Misplaced Pages

talk:Did you know - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fram (talk | contribs) at 08:22, 28 April 2014 (→DYK should not be presenting religious doctrine as fact: Please read the actual question and reply to that, instead of using a strawman argument). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:22, 28 April 2014 by Fram (talk | contribs) (→DYK should not be presenting religious doctrine as fact: Please read the actual question and reply to that, instead of using a strawman argument)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main PageT:DYK
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

Archives
Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals


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


DYK queue status

There are currently 5 filled queues – all good, for now!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 05:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 5 hours ago( )


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

Why do we have overdues?

I'm concerned that the process of moving hooks to prep is becoming difficult. I don't want to discuss particular cases but the idea that editors can revert the process at the last moment is a power that is required - we need to avoid libel and BLP offence. However the idea that that hooks can be withdrawn because they are merely imperfect is going to damage the process. Misplaced Pages is a process that creates errors. The only way to prevent Wiki editors from creating errors entirely is to stop the process. I would like to propose that there should be an obligation to repair any damage to the process that is required by remedial action. If a hook appears wrong then try and fix it. If a hook has to be withdrawn then replace it with another. I see the number of overdues is increasing. I suspect this may become more frequent if we rely on catching everything at the last moment and then ranting at those who caused the problem (ie keep the process working). I'm certainly taking a break but I thought I'd let you guys have a heads up first. Victuallers (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing that could help with this problem is if more eligible articles were nominated, giving us a larger selection to choose from. I modified the the template that users receive when their articles at GAN get promoted; it now reminds them that newly promoted GAs can be brought to DYK. Let's see if that helps. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
No. You are putting the burden on the one noticing the error, instead of on the ones creating and approving the error in the first place. The only "advantage" of your proposal is that some factually incorrect hooks will not get pulled and will appear on the main page. I noticed your similar approach at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 103#Template:Did you know nominations/Carthage Treasure, where you made a similar request with some veiled character assassination which you refused to explain or back up. It seems as if you consider the process as more important than getting it right, even if that means putting incorrect statements on the main page (I don't know of any examples where the hook was right but "imperfect" that got pulled). I don't think anyone with that mindset has any business being at DYK at all. Fram (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the template Sven Manguard, I brought it up there a little while ago, but received no reply (I didn't know where to change the message). Thanks, Matty.007 17:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In the limit, the process working is more important than getting it right. Because without a process then the concept of being right is meaningless. Doing nothing is perfect. Doing something is what we are about. We need to improve the process and make it work with less overhead and less heat. Asking people to repair the damage they cause is not the same as allowing factually incorrect hooks on the main page. Maybe I should have made my suggestion less doubtful. My concern is that the drive for perfection will drive out the editors. There are a number of good editors who like to see their work at DYK but they find the process onerous. I have successfully nominated their articles but the work required continues to grow. I am pleased to see that some reviewers are repairing holes when they remove a hook which is good. Well done. It would help if we could identify errors (and fix them preferably) before they are promoted. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
If editors get driven out because their incorrect hooks or articles are not shown on the main page, then tough luck. Peole who feel that their trophies are more important than getting it right have no place here. Fram (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK hook removed from the main page for article copyvio concerns

