characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field, area, or environment". Again, my apologies for relying on the common definition and not knowing the word implied a greater specificity for some scientific readers. I learned a lesson here, and I obviously should have checked the wikilink. My apologies Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor mistake. Don't let it affect your editing. sst✈(discuss) 17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No problem, no need for seppuku over this! Fram (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find my sword emoji anyway. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this unexpectedly blew up over a minor issue. Dictionaries use endemic as a synonym for native. Here's dictionary.com's definition: "natural to or characteristic of a specific people or place; native; indigenous." Yes, it also means being unique to an area and the Wikipedia article defines it that way, but removing the hook for something that minor is just silly. However, now I see that "native" would have been a better word due to the confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was hyperlinked in the template, but for some reason no longer when it hit the main page. I haven't checked whether the link was removed during the move to prep or during the move to queue, and would be interested to know the reason for this removal. Endemic, when used for animals, normally doesn't mean "native" but "uniquely living here". Fram (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "doesn't mean "native" but "uniquely living here"" per whom? As someone who works/ed in biology I have hear both usages equally. you are choosing only one definition and ignoring that the other usage is just as valid.--Kevmin § 15:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an erroneous hook from the main page that can't readily be rectified is acceptable. Removing a hook because there might be an error somewhere in the article is absurd and totally indefensible. If we applied that standard to every article link on the main page, the page would be devoid of such links. There is no guarantee of error-free content, that's why every article has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Gatoclass (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. Not relevant to this discussion, but true. In this case, the error (or severe ambiguity) was in the hook. Fram (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-author needed for Alcohol in Afghanistan

Hi, I got some suggestion on my nomination of Alcohol in Afghanistan, you can see it Template:Did you know nominations/Alcohol in Afghanistan. Article has more than 2500 characters and if we ignore mirror sites then there is no copyright violation. Hooks are supported by sources. But it needs some copy-editing, I think things written about alcohol in US base in Afghanistan written under "NATO base" section needs some editing. If anyone is interested in fixing issues of the article can come forward to become co-author of the article. Thank you. --Human3015TALK  20:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving

Unless I have miscalculated, looking at the queues it appears that on Thanksgiving we don't have any of the hooks set aside for it to run on that day. For example, We Plough the Fields and Scatter based on the current positioning in the prep area is going to run on the day after it. Can someone rearrange the queues please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Thanksgiving here is a U.S. holiday, Prep 4 will run from 4am to 4pm on the west coast and 7am to 7pm on the east coast. I'll swap "We Plough the Fields and Scatter" into that set. "A Very Gaga Thanksgiving" is currently in Prep 5, and set to run from 4pm on Thanksgiving until 4am the next morning on the west coast and from 7pm on Thanksgiving to 7am the next morning on the east coast, which may or may not be enough of Thanksgiving. I would be against moving any Thanksgiving hook into Prep 3, since it will be off the main page before most people are even awake on Thanksgiving in the U.S.
At the moment, the problem is with "Jauchzet Gott in Allen Landen", which has not yet been promoted. With all queues and all preps full, there's nowhere to put it at the moment, but there's no need to worry: as soon as a new prep becomes available to fill, I suggest that one of the hooks in Prep 4 be moved to it and "Jauchzet Gott" promoted to Prep 4 in its place. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 12: Frank Sinatra centenary

On Dr. Blofeld's initiative, a sizable inventory of hooks (16 at last count) have been approved and slotted into the Special Occasion holding area for December 12, the centenary of Frank Sinatra's birth. The centerpiece of this list is the main article, Frank Sinatra, which attained GA status. Dr. Blofeld has suggested that the main hook and image, Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Sinatra, should run in the lead slot for all 24 hours. We would appreciate consensus from other DYK editors. Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two different hooks, for 12 hours each would be a great idea IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A very good suggestion by Gerda, I'd not seen that, yes a 24hr showing of Frank Sinatra with a young photo and a older photo later and two different hooks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Yoninah, and yes, I agree it would be better to change both the hook and image (while linking to the same main article) so that readers will not mistakenly conclude the same set is still on display. I also endorse the idea of a younger Frank Sinatra for the first image. Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trembling lips
  • Comment two hooks: I reviewed Riobamba and suggested the attractive image, only then learned about the idea of one hook all day. I could well imagine the club of his debut as lead hook for the first set, the GA hook as lead for the second, - see him growing up ;) - If an image of Sinatra is not enough in the first, his name could be bold in both, I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever is done, please avoid linking "Frank Sinatra" in every hook. It's unnecessary if all of the hooks are about him. You can probably switch to just saying "Sinatra" after the first hook, as readers will get the point. BencherliteTalk 01:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4 and 5

This hook in Prep 4 just looks silly:

... that the Palais des Fêtes in Strasbourg has hosted famous conductors and anonymous anime fans, though not at the same time?

The second part of this hook in Prep 5 does not appear in the article:

... that the Lenape potato was withdrawn because it was toxic, but it was used to breed other varieties used to produce potato chips?
Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WRT to the potato hook, wouldn't Lenape is a parent of chipping varieties including Atlantic, Trent, Belchip and Snowden and a grandparent of several others cover it? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. Can we go ahead and change it, or do we have to return it to the noms page? (I'll AGF your hook fact, cited inline.) Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the second part of the hook is in fact supported in the article, in the sentence I quoted. (It also isn't my hook.) --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK. Now I see it, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

"... that the quality of the embroidering of the Albanian xhamadan would reveal social status?"

I started to read this article (Xhamadan) and noticed some odd phrases and changes of tense, perhaps someone (the promoting admin or sanctioning reviewer?) could explain what is meant by "and is orned with 6-10 broids"? That aside, the article is really rough and needs serious copyediting before it should be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article is "really rough", apart from some clunky grammar, the meaning is quite clear. The only really problematic bit is the phrase you have highlighted, and that should be readily fixable. I'll give the article a copyedit before it goes to the main page if no-one else gets around to it beforehand. Gatoclass (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a copyedit. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first eight days of November. As of the most recent update, 95 nominations have been approved, leaving 206 of 301 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from October.

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) 06:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Seoul Lantern Festival

  • I decided to be bold, and approve a submission that was made 23 days after creation by a brand new wikipedian. In this case several editors expressed a desire to overlook this rule in favor of following the spirit of WP:BITE and WP:IAR. I agreed and approved it. I hope no one objects. I feel we need to be encouraging to new editors and have a little grace for them in order to not scare them off (particularly when they do good work, as this editor has).4meter4 (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout Shelter

@Kiyoshiendo:@Famous Hobo:@SSTflyer: In Fallout Shelter, the article and the hook says that the game was the most popular iOS app in UK & US on the day of it's release. The source cited in the article says that it was the "most-downloaded free app in all of the US and UK on its very first day of availability". either free should be added to the hook, or another source should be found. I'm surprised that this was not caught by the GA reviewer. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=692822169"