I just removed the hook from the main page for Littlehampton Lifeboat Station (done here) as I had to remove quite a lot of text from the article because of copyvio concerns and because I strongly suspect there may be more (I've proposed opening a CCI on the contributor in question). Posting here in case the DYK regulars want to do anything further about it (such as adding another hook for a different article). Dpmuk (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Ping Cheeseladder, Allen3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Dpmuk:, I am confused by your actions. In this edit, you claim that the block of text you removed was copy-and-pasted from http://littlehamptonlifeboat.org.uk/station-history/. When I go to this page and use by browser's search function to try an locate the string "The current boathouse, which was officially opened on Monday 6 October 2003" (a sentence fragment from the beginning of the text you removed), my browser is unable to locate the text. Then when I perform a web searches using Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, all three report the string occurring in the Misplaced Pages article but fail to locate this string in any other location. Then moving to this edit in which you claim to remove a copyright violation of http://rnli.org/shorething/discover/bluepeter/Pages/Blue-Peter.aspx and performing similar searches for the string "The stations first ILB was an Atlantic 21-class lifeboat called Blue Peter I" again fails to locate the text that has supposedly been copied from the source. Finally, thinking maybe there is a problem with my usual browser, I repeated these efforts with a different web browser. After all these efforts I am unable to find an original source for these sentence fragments other than the Littlehampton Lifeboat Station article, let alone the paragraph sized blocks of text that you claim were taken from these web pages. What am I missing, because I am unable to find a reason for an accusation of close paraphrasing let along the more serious claims you have made? --Allen3  03:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    In both cases you give, the first part of the first sentence happens to be a very bad phrase to search for as it is likely not to be a problem but was removed because out of context with the rest it made no sense.
    To give an example from the first case you give from later in the parapgraph:
    Original (http://littlehamptonlifeboat.org.uk/station-history/):
    The chart table is used to plot and plan the progress of the boats whether on exercise or service, and alongside are the marine radios used to monitor progress and to communicate directly with the boats.
    Our article:
    as well as a chart table which can be used to plot and plan the progress of the boats whether on exercise or service. Alongside this facility there are the marine radios used to monitor progress and to communicate directly with the boats.
    Which is almost word for word. There are also close paraphrasing issues else where in that paragraph.
    To give two concrete example from the second case you give:
    Original (http://rnli.org/shorething/discover/bluepeter/Pages/Blue-Peter.aspx):
    which is now a common sight all around the coast, confirming the success of the concept not only for rescue purposes, but also as an all-round leisure and working boat
    which remained the station boat until 1985, when it moved into the relief fleet before serving at Kirkudbright lifeboat station in 1988.
    Our article:
    which is now a common sight all around the coast, confirming the success of the concept not only for rescue purposes, but also as an all-round leisure and working boat
    remained on the station until 1985, when it moved into the relief fleet before serving at Kirkudbright in 1988.
    The first of those examples is word-for-word, the second is a way too-close paraphrase.
    Given the above and that the whole article was created by one editor I also have my doubts about the rest of the article, especially given the use of off-line sources which aren't easy to check. In the circumstances I thought it better to remove it from the main page rather than risk having a copyvio article in such a prominent position. Dpmuk (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    My bad. I obviously missed these problems. --Allen3  10:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    No worries. Although I'm currently less active in copyright work (burnt out) I spent a lot of time doing it and as soon as I read the sources I was worried but it's quite easy to miss something when it's not an exact copy of a paragraph or something.
  • Responding to the initial question, we shouldn't add another hook to the main page at this point. Fortunately, the columns aren't too badly out of balance with only five hooks. The next set will be promoted in under four hours. (Generally, we don't move replacement hooks to the main page, since it means they don't get the full period due them.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Irene Greif hook in prep area 3

The hook is "...that Irene Greif is a founder of computer-supported cooperative work?" Neither article really supports this claim. At most, she was one of the people who first coined the term. She certainly was not a founder of something that is such a very broad concept that it must have been taking place for many years prior to the 1984 coining of this particular term. Edwardx (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement is in the lead sentence of the article on her, and sourced with Ref 1 Dr. Greif, as the founder of the field of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), is an expert in how people work with computers and how people can work with each other using computers, and she has had a major impact on technology throughout the world in the sharing of work, remote work, knowledge management, and distance learning. However, you are correct that the body of the article only states that she and Paul Cashman merely coined the term and the initials. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps I'm being over-particular in my interpretation. I'd better let it go! Edwardx (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

William Shakespeare's 450th birthday being overlooked

At Talk:Main_Page#William_Shakespeare we are discussing if there is anything that is going to be done for William Shakespeare's 450th birthday on the main page. Although we don't know his exact birthday and some claim it is the 23rd, on WP we acknowledge his baptism on the 26th. Personally, I have Template:Did you know nominations/Romeo and Juliet (Pastor) that could be rushed through DYK. Also, due to the special circumstances, if someone wants to help me beef up Malcolm (Macbeth) immediately, maybe we could unwithdraw this nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Malcolm (Macbeth).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

At a minimum, I think we should try to have at least on Shakespeare hook in each queue on the 26th. It would be great if some people come up with one or two more quickies. If you are looking for some subjects, I would suggest some of the characters. Several plays have characters with significant content in character list articles or character list sections.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooks in need of rapid approval

I am making this subsection for clarity--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare queue adjustment

In the event that we only have two Shakespeare hooks for his 450th birthday on the 26th could we change to two queues on that day instead of three. It would be good to have Shakespeare's name in both DYK and on POTD all day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In the past there have been discussions about increasing the number of sets to accommodate situations where the number of hooks submitted for a single day exceed the number of available slots, but I can remember no previous cases where the number of sets has been reduced due to a lack of special hooks. I am also not seeing why any 450th birthday is so important that we would want to create a new precedent. --Allen3  23:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In recent times we have gone back and forth between 2 and 3 sets of hooks per day. As recently as 2011, it was not uncommon to have 4 sets of hooks per day. Changes back and forth between 2 and 3 sets of hooks in a day is not really a precedent as much as it is an accommodation to smooth the presentation of content on an as needed basis. This is just a situation where there is a need to have 2 sets on a given day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind we are talking about the 450th birthday of a level 3 Misplaced Pages:Vital_articles (there are only 136 level 3 VA biographies out of the current 1,189,571 biographies on wikipedia).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Allen3: we should not reduce the number of sets for a single day in order to give a couple of hooks more time on the main page. Divide the available hooks among the three queues for that day for maximum exposure, be there one, two, three, or more, sure. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Below both BlueMoonset and Sven Manguard seem to be saying that we are short on hooks being approved and nominated, can't we justify this special request for a 450th birthday of a vital article on those grounds?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
We're not that short, Tony. Among other things, there are three special occasion hooks for April 25. We also have 196 nominations—an historically high number—though reviews are a bit slow at present. I knew all this when I made my above comment about this highly unusual special request, and I stand by it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK should not be presenting religious doctrine as fact

I was looking through the recent archives, and I couldn't believe that the hook ... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"? was on the main page. Since when does Misplaced Pages present religious doctrine as fact? Yes, I know it's in quotation marks and it appeared on Easter, but that doesn't matter. Misplaced Pages should be presenting information, not proselytizing by declaring that Christ is risen. An actual fact from the article should have been used. Isn't there a rule that fictional/mythological/religious hooks must include a fact which is based on the real world? Agolib 23:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I consider it a rather awful decision myself. I tried to get the hook changed changed, but all I got was the addition of the quotes. I would never have run it, but both a prep builder and an admin (that moved the prep to queue) found it appropriate enough to move forward with. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Created by User:The C of E? Yes, looking at his user page (and user name), that's obviously someone who wouldn't see a problem with this. And then the one that proposed the hook also approved it, good going there. Created and proposed by a deeply religious editor, hook suggested and approved by someone who has "Remember not, Lord, our offences" at the top of the user page, and promoted by someone who has a Bible verse at the top of their user page. The lone dissenting voice mostly ignored. Dreadful hook, should never have appeared on the main page. Fram (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed the hook, found it rather cute and quirky, not a missionary statement, and it was discussed. The song title would have been shown with whatever hook. I am a bit surprised that this hook causes trouble, while "by his prison came our freedom" was not questioned, nor hundreds of other religious art works, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors with strong Christian beliefs are a massive part of our systemic bias, and generally don't even recognise it. Obvious conflict of interest means they should remove themselves from any discussions on items that relate to their religion. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Garda Arendt, did any of these other hooks simply state the title without any explanation? The only reading of the hook that makes any sense is as a presentation of fact, not as anything else. "Did you know that "Macbeth"?" wouldn't make any sense as a hook and would immediately get rejected; the only reason this one was proposed and accepted was because the subject title could be used as a sentence as well. You find this quirky and cute, but for many people wanting neutrality on the front page, never mind for people of a different belief or atheists, this is not quirky and cute at all but simply unacceptable. This is not comparable to a hook like ".. that in the structure of Bach's St John Passion, the centre of symmetry is "Durch dein Gefängnis ...", expressing: "By your prison ... came our freedom"?". Fram (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that an intelligent reader will take a statement with capital initials in quotation marks as a fact, nor do I believe that a line of a song can be called a "doctrine" as the title of this thread suggests. I would have been happy with a different hook, but nobody came up with one. I would not have objected to a change in prep, queue or Main page, but there seemed to be no urgency, - your "unacceptable" seems not a fact, but your POV. It was accepted. - I said religious, not Christian, intentionally so, I approve Buddhist ... art as well, and had massive objections to the hymn All Glory, Laud and Honour, see nom and talk (unresolved), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Please tell me, what was the meaning of the hook? If not "religious doctrine", then it was just an incomplete, meaningless sentence and shouldn't have been accepted either. The difference between this hook and other ones with religious connotations should be clear, and your defense (e.g. the comparison with the "by your prison" hook, gives me the impression that you are deliberately playing dumb here. So yes, the hook, and the behaviour of those who proposed, accepted and prmoted it, was unacceptable. Fram (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Not good Christian behaviour at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get it. Ask our readers if they smiled as I did. I promise not to pass another hook that people like you might take serious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Been away for a few days and just seen this. I don't see how such an article could appear on the main page without mentioning Jesus has risen due to the nature of the article. Even if it was reworded, it still would have said the same. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it was probably not appropriate. To get a sense of perspective, imagine a DYK that said "...that God is dead?" —Tourchiest edits 21:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong comparison, would have been: ...that "God is Dead"? Why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, and that'd be a perfectly acceptable DYK, in fact I'd bet my pay packet that it'd be in the top few DYKs for the month. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of my latest: ... VIKTOR DYK (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you some of you need to get out more. I'm not religious in the slightest, and yet reading this "discussion", I find myself strongly supporting the original posting and the original wording. DYK is designed to hook people into reading articles, not to hook people into joining cults. This hook is nothing more than interesting. If anyone took it in any other way, they've entirely missed the point of Misplaced Pages, the main page, DYK etc, and shouldn't be allowed to use the internet. Far too dangerous. Now then, time to move along and do something far more constructive, like improve the encyclopaedia rather than just whine aimlessly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought about this for 30 minutes, and after weighing both sides, I agree with The Rambling Man. The hook works, and it works well, but there is understandably a lot of confusion on how to deal with it. For those who are claiming it is not appropriate or neutral, think about it a bit more. We have hooks like this every day on all kinds of topics, but because this one happens to be religious in nature, you're asking us to make a special exemption. And, that's not right. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Please present any similar hook. Shouldn't be a problem, after all we have "similar hooks every day", right? No, we never have hooks that are uterly incorrect or incomplete sentences because in that way we can make a religious (or political or whatever) message. Just look at the the DYK nomination; the original hook was even more blatant, but the addition of quotes was supposed to make it allright by some incorrect reasoning. I am not asking to make some special exemption, this hook is the exemption which should never have been made. Fram (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Fram, WP:DROPTHESTICK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could recognise your conflict of interest on matters like this, and drop out of the conversation entirely. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
HiLo, we all have personal biases. Based upon the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#HiLo48's incivility you might do well to consider to what extent yours are coming into play. --Allen3  12:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Remember not, Lord, our offences ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Conflict of interest? Are you suggesting that the editor is a deity? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point. If that idea could be absorbed then we could avoid a lot of heat here. Calm views too from Rambling man. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not similar at all, because it presents facts. Forget about the religious aspects of this discussion. One of the fundamental rules of DYK is that a hook must present a real-world fact, with extremely rare April Fools exceptions, such as the one a few years ago that was just a "?". The Easter hook did not present any facts, and thus did not adhere to DYK rules, and should never have gone through.64.183.42.58 (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, it would have had the same statement even if it was worded differently. The hook was nominated since 19 March and was held up before running. If there were any objections, they should have been raised there and then instead of waiting until it has run before complaining about it when it is too late. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Containing a statement is completely different to being the statement and nothing more. The hook didn't present any context, it presented a fact (the quotes don't change this, and the fact that the quotes were even missing in the first proposed hook makes the intent quite clear). That a problem is only discovered too late doesn't mean that we are no longer allowed to complain about it, if only to prevent such things happening again in the future. Fram (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we all stop taking DYK so seriously? I realize that I have a systemic bias here, but it's not the fact that I'm a Christian, but I have an admitted fondness for amusing and quirky hooks. FA, ITN, and OTD are all business, as they should be, but DYK should be a space on the front page where you can find the new and weird and unexpected. And if we have to cheat or mislead a little bit, that's all in good, harmless fun. Gamaliel (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No one has presented any remotely similar hooks so far, only claiming that these exist. All hooks bar the one under discussion have the format "that "X" is a Y?", only the opposed one has the format "that "X"?", where X is a piece of religious doctrine and where the hook, as presented by the defenders, doesn't make any sense. Please don't make false claims about the occurrence of such hooks and the normality of it. And certainly please don't ever bring such hooks to the main page again. This is not "harmless fun", this is systemic bias which would not be accepted in the opposite direction (notice how a perfectly normal and correct hook was not accepted to run on Easter because it might offend some people? But this incorrect hook, which has nothing amusing (what exactly is supposed to be amusing about it?), is no problem? Fram (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You want other potential hooks? ... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" is a hymn played at Easter? or ... that that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" has Alleluia sung after each line? Such hooks do exist and could have been used so it is not false. Again, the nomination was up since mid-march and there was more than sufficient time for objections to the original and ALT to be made, and there were none so it ran. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You completely misunderstand my question. I don't argue that no acceptable hooks can be made that contain that title. I claim that only using the title as a hook is wrong, and that there are no similar examples, certainly not in the frequencies e.g. Viriditas claim. That's why I didn't ask for "other potential hooks", but "similar hooks"... Oh, and DROPTHESTICK may be an argument someone uninvolved may make, but as the proposer of the original hook, it only comes across as if you don't want any criticism of your actions. Fram (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Forthcoming shortage of hooks?

Each day, DYK needs 18 promoted hooks in order to do three sets of six. In the past two weeks, we have had only 3 days with exactly 18 hooks nominated, and only 1 day with more than 18 nominated. Over the past two weeks, we've run a defect of 25 hooks, 13 if you don't count April 23rd, which I hope is some sort of error. Is this sustainable in the long term (i.e. is this the normal numbers that the process has seen over the past few months), or should I be concerned? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Articles created/expanded on April 10: 14 (short four)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 11: 18 (even)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 12: 25 (up seven)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 13: 14 (short four)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 14: 17 (short one)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 15: 16 (short two)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 16: 18 (even)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 17: 17 (short one)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 18: 17 (short one)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 19: 16 (short two)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 20: 18 (even)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 21: 16 (short two)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 22: 15 (short three)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 23: 6 (short twelve)

Sven, the goal seems to be to be running with a backlog of under 150 hooks. We've been running around 200 hooks lately. More concerning is the slow reviewing, which makes it hard to load preps—as best I can tell, there are more non-self-nominations of late, which don't require a QPQ review. There's a chance that we'll get another spike of nominations around the beginning of May, when the next round of the WikiCup commences. If not, though, we reduce the frequency of the sets being loaded to the main page from three to two—DYK typically runs with two or three sets per day depending upon activity, with an occasional foray into four sets in extremely active times (the 2012 Summer Olympics, for example). We minimize the shifts in frequency, holding off until there's a consensus that it's needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • PS: I wouldn't worry about April 23, since people have another several days to nominate articles created on that date. Indeed, it's possible that all the still-current dates (April 19 through 23) to grow a bit more with "new" (created up to five days before) eligible articles before each date's cutoff. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a convention that really doesn't seem to get used. If I move an article to the namespace on the 10th, but it takes until the 11th to set up the DYK, I put it in the section for the 11th. Looking at a random selection of nominees, it would appear that I am in the majority in this. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, the T:TDYK page is quite clear; In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began, not the date on which you make the nomination. It looks like I should look through and move those who haven't done it right. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

We're extremely low on reviewed hooks right now: only 12 of 196 are approved for promotion, no queues are filled, and only two preps have any hooks in them at all; we can barely fill those two preps.

I've compiled a new set of 39 older nominations that need reviewing. The first section is for a nomination that has been waiting for over two months, and the second is for five waiting at least three weeks. Please give one these your attention if possible; if not, the remaining 33 are also available. Thank you for your reviews.

Over two months:

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

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) 03:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Article on Titus Andronicus

I don't wish to get off on the wrong foot and I know that the writers wanted to get something out for Shakespeare's 450th anniversary, but the article on Titus Andronicus (character) linked from Prep 1 is extremely poor. Aside from the hook and a lopsided plot summary it consists of one sentence. The character of Titus Andronicus is studied in more detail in the article of the play which is also linked in the hook. I know that "Did you know..." articles aren't supposed to be unimproveable, but this article probably shouldn't exist if it can't analyse the character in more depth than the article on the play. Bellemora (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I didn't say it definitely shouldn't exist; it may be possible to improve it to a point where it can stand alongside the article on the play, as there's hardly a dearth of commentary on Shakespeare, it's just that I doubt it can be brought anywhere near the standard of an encyclopaedia article in the next few hours. Why would you want to showcase such a poor article on the main page of an encyclopaedia? Bellemora (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you mean by "the standard of an encyclopaedia article". It would pass at WP:AFD, because the article should exist, because there is encyclopedic content about this character in the public domain. It passes the DYK standard of being 1500 characters that include at least one encyclopedic fact for the main page. It is in the quality range that is sufficient for DYK. It may not be a scholarly example of encyclopedic prose in its current state, but if we want to celebrate Shakespeare's 450th this is what we have.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Article now redirected. Are we really going to celebrate Shakespeare with an article with one source with background on the hook, when that source dates from 1913, and the main article has much more and more recent information on the same subject? DYK should be a service to the reader, not a disservice. Fram (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to redirect. The content on the character in Titus Andronicus is disjointed. I believe the standalone article would be speedily kept rather than speedily deleted as you suggest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
N.B. the article on the play does not even have a well developed character section (see Titus_Andronicus#Characters). It is a disservice to send readers seeking information about a character to an article with so sparse a character section. Furthermore, the character section is not backed up by a link to a dedicated character article like Characters in Romeo and Juliet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
All your arguments for why the article should exist are good, but the article fulfils none of them as it stands. It does not collect the encyclopaedic information that is in the public domain, it does not unify the disjointed information on the character of Titus contained in the play article and it does not serve readers seeking information about the character. I could help you expand it (it would be a good learning experience for me if you'd like my help; alternatively, if I've pissed you off, you can tell me to go boil my head) but I won't have much time over the next week as I have guests. At the moment I think putting it on DYK in celebration of Shakespeare would do little for Misplaced Pages's reputation. Bellemora (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
DYK is for start-class articles. You are suggesting some requirement that the article meet WP:WIAGA or something. It is not running in the WP:TFA section. Do you feel that the article fails to be start-class? Does it defy any WP:MOS? It does in fact unify information about the character by sketching his role in the play from beginning to end.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
@Fram The "Role in play" section is mostly a edited and slightly reworded version of Titus_Andronicus#Synopsis so I added "See" under the header for that section, as the "Synopsis" section in Titus_Andronicus has more complete information. Parabolooidal (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Category: