→48-hour cycle?: Comment |
|||
Line 499: | Line 499: | ||
I'm thinking we may soon have to go to a 48-hour cycle. It's unprecedented, but since going to a 24-hour cycle several weeks ago to allow the number of nominations to increase, the number has actually ''declined'' with currently only 187 on the nominations page and nothing in prep. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 13:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC) |
I'm thinking we may soon have to go to a 48-hour cycle. It's unprecedented, but since going to a 24-hour cycle several weeks ago to allow the number of nominations to increase, the number has actually ''declined'' with currently only 187 on the nominations page and nothing in prep. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 13:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Ick, that would throw off some of the calculations based on the time between updates I added on [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Lore]]. [[User:Pppery|<span style="position:relative;top:10px">P</span>p<span style="position:relative;bottom:5px">p</span>]][[User talk:Pppery|e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r</big>y]] 13:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC) |
:Ick, that would throw off some of the calculations based on the time between updates I added on [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Lore]]. [[User:Pppery|<span style="position:relative;top:10px">P</span>p<span style="position:relative;bottom:5px">p</span>]][[User talk:Pppery|e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r</big>y]] 13:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
*There are currently 45 approved hooks, that's five whole prep area that can be filled. Personally I've stepped away from prep building a bit due to the toxic environment where blame in instead of constructive cooperation seems to be the way to go. [[User:MPJ-DK|'''<span style="background:blue;color:white;border: 1px solid blue"> MPJ</span>''']][[User talk:MPJ-DK|<span style="background:red;color:white;border: 1px solid blue">'''-DK''' </span>]] 14:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:20, 9 October 2016
Index no archives yet (create) |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.
LavaBaron's editing restrictions
Per this AN thread, LavaBaron is given editing restrictions on DYK. Any hook nominated or reviewed by LavaBaron must be reviewed by a second editor before it may be promoted to the main page. The restrictions are reproduced below as follows:
- A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
- Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
- Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
(To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.- These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.
The enforcement of these rules should be the responsibility of all editors who promote DYK hooks. Any editor may undo the promotion of any hook to a prep area or a queue area (for admins) whose promotion was made in contravention to these restrictions, assuming good faith and citing this AN restriction. --Deryck C. 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Is this addition to the header section of T:TDYK really necessary? It feels to me like a scarlet letter. LavaBaron has agreed on his or her user talk page to note that double reviews are needed in his nominations and reviews, which is where the reminder is needed, so is a header notice necessary and appropriate? EdChem (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it is unnecessary given Lavabaron's commitment to add a note to his contributions, so have reverted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Gatoclass - thanks, but I don't have an issue with it. It may be better for everyone involved if it was still in place. I'll defer to your judgment, though. LavaBaron (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, EdChem, I very much appreciate your comment. However, by way of explanation, I don't have any issue with the header, personally. This restriction will eventually slip off other editors radars and I don't want to risk getting blocked if another editor doesn't notice my own warning notes and accidentally promotes anyway. In the grand scheme of things, I'm fine with being publicly exhibited in the stockade for awhile if the alternative is the hangman. I'm probably wrapping things up here anyway, so it's not really a big deal. LavaBaron (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are not going to get blocked for the actions of another editor! However, since you've made the commitment to remind other editors of your restrictions in your contributions to T:TDYK, you will need to stick to it as failing to do so might attract unwanted attention. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity, I think LavaBaron is wise to include reminders on his nominations and reviews. Just because something is objectively unreasonable doesn't mean it won't happen, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, however, I was just blocked on accident the other day - which I've just learned can't be WP:REVDEL from my log and will be part of my permanent record as long as my account exists - so I would like to be extra careful in any edit I make, or any edit anyone else makes that may in some way reference me by name. (I apologize, in advance, for publicly disagreeing and if the preceding comment seemed insolent; it was not my intent to be but rather to observe a personal experience as a possible reason for maintaining the header alert so that as many people as possible know that my DYKs require extra scrutiny. I appreciate all the work you do for WP as an admin and will defer, without further debate or objection, to you judgment on this question.) LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are not going to get blocked for the actions of another editor! However, since you've made the commitment to remind other editors of your restrictions in your contributions to T:TDYK, you will need to stick to it as failing to do so might attract unwanted attention. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
EdChem you claim Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity..., could you provide an explanation for this including diffs please? As far as I could tell, most people who are pulling hooks are doing it based on the fact that they are erroneous, or ill-sourced or malignant. Of course, you could correct me if I'm wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I expressed my opinion. I am in favour of higher quality and minimising inaccuracies in articles on WP. I am not, however, comfortable with the discussions which come across as disdainful of the contributors and contributions to DYK. Examples, quotations all being from you, FYI:
- "Admins who deal with errors here are under no obligation to do anything" is the exact attitude of image patrollers who tag and notify when fixing the problem was as easy or easier, and ignoring the disruption caused. It comes with an apparent belief of superiority which is really irritating. That you can just pull a hook rather than fix does not mean that that course of action is appropriate or wise. Also, you signed as an admin who "participate at DYK but rarely move prep sets to queues and updating main page" but reserve the right to disregard the structures of DYK ("DYK rules are non-binding on admins", "I'm not arguing, I'm stating fact. Admins are not under any obligation to comply with the arcane and multifarious "rules" of DYK") - hardly helpful. Maybe things wouldn't be so oppositional if hooks were corrected rather than pulled (by all means discuss here or with the nominator / reviewers afterwards) or returned once corrected. You could build some goodwill by protecting the main page and advancing the goals of DYK within that broader goal, rather than always coming across as critical. Admins are supposed to be editors with extra buttons not rulers, and while I have no doubt you can make a case for being uninvolved, from my perspective you come with a pre-existing opinion and bias against DYK - you come across as disdainful ("DYK are no longer interested in interesting hooks it would appear, they are just too obsessed with self-preservation").
- "... not worth the grief and the disruption to the arcane processes and delicate individuals here" - good to see your healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here.
- "... the review process is up shit creek" - this is an over-broad generalisation which does not acknowledge or recognise the good work being done by many reviewers. Take me, for example... I've never had a hook pulled from the main page (nor do I recall one from the queue) and I don't recall one of my reviews being subsequently faulted. I've noted problems with paraphrasing and sourcing and I believe I am thorough (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - you can look at all my DYKs if you like). In some cases, I have posted after a tick is given to address a problematic review. Is my work "up shit creek" too? Or are there people here who could use some acknowledgement and who can serve as examples for new reviewers to follow? The QPQ system has its flaws and I favour removing QPQ credits from poor reviews so that another review is needed for their nomination to proceed, but the flaws don't make DYK worthless. There is some high quality work done here, both editing and reviewing, and that seems to go unnoticed. For example, I am proud of this case where what was brought to DYK was inaccurate and low quality and what went on to the main page was much higher quality (IMO).
- "The answer: slow the rate down" - you said this in the context of the JetBlue hook which you described as "dreadful and promotional" (an accurate assessment, IMO). You have posted repeatedly about section length and rate and built no consensus for change. I suggest that is, in part, because your approach leads to a high degree of defensiveness. I can't see why 8 hooks rather than 7 is a problem for DYK, and if that is better for balancing the main page then it is something that should be collegially achievable. Isn't it better for WP and our readers if we can work together?
- All of the above are from the last two weeks or so. In that time we've also had a proposed topic ban at AN, and you are not alone in having an approach which I see as counter-productive. DYK has problems with reviewing, there is no doubt, and at times hooks need to be pulled from the queue and (sadly) sometimes from the main page - sadly because they shouldn't get that far - but what feels like a "gotcha" approach even in cases where a small edit would address the issue is IMO leading editors to feel threatened and attacked when what is needed is for them (and us) to understand how things get missed and to learn from mistakes. EdChem (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- TLDR: DYK regulars don't like the fact they're being scrutinised and that they're being unveiled as a reasonably owny bunch who are content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page. If you think the admin tools have been abused by me or anyone else in pulling detritus from the main page, then do something about it. As for "healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here", damned straight. The process consistently fails, and the individuals involved put up the shutters, heads into the sand and pretend everything's okay once these awkward people pointing out all these issues will go away. Well newsflash, we're not going away. And low quality or erroneous hooks will continue to be removed and those responsible for continually supporting them will be called out. Sorry if you misinterpreted that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blunt version: Your strategy is frustrating your aim. Your description of MY work as "low quality" and me as being "content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page" as a consequence of my reviewing work is rejected as unsupported by evidence and obnoxious. Your attitude and behaviour convey disdain for DYK which renders your objectivity questionable. Newsflash, DYK isn't going away. You could try working with us to address problems... or is that too difficult? Sorry if this is too sensible for you. EdChem (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I work every day to improve every DYK that goes through the system. I don't have time to double check every hook but have pulled or suggested several be pulled en route to the main page. I have made multiple suggestions to improve things and yet DYK and its guardians see themselves as impervious and near-perfect, and criticism of any type is simply rejected. There's too much ownership and mollycoddling of editors in this part of the main page, it's unhealthy and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. There's not enough responsibility taken for continuous issues, this thread is the first of its kind and is probably about five years too late coming. Sorry if that's too much truth for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I made one suggestion for improving DYK, and you shot it down, in a fit of ownership, perhaps. Lay out your proposal(s), perhaps at VPP, if you don't like this page, and live with the fact that others have different opinions and views than you. Other people are not going away, either, and as you appear to think you are besieged, there must be more of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- It takes more than one opposition to "shoot down" a reasonable proposal. And I'm here for the longhaul, whether the masses like it or not, so wise up. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it got quite a bit of reasonable support, including from Fram. But your comment shows either a lack of the wisdom of self-awareness, or just plain hypocrisy, you act as if everyone who does not agree with you is suddenly a borg, when what's true is they just individually disagree with you and you can't handle it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- It takes more than one opposition to "shoot down" a reasonable proposal. And I'm here for the longhaul, whether the masses like it or not, so wise up. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I made one suggestion for improving DYK, and you shot it down, in a fit of ownership, perhaps. Lay out your proposal(s), perhaps at VPP, if you don't like this page, and live with the fact that others have different opinions and views than you. Other people are not going away, either, and as you appear to think you are besieged, there must be more of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I work every day to improve every DYK that goes through the system. I don't have time to double check every hook but have pulled or suggested several be pulled en route to the main page. I have made multiple suggestions to improve things and yet DYK and its guardians see themselves as impervious and near-perfect, and criticism of any type is simply rejected. There's too much ownership and mollycoddling of editors in this part of the main page, it's unhealthy and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. There's not enough responsibility taken for continuous issues, this thread is the first of its kind and is probably about five years too late coming. Sorry if that's too much truth for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blunt version: Your strategy is frustrating your aim. Your description of MY work as "low quality" and me as being "content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page" as a consequence of my reviewing work is rejected as unsupported by evidence and obnoxious. Your attitude and behaviour convey disdain for DYK which renders your objectivity questionable. Newsflash, DYK isn't going away. You could try working with us to address problems... or is that too difficult? Sorry if this is too sensible for you. EdChem (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- TLDR: DYK regulars don't like the fact they're being scrutinised and that they're being unveiled as a reasonably owny bunch who are content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page. If you think the admin tools have been abused by me or anyone else in pulling detritus from the main page, then do something about it. As for "healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here", damned straight. The process consistently fails, and the individuals involved put up the shutters, heads into the sand and pretend everything's okay once these awkward people pointing out all these issues will go away. Well newsflash, we're not going away. And low quality or erroneous hooks will continue to be removed and those responsible for continually supporting them will be called out. Sorry if you misinterpreted that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Off topic-discussion
|
---|
Could someone uninvolved hat this worthless diatribe? We can return to trying to fix the many problems, rather than bizarre Star Trek comparisons. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
|
- OK, here's my take, speaking as an on-again, off-again DYK participant: First, EdChem is right that there is a sense of a "gotcha" approach that does discourage people from reviewing and promoting DYK hooks. We fear being slamblasted for a good faith error and fear reprisals. On the other hand, if The Rambling Man spots a problem and removes a hook, groovy, so long as I'm not slamblasted for a good-faith error, I can live with that, he does a good job of spotting problems others miss and so long as he wants to do that job, I'm good with it. Similarly, when Moonriddengirl sends an approved hook bac for another round, she does what she does best. At the end of the day, I am fine if I make a mistake and others have to fix it, as long as it is acknowledged that I did the best I could at the time and intended to do a good job -- we all are human. But finally, having created about 200+ articles for WP, and about 50 of them have been DYK, I do hope that everyone here who criticizes content also creates it from time to time and so understands the challenges we face. (I know that TRM does...which is one reason why I'm not too upset if he has a high standard; I've done GAN reviews for his articles, and he DOES create content) Montanabw(talk) 01:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Obviously, as my sometimes contributions on this page attest, there is no objection to re-running a review, where others take a look and find an issue that needs more discussion or reversal. Such additional review rarely need to be an accusation (or a gotcha) and in extreme cases where it does need to be an accusation, those should go to AN/ANI. And policy reform proposals should either be accepted or rejected here or at VPP, and then move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Query on editing restrictions
Deryck C., I was wondering about the fourth restriction, which starts with "(To balance the maths)". I initially thought this explanation meant the second QPQ would be requested to make up for having two QPQs used to review a single LavaBaron nomination, but the way this reads, LavaBaron's second QPQ can be of a nomination already approved by another reviewer. Is this what you meant? While sometimes this means simple duplication of results (as here, which would not normally be eligible for QPQ credit), it can mean LavaBaron finding issues with an approved review, which does help the process. Also, so far as I can tell, the first review doesn't actually need to start from scratch, but simply that the DYK review has not yet been approved/accepted, unless by "accepted" you mean "accepted for review (but not necessarily approved)". Please clarify. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Your interpretation is correct. One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because...". Rule #2 has essentially side-stepped LavaBaron from the review chain, so I tried to find a way to balance out the reviewer effort while allowing LavaBaron to participate meaningfully and receive oversight at the same time. From the reviews linked above, I think LavaBaron has been using the requirements of his restriction to participate constructively, which is encouraging. Deryck C. 23:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Deryck C. That's very clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- #4 is struck per discussion. Deryck C. 13:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Deryck C. That's very clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Sourcing and Automated Review
I like the new recommendation that nominators directly include sources supporting hook claims. However, doing so using the recommended format confuses the automated review bot: it read the hook "... that Gadis Arivia (pictured) established "Indonesia’s first journal of feminist theory"?" as being 476 characters in length (actual length: 92) owing to its inability to differentiate between the sources and hook, and left notification that the nomination had issues. Can we either a) use a different format, which won't confuse the bot? or b) teach the bot to ignore text prefaced by "small"
? I'm worried that this discrepancy will confuse new editors. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Intelligentsium (the bot operator). Pppery 00:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Similar issues with this and this and I also found an unrelated issue with this (the {{EngvarB}} bit). - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I hope we can find a way to keep the source quote on the same line as the hook, since I think having the two hard together is essential to making sure they are consistent. It would be a cringeworthy hack (DYK machinery is already rife with such) but having the bot ignore everything starting with < small> would do the trick. EEng 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree EEng, I think the source should be on a different line, indeed each cited source should be on a new line, to make them easier to read. Gatoclass (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, < p> could be used to break the line between the hook and its sources, and between multiple source for the same hook, while still keeping it all in one parameter of the nom template. EEng 08:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- EEng, why on earth would you want to keep it all in the one parameter? It seems to me that's just a recipe for having people forget to include it. The source should have its own field. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- It didn't occur to me that we'd change the template for something that's still in the experimental stage. But if people are for it I sure am as well. EEng 14:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- EEng, why on earth would you want to keep it all in the one parameter? It seems to me that's just a recipe for having people forget to include it. The source should have its own field. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, < p> could be used to break the line between the hook and its sources, and between multiple source for the same hook, while still keeping it all in one parameter of the nom template. EEng 08:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree EEng, I think the source should be on a different line, indeed each cited source should be on a new line, to make them easier to read. Gatoclass (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Does anyone have the technical skill to add a new field? I'm not really that good with templates, and I'd rather let someone who knows what they're doing handle this rather than crash DYK. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I can have the bot ignore small text for now, but over the long term I do think it would be better to have a dedicated field (especially as many hooks do incorporate information from multiple sources). Intelligentsium 06:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest you do exactly what you're saying: the quick hack now, and if the source-quote experiment becomes permanent, then create appropriate parms to accommodate. EEng 06:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Should I be topic banned from DYK?
Over at the TRM workshop page Fram has made certain proposals in relation to me.
- Cwmhiraeth is topic banned from DYK.
- As an alternative, allowing him to nominate his own articles, but banning him from nominating and reviewing, and from discussing all but his own articles at WT:DYK may also be workable.
- Cwmhiraeth is admonished for the use of personal attacks.
- Comments:
- I think if Fram were to analyse my misdemeanors he would find very few of my nominations have hook errors. In the most recent 100 DYKs for example, I think only one was "pulled" by Fram, Notiomys, where we disagreed over whether owls or humans were best at catching mice.
- I am inclined to AGF not-easily ascertainable facts when reviewing hooks whereas Fram is dedicated to finding errors in them, so a few of my reviews are later proved to be incorrect. Most of the hooks that Fram has pulled with which I am associated are ones I have promoted to Prep. I believe Fram has an unrealistic view of what a promoter should do before promoting a hook.
- I would not object to being admonished for making personal attacks if Fram, having initiated the attacks, were also admonished.
Would others think these sanctions are appropriate? (Sanction 2 is pretty stupid anyway as it would enable me to continue building prep sets.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sanction 2 should read "banning him from promoting or reviewing, thanks for catching that. The fact that you still don't understand what the problem with the Notiomys hook was, is very telling though. As for the personal attacks, feel free to provide your own evidence at the arbcom request. Simply accusing people without evidence is in itself another personal attack though. Fram (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- "I believe Fram has an unrealistic view of what a promoter should do before promoting a hook." Really? Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook has (among many other requirements) "4) Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated)." This clearly is not a thing only the reviewer must do, but the promotor as well. That you still don't get this (despite this having been explained here before) is yet another reason why you should withdraw from reviewing and promoting. Fram (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The last time the two of you banged heads here, I said go to ANI. Anyway, I dug around to see if you'd been there before and found Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. Rather than piggybacking on the back of TRM's witch hunt case, may it be worth reviving that thread on ANI instead? Neither of you are parties to the case, and Arbcom tend to toss out anyone who isn't a named party who hasn't been to ANI first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, Arbcom made a case with a rather unclear scope, asking for DYK (and other) issues related to TRM to be addressed as well. Cwmhiraeth launched personal attacks at TRM and me, seemingly because he is often on the receiving end of hooks being pulled. Instead of removing one of the people maintaining standards on the main page, the more logical solution to prevent part of the problems the Arbcom case was about was to remove one of the people fighting the removal of hooks (and the people getting rid of the errors) and promoting incorrect hooks (as nom, reviewer and promotor). ArbCom recently admonished someone else in a case where they weren't a named party (IIRC), so I see no reason why this can't happen here as well. Cwmhiraeth's personal attacks were added in the evidence phase, and despite a claim that that bit of the evidence should be disregarded, no clerk or arb seemed to have any problem with it remaining. It is a bit useless to allow evidence but then to disallow FoF and remedies based on it. Fram (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was specifically thinking of this (note I make no comment as to the appropriateness of that finding of fact, apart from "desysopped" normally has two Ps) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please take this to Arbcom as a formal separate case, where after all evidence is presented, it can be dealt with fairly. To bog this talk page down with this issue makes it look like a personal spat that one or both of you are trying drag others into. And since most people here already have experience with both of you, pro or con, their views are subject to personal interactions with same. The appropriate place for this is Arbcom. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, the scope of the Arbcom current case does and should include examination of certain users on both ITN and DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Then take this to ANI. — Maile (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, perhaps you missed the point, it's already at Arbcom. ANI is no longer necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, this kind of post could be considered canvassing. I should know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- TRM is correct, this sort of proposal was always going to be possible in the ArbCom case framed as it is (and notwithstanding the name it has been given); it was nearly inevitable that some regular DYK contributors would be targeted. Also, to be fair, Fram and TRM are correct that there are problems with standards and referencing, and part of that is the failure of DYK to agree to an approach to erroneous reviews and promotions and examples of poor judgement - and that failure opens the door to ArbCom-style approaches where topic bans are a default "solution". Cwmhiraeth, ArbCom are not the type to be much influenced so showing them concerns here would likely have little effect on how they view Fram's proposal, and TRM is also correct that this could be taken as canvassing, which would be viewed unfavourably. My advice is if you want to argue against Fram's case, do so on the case pages with diffs and as dispassionately as you can manage. EdChem (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for your advice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- TRM is correct, this sort of proposal was always going to be possible in the ArbCom case framed as it is (and notwithstanding the name it has been given); it was nearly inevitable that some regular DYK contributors would be targeted. Also, to be fair, Fram and TRM are correct that there are problems with standards and referencing, and part of that is the failure of DYK to agree to an approach to erroneous reviews and promotions and examples of poor judgement - and that failure opens the door to ArbCom-style approaches where topic bans are a default "solution". Cwmhiraeth, ArbCom are not the type to be much influenced so showing them concerns here would likely have little effect on how they view Fram's proposal, and TRM is also correct that this could be taken as canvassing, which would be viewed unfavourably. My advice is if you want to argue against Fram's case, do so on the case pages with diffs and as dispassionately as you can manage. EdChem (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hooks with pictures
Just curious, on what basis are hooks with pictures chosen over others? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's usually just a matter of somebody liking the picture. When I am building a hook set, I am also inclined to give preference to better-than-average articles for the image slot, all other things being equal, but I don't know whether others take the same approach. Gatoclass (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- What about the Jordan hook? Its both a better-than-average article, and a great picture. Certainly more interesting than an air-raid shelter at St Leonard's Court in prep3.. If not, well at least add the Jordan pic separately in another prep area. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Makeandtoss The image is always from the lead hook. Jordan was the lead hook when it was promoted. What happened to that is in This Thread. The people who commented in that thread are the ones you need to address your question to. — Maile (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- What about the Jordan hook? Its both a better-than-average article, and a great picture. Certainly more interesting than an air-raid shelter at St Leonard's Court in prep3.. If not, well at least add the Jordan pic separately in another prep area. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are more image hook nominess than spaces, some will at times run without the image. In this case the hook was in no way related to the image, as pointed out in the discussion above. In my opinion that made it a more logical choice to run without a picture over some with more relevant imahes. No judgement on picture quality, just my opinion about the relevance of the image. MPJ-DK 00:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss: In my opinion, a hook that was related to that image would have been a strong contender for the lead slot - maybe something like:
- "... that the Valley of the Moon (pictured) in Jordan has been used as a stand-in for Mars?"
- You would have needed to reference "Valley of the Moon" as an alternative name for the Wadi Rum and noted filming of multiple pictures like The Martian and Red Planet, but that wouldn't have been difficult, and I think the moon as a stand-in for Mars is nicely hooky. Too late now, though. :( EdChem (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was keeping that hook for Wadi Rum separately. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Where presumably you would use the same picture? For that it is logical and relevant to use it. MPJ-DK 16:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was keeping that hook for Wadi Rum separately. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
What's involved in a QPQ check?
I am seeking input on what is / should be standard practice in checking the QPQ requirement when doing a review. As an example, I have just done this review of Tom King (footballer) where the nominator (EchetusXe) had this review of Moise Poida as their review satisfying their QPQ requirement. In my review, I noted that the Poida QPQ review does not saying anything about a copyvio check, and the hook it describes as interesting is of the format "... that SOCCER PLAYER 1 has played against SOCCER PLAYER 2?" I know the 'interesting' requirement is an unsettled area, but my question is what I should be doing as a reviewer in checking on QPQ. Am I supposed to be just (as the bot does) whether a review has been done? Am I supposed to evaluate its quality / completeness? If I have concerns, do I comment at the Poida review as well as in my review of the King nomination? I also raised concerns about the proposed King hook, and would welcome other perspectives. Am I just overthinking? Thoughts / Opinion / Advice / etc. welcomed. EdChem (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't think the QPQ review was complete enough, you should say so at the Tom King nomination and not pass it until a QPQ has been completed to your satisfaction. I would not take hook interest into account when determining whether somebody has satisfactorily completed a QPQ though, because hook interest is a matter of opinion and somebody may legitimately have a different view. Rather, if I thought the hook was uninteresting I would leave a note at that review, but I don't think I would be suspending the King nomination for QPQ non-compliance on that basis alone as that would essentially be imposing your opinion about hook interest on the other party. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- EdChem, a QPQ review is supposed to check all of the various DYK criteria, which are helpfully shown above the edit window when updating the nomination page with, say, the QPQ review. If a review fails to mention any significant checks, like copyvio/close paraphrasing, neutrality, or image checks if an image is submitted, then it needs to be revisited so those criteria can be examined. I just found a copyvio in a DYK nomination that hadn't mentioned doing that check, and in addition to pointing out the issue there, I also disallowed the QPQ credit claimed by the reviewer, superseding that nomination's approval as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, thanks for that advice (and Gatoclass too). What is unclear to me, though, is whether in verifying a QPQ credit I am checking whether the other reviewer has addressed the criteria, or wether the review is correct by re-checking all the criteria myself. In my above example, I am concerned as the QPQ review mentions nothing about a copyvio check but I have not checked myself for a copyvio. Should I just mark the QPQ nomination with an "aspects missing" note so it is not promoted in the meantime? Also, BlueMoonset mentions disallowing a QPQ-credit - will you please tell me more about that? I think QPQs should be disallowed for cases of poor reviews (though not in the case TRM is complaining about below, which is why I am not asking about this in that thread). EdChem (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I'd appreciate your thoughts here when you have a moment. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- You don't need to recheck someone else's QPQ (no need to re-review it yourself), just note whether it was complete—did it cover all the DYK criteria or not. If not, then the QPQ needs to be expanded upon, and assuming the reviewed nomination was given a tick, that tick needs to be superseded by another icon to prevent the nomination's promotion. By disallowing the QPQ credit, I meant that the inadequate review did not qualify as a QPQ, though if it was later supplemented to cover all the DYK criteria, it would then qualify. (Or another QPQ could be submitted in place of the inadequate one.) I'm not sure what we can do if the QPQ problem isn't discovered until after the article has been approved, promoted, and run. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I'd appreciate your thoughts here when you have a moment. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, thanks for that advice (and Gatoclass too). What is unclear to me, though, is whether in verifying a QPQ credit I am checking whether the other reviewer has addressed the criteria, or wether the review is correct by re-checking all the criteria myself. In my above example, I am concerned as the QPQ review mentions nothing about a copyvio check but I have not checked myself for a copyvio. Should I just mark the QPQ nomination with an "aspects missing" note so it is not promoted in the meantime? Also, BlueMoonset mentions disallowing a QPQ-credit - will you please tell me more about that? I think QPQs should be disallowed for cases of poor reviews (though not in the case TRM is complaining about below, which is why I am not asking about this in that thread). EdChem (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Pyst
MPJ-DK, Coin945, The C of E, just a heads-up, the Pyst DYK has been removed from the main page by David Levy after some complaints at WT:MAIN. I assume this renders the associated QPQ null and void, please ensure the appropriate arcane bureaucracy is completed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Reviewer did not chose hook, hook was not incorrect so I am not seeing why QPQ is "null and void"? it was performed correctly and in good faith - I chose the "Pissed" version. And by "arcane bureaucracy" are you actually referring to your modern day use of the talk page as the stocks or your misguided attempt to get a QPQ taken away for not making a mistake? MPJ-DK 21:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm simply reporting that yet another DYK has been removed from the main page as a result of poor decision-making along the way. What you do with that is up to you lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- No you're not,
I assume this renders the associated QPQ null and void
is not "reporting". MPJ-DK 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)- Setting aside the QPQ matter, I'm curious as to why usage of the word "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice (as opposed to a quotation) was deemed appropriate. Does that strike you as formal prose, suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia?
- Coin945 explicitly labeled the hook a "joke", and The C of E predicted that "it wouldn't be looked on too kindly outside of April Fools Day", but it was placed on the main page without even soliciting broader feedback (with the understanding that a non-joke hook could be substituted "if the no-fun police [came] knocking"). The main page isn't a playground, let alone one existing for the benefit of a tiny handful of people dismissively mocking the rest of the community. —David Levy 00:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm not riding that tude' train. MPJ-DK 00:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Pardon? —David Levy 00:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have no interest in any discussions that is served with such a negative attitude that puts motives on people without knowing anything. So yeah I put it in the prep queue, you can ascribe whatever "motives" you want on me, it is a free country. MPJ-DK 00:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Are you referring to my "dismissively mocking the rest of the community" comment? I was referring to The C of E's "if the no-fun police come knocking" remark. —David Levy 01:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Are you referring to my reference to the hook as a "joke"? That's its author's description, not mine.
- I've merely asked you to explain why usage of the word "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice was deemed appropriate. —David Levy 01:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Good God Levy, what is the point of drawing this out further? Wikidrama? Someone tried to lively up a hook in a forum where that's demanded- DYK, as formatted now, invites trivia to draw in clicks. Instead of bashing other users for poor judgement, why didn't you review the hook before it went to the Main Page? If you didn't, time to drop the stick and move on. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why didn't I review the hook before it went to the main page? Is that a serious question? Are you suggesting that I should personally check everything scheduled to appear on the main page, that it's unreasonable for an editor to express concerns regarding material prepared in their absence, or something else?
- I'm participating in this discussion in the hope of gaining a better understanding of (and then addressing) the underlying problem that led to this incident. If you disagree that such a problem exists, you can express your opinion without attempting to invalidate mine and telling me to go away – a reaction indicative of the type of dismissiveness noted above. —David Levy 03:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Good God Levy, what is the point of drawing this out further? Wikidrama? Someone tried to lively up a hook in a forum where that's demanded- DYK, as formatted now, invites trivia to draw in clicks. Instead of bashing other users for poor judgement, why didn't you review the hook before it went to the Main Page? If you didn't, time to drop the stick and move on. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have no interest in any discussions that is served with such a negative attitude that puts motives on people without knowing anything. So yeah I put it in the prep queue, you can ascribe whatever "motives" you want on me, it is a free country. MPJ-DK 00:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Pardon? —David Levy 00:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm not riding that tude' train. MPJ-DK 00:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- No you're not,
- Another stupid pull of a perfectly good hook because some spinster schoolmarm, or grumpy old man, complained. This isn't the first time that this particular original complainant has fussed about something perfectly fine and even amusing (something desperately needed throughout WP) [1]. EEng 02:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can answer my questions. Why should usage of the word "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice (as opposed to a quotation) be considered appropriate? How does that constitute formal prose, suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia?
- Also, please explain how it was "stupid" to replace a hook with an alternative version proposed by the same editor and explicitly deemed "the fall-back option" (to be used in the event of controversy) by the reviewer. —David Levy 03:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The main page isn't an article, and not everything in/on it needs to be formal prose. The purpose of a hook is to draw the reader in -- create "buzz", even -- and the hook under discussion did that (or would have, had the schoolmarms and grumpy old men been taking their naps pr taking their Geritol at that moment). The reviewer wisely provided a fall-back option because there's been a history of said schoolmarms and grumpy old men imposing their hidebound sensibilities on everyone else. EEng 03:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The main page is a gateway to the encyclopedia, intended to present material representative of the better content thereof. On what do you base the assertion that its tone is held to a looser standard?
- Had the website in question (or a reliable source describing its article) used the word "pissed" in the relevant context, that would be one thing. For Wikipedia to say it is another matter entirely.
- The hook's author described it as a "joke". That isn't how the encyclopedia is supposed to be written.
- What I find most troubling, though, is that hook was run despite the reviewer foreseeing that "it wouldn't be looked on too kindly outside of April Fools Day". Irrespective of the hook's appropriateness or lack thereof, that's absolutely unacceptable. Persons compiling the main page's content have a responsibility to do so in accordance with a sincere understanding of community consensus. When reasonable doubt (or something exceeding it, as in this instance) arises, wider consultation is needed. Dismissive name-calling (a penchant for which the reviewer and you apparently share) is unhelpful.
- As an aside, why do you regard the alternative hook as inferior? It avoided the issue cited above, despite containing essentially the same wordplay (better wordplay, actually, as it made sense in more varieties of English). —David Levy 05:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the main page is held to different (not "looser") standards than articles, because it has a different function. Hooks shouldn't be swapped out once they're on the main page because someone thinks one of the ALTs would have been better. There's has to be something wrong. EEng 05:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I referred specifically to the main page's tone. If I understand correctly, you assert that material appearing on the main page needn't maintain the formal tone expected of Wikipedia's articles. On what do you base this claim?
- In my view and that of several other users, there was something wrong with the hook. We don't use descriptions like "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice. That simply isn't encyclopedic in tone. The hook was purposely written as a "joke" and accepted despite the the reviewer's knowledge that it was inconsistent with established consensus within the Wikipedia community. —David Levy 05:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- On what do you base the claim that the main page is supposed to maintain the formal tone of articles? Where do you see the "established consensus" that intriguing or amusing items cannot appear there? EEng 06:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
On what do you base the claim that the main page is supposed to maintain the formal tone of articles?
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view + ~11 years' experience editing the main page's content in accordance with consensus
Where do you see the "established consensus" that intriguing or amusing items cannot appear there?
- Where do you see such an assertion on my part? —David Levy 07:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- NPOV begins, "Articles must not take sides..." The main page isn't an article. And no one cares about your mighty experience.
- You wrote, "The hook was purposely written as a 'joke'...", as if there's something wrong with that. (I love your use of quote marks, as if humor is something you've heard of, but is still strange and exotic to your experience. See the green box at User:EEng#get the joke.)
- I tire of this nonsense, as I'm sure do many others. Toodle-oo! EEng 08:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
NPOV begins, "Articles must not take sides..." The main page isn't an article.
- Try looking past the nutshell tag and reading the first four words of the actual policy. Then proceed to the rest.
And no one cares about your mighty experience.
- I'm not boasting. I'm answering your question.
You wrote, "The hook was purposely written as a 'joke'...", as if there's something wrong with that.
- There's nothing inherently wrong with a hook provoking laughter. There's something wrong with a hook provoking laughter via a Wikipedia-manufactured claim absent from the sources cited. Nowhere in the website's article is the word "pissed" used. That's a vague, English-variety-specific slang description of the author's attitude, inserted at the expense of clarity.
I love your use of quote marks, as if humor is something you've heard of, but is still strange and exotic to your experience.
- The quotation marks denote that I'm quoting someone else (not writing a description of my own). —David Levy 11:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- On what do you base the claim that the main page is supposed to maintain the formal tone of articles? Where do you see the "established consensus" that intriguing or amusing items cannot appear there? EEng 06:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the main page is held to different (not "looser") standards than articles, because it has a different function. Hooks shouldn't be swapped out once they're on the main page because someone thinks one of the ALTs would have been better. There's has to be something wrong. EEng 05:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The main page isn't an article, and not everything in/on it needs to be formal prose. The purpose of a hook is to draw the reader in -- create "buzz", even -- and the hook under discussion did that (or would have, had the schoolmarms and grumpy old men been taking their naps pr taking their Geritol at that moment). The reviewer wisely provided a fall-back option because there's been a history of said schoolmarms and grumpy old men imposing their hidebound sensibilities on everyone else. EEng 03:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Although I have long been aware that some users object to informal English being employed in hooks, the term "pissed" for "irritated" has become so ubiquitous and so broadly accepted that I am quite surprised to find there are still people who find it sufficiently objectionable that they want it removed from the main page. In normal circumstances of course slang terms should not be used but given this was an obvious play on words I thought it acceptable in context. DYK hooks are supposed to be eye-catching after all, and I thought this one a harmless bit of fun. I might add that the two news websites I most commonly frequent - both of them of the highest journalistic standards - frequently employ such playful headlines for their own stories. We don't need to be relentlessly serious in presentation in order to maintain credibility. Gatoclass (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, journalistic writing styles differ greatly from those of an encyclopedia.
- Secondly, did you read the website's article? Its author expressed disappointment. This does fall under the broad meaning of the word "pissed" in American slang, but it wasn't the inference that I (or you, perhaps) drew. The use of slang terminology absent from the sources cited rendered the hook misleadingly vague. —David Levy 11:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- journalistic writing styles differ greatly from those of an encyclopedia. Maybe so, but the main page isn't encyclopedic content per se, it's an invitational portal.
- With regard to the review itself, yes I did read it and I felt "pissed" was an accurate enough description of the reviewer's reaction. One additional point I think worth making is that use of the word drew attention to the pun in the game title itself, which otherwise might have been read as Pyst as in rhyming with "sliced". Having said that, I might well have selected the original hook rather than the ALT myself, I just happen to think that use of the word "pissed" in the given context was pretty innocuous. Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe so, but the main page isn't encyclopedic content per se, it's an invitational portal.
- Those aren't mutually exclusive. The main page functions as a portal, but it's very much a part of the encyclopedia. Its formatting differs from Wikipedia's articles in various respects, but we aspire to maintain a consistent tone. "Pissed" is not an appropriate description written in Wikipedia's voice. (I don't object to quoting a reliable source's use of the word, given a suitable context.)
With regard to the review itself, yes I did read it and I felt "pissed" was an accurate enough description of the reviewer's reaction.
- I inquired because you mentioned the interpretation "irritated". That was mine as well, but I didn't sense such a reaction in the website's article (not that our personal assessments constitute valid sourcing).
One additional point I think worth making is that use of the word drew attention to the pun in the game title itself, which otherwise might have been read as Pyst as in rhyming with "sliced". Having said that, I might well have selected the original hook rather than the ALT myself,
- Indeed, the original hook emphasized the pun through the mention of "Myst". It also made sense in multiple English varieties, with the "get Pyst" wordplay evoking one of two concepts (irritation or intoxication).
I just happen to think that use of the word "pissed" in the given context was pretty innocuous.
- I respectfully disagree.
- But as noted above, I'm more troubled by the acceptance of a hook that the reviewer anticipated "wouldn't be looked on too kindly" by many within the community (flippantly labeled "the no-fun police"), despite the availability of a hook recognized as more consistent with Wikipedia consensus.
- Like the rest of the main page's dynamic content sections, DYK part of a larger collaboration, wherein insularity is not acceptable. We all need to work together. —David Levy 15:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Pissed" certainly isn't used in British English (it's "pissed off"), in fact I would go so far as to say it's unique in that sense to USEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's an unsubstantiated assertion, but regardless, I'd be very surprised if Brits weren't fully cognizant of the meaning of "pissed" even if it isn't the most commonly employed variation of the expression in that country. Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've never heard "pissed" used in that context in British English (and I consume a great deal of UK media). On its own, "pissed" means "intoxicated". —David Levy 15:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, and I already stated, Brits say "pissed off". David is spot on, "pissed" means drunk. You know what they say about when you assume something, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Is isn't an "unsubstantiated assertion", it's a fact. In my 44 years I have never, ever, heard someone here in the UK use "pissed" to mean anything else but "drunk". Whilst I'm not bothered about formal tone, we do need to consider ENGVAR on the main page, like we do at ITN. Running something that doesn't make a lot of sense to a large section of the English-speaking world is not really a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Believe me, being British myself I was fully aware that "pissed" in the American dialect of English meant angry or annoyed which is why I agreed to it (Of course I would prefer the Queen's English being used universally but; when in Rome). But I did make it very clear, after my own Flag of the United States of the Ionian Islands DYK was run as an AFD hook on a non-AFD day (my non-consent for it to be run outside of AFD notwithstanding), that I knew that there would be PC or no-fun viewers who might not have liked it. That is why I had said that the fall-back hook would be good if there was contention. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think the main point here is that it is unsafe to assume that English-language readers will understand such "quirky" hooks. Do not "assume" that just because Americans understand such a turn of phrase, that the rest of the English-speaking world (e.g. India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc etc etc) will do too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Equally you could have a hook that mentions bollocks and I'm sure most Yanks wouldn't get that. But the main page does state there is no preference with regard to WP:ENGVAR so therefore it stands to reason that while there may be some quirky hooks that the Americans specifically may understand, there will equally be quirky hooks later run, that the British clearly understand. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The point remains, and your own post qualifies it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
But the main page does state there is no preference with regard to WP:ENGVAR so therefore it stands to reason that while there may be some quirky hooks that the Americans specifically may understand, there will equally be quirky hooks later run, that the British clearly understand.
- When feasible, the use of commonly understood terminology is preferred. —David Levy 23:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Everybody knows what "pissed" means in the given context. Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- I was responding to the quoted portion of the The C of E's message, not addressing this instance in particular. —David Levy 15:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Everybody knows what "pissed" means in the given context. Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Equally you could have a hook that mentions bollocks and I'm sure most Yanks wouldn't get that. But the main page does state there is no preference with regard to WP:ENGVAR so therefore it stands to reason that while there may be some quirky hooks that the Americans specifically may understand, there will equally be quirky hooks later run, that the British clearly understand. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Believe me, being British myself I was fully aware that "pissed" in the American dialect of English meant angry or annoyed which is why I agreed to it
- Did you read the website article in question? As discussed above, its writer expressed disappointment, not anger/annoyance. Do you disagree with this assessment?
- Dictionaries include disappointment in the broad American slang meaning of "pissed", but I've never known the term (or "pissed off", which is used interchangeably in American English) to refer to disappointment alone. The hook conveyed a misleading description of the website's write-up.
But I did make it very clear, after my own Flag of the United States of the Ionian Islands DYK was run as an AFD hook on a non-AFD day (my non-consent for it to be run outside of AFD notwithstanding), that I knew that there would be PC or no-fun viewers who might not have liked it.
- Argumentum ad hominem. You anticipated controversy and preemptively belittled people's concerns through name-calling. Even now, you continue to dismiss actual users' good-faith input by attributing it to political correctness and humorlessness, thereby ignoring the actual criticisms raised.
That is why I had said that the fall-back hook would be good if there was contention.
- I remain baffled as to why said hook – which incorporated essentially the same humorous wordplay in a manner that accurately reflected the source material, avoided inserting slang in Wikipedia's voice, and made sense in multiple English varieties – wasn't simply used instead.
- This isn't about a quest to suppress naughty words or humor from the main page. In perceiving it as such, you've missed the actual issue and denigrated those who seek to address it. —David Levy 23:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think the main point here is that it is unsafe to assume that English-language readers will understand such "quirky" hooks. Do not "assume" that just because Americans understand such a turn of phrase, that the rest of the English-speaking world (e.g. India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc etc etc) will do too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Believe me, being British myself I was fully aware that "pissed" in the American dialect of English meant angry or annoyed which is why I agreed to it (Of course I would prefer the Queen's English being used universally but; when in Rome). But I did make it very clear, after my own Flag of the United States of the Ionian Islands DYK was run as an AFD hook on a non-AFD day (my non-consent for it to be run outside of AFD notwithstanding), that I knew that there would be PC or no-fun viewers who might not have liked it. That is why I had said that the fall-back hook would be good if there was contention. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's an unsubstantiated assertion, but regardless, I'd be very surprised if Brits weren't fully cognizant of the meaning of "pissed" even if it isn't the most commonly employed variation of the expression in that country. Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Revoking QPQs
Regarding the invalidated QPQ, the hook was pulled so it's a logical sequitur that the QPQ is invalidated. This is something that's been overlooked I believe, and it might actually help focus the minds of the reviewers if QPQs are revoked and subsequent hooks promoted based on them are pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why should a separate hook be punished for the review of a previous one? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's very simple. If a QPQ is awarded for a review that is subsequently demonstrated to be inadequate, the QPQ should rightly be revoked, and any associated promoted hooks should be removed until a satisfactory QPQ is performed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- No reason to invalidate a QPQ here. The C of E completed his review in all respects, validated all the hooks, expressed a preference for one and a fallback hook in the event that somebody further up the pipeline thought the preferred hook unsuitable. It's not his fault that there were several objections after it was promoted, and in any case, the fallback hook which the reviewer also verified was substituted. There might be an argument for invalidating an erroneous or incomplete QPQ, but this was neither. Gatoclass (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think any reason for hook being rejected from the main page or one of the queues should summarily render the associated QPQ invalid. The job wasn't done properly by the reviewer, regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Being pulled based on a personal opinion (which is what happened here) rather than a policy based reason is hardly grounds for invalidating QPQs. Last time I checked, invalidating QPQs wasn't even in the DYK rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I really can't agree that users should be deprived of QPQs over subjective issues such as personal preferences. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- It was pulled, simple as that. Bright line. As for not being in the current rules, of course it's not, that's why the project experiences so many slapdash reviews because there's no responsibility taken for them, the absolute worst case is that from time to time these pulled hooks are listed at the Removed page. Otherwise it's business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think any reason for hook being rejected from the main page or one of the queues should summarily render the associated QPQ invalid. The job wasn't done properly by the reviewer, regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- No reason to invalidate a QPQ here. The C of E completed his review in all respects, validated all the hooks, expressed a preference for one and a fallback hook in the event that somebody further up the pipeline thought the preferred hook unsuitable. It's not his fault that there were several objections after it was promoted, and in any case, the fallback hook which the reviewer also verified was substituted. There might be an argument for invalidating an erroneous or incomplete QPQ, but this was neither. Gatoclass (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's very simple. If a QPQ is awarded for a review that is subsequently demonstrated to be inadequate, the QPQ should rightly be revoked, and any associated promoted hooks should be removed until a satisfactory QPQ is performed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- So
Just reporting
? Seriously trying to put this on the reviewer? He did nothing wrong, he provided a good review, he did not pick which hook went to the front page, and the other hook he approved was on the main page without a pull. I repeat the comparison to using this talk page as a modern day stocks. BTW you can invalidate one of my QPQs if it makes you feel better, I give you the 3-4 QPQ I had left over from the 70 DYK one that never ran. Feel better now? I know yuou did not get to punish someone who did no wrong. MPJ-DK 12:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC) - And "not taking responsibility" comment is TRM ignoring facts to grind his axe with DYK. I took full responsibility for putting it in the prep, any "punishment" for this should go my way. MPJ-DK 12:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Boule_de_cristal.jpg/160px-Boule_de_cristal.jpg)
- Is the reviewer supposed to have a magic crystal ball to forsee that other users may object to the wording of a hook later on, even after another user promotes the hook? At the nomination, the reviewer even proposed using the first hook in anticipation of a potential disagreement about the wording. The nominator at the discussion also agreed with using ALT1. I don't feel that the The C of E's QPQ should be invalidated. North America1000 12:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:AGF. That they were later rescinded is not the sole criteria. I understand the quest for 'bright lines', but sometimes that doesn't apply. This should not be an exercise in retribution. Rather, we are looking for good faith compliance.
- This problem only arises if the approval has bounced in some form. If it successfully ran on the main page then the QPQ is conclusive. It only arises when we have relatively close in time reviews and QPQ use.
- In any event, if there is a problem it should be called to the nominator's attention and they should be given a chance to explain, correct the earlier one, or substitute another QPQ. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is a generic suggestion. Sure, if reviewers are content to pass a review and then ignore the fact that hooks get substantially changed afterwards, that's one issue. But a much larger issue is that of mediocre or sub-standard reviews going uncorrected. Currently there is no remedy for users who do not fulfil the requirements of QPQ properly, in so far as hooks they review are removed from preps, queues or the main page due to errors, one category being "factual accuracy". I know it's hard to take, but it's one of those things, if we continue to accept mediocre reviews, we'll continually see mediocre results. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikidrama!
A hook on the Main Page as reworded, then the day passed and it fell off altogether, but the trauma continues, because life is unfair. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, you're absolutely wrong. This project needs a lot of help with errors, unexpected results from clicking on hooks, badly phrased hooks, dull hooks etc. David's pull was fine, we need to appreciate that things aren't the same the English-speaking world over, nor should we assume that everyone speaks American English. They don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The pull is fine, but this has been drawn out an insane amount (not just by David, don't get me wrong; we have a whole unnecessary and loud QPQ kerfuffle), and in the meantime, no one noticed DYK hadn't been updated for hours. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- DYK is updated once per day. What are you talking about please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Per day, or per 29 hours, in this case. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Big deal. Better to get it right than to rush it through. So your point is? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- DYK is updated once per day. What are you talking about please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The pull is fine, but this has been drawn out an insane amount (not just by David, don't get me wrong; we have a whole unnecessary and loud QPQ kerfuffle), and in the meantime, no one noticed DYK hadn't been updated for hours. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Are you under the impression that this was an isolated incident (as opposed to a reflection of an underlying problem that I seek to address)?
- Did you bring up my former username for some reason in particular? —David Levy 20:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Doubtless a perceived power trip that has backfired monumentally. Old Ribbet has his skeletons, but we're far too polite to bring them up. Best for everyone to close this down. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
DYK nomination for Élizabeth Teissier
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier is our oldest open nomination, proposed by Adam Cuerden in June. The discussion amounts to 40 kB of text, and a resolution is needed. The only issue remaining concerns the proposed hook and the DYK Reviewing guide requirement to Consider very carefully whether the hook puts undue emphasis on a negative aspect of a living individual. Err on the side of caution, and when in doubt, suggest an ALT hook.
Teissier was awarded a PhD from a respected French university for work defending astrology, and both her thesis and the university have come in for heavy criticism. Before promoting to the queues, it seems wise to seek broader input on whether there is undue emphasis under BLP in the proposals. BlueMoonset and StAnselm have been expressing concerns in the nomination but seem to see my recent proposal as having potential. So, I ask the DYK community for views on these proposals:
- (ALT11): ... that four French Nobel Laureates protested Élizabeth Teissier being awarded a doctorate in sociology by Paris Descartes University for a thesis defending astrology?
BlueMoonset suggested that "[p]erhaps if you specified that these were Nobel science laureates, it would be less negative? The negative aspect seems to me to be more about the awarding university than the person who was given the degree," leading to the proposal:
- (ALT11a): ... that four French Nobel laureates in science or medicine protested Paris Descartes University's decision to award a doctorate in sociology to Élizabeth Teissier for a thesis defending astrology?
StAnselm commented: "I don't think "in science or medicine" is a good addition. It makes no difference to neutrality, it makes it unwieldy, and it sounds like we don't know which field the Nobel prizes were in." So, Adam proposed:
- (ALT11b): ... that four French Nobel laureates protested Paris Descartes University's decision to award a doctorate in sociology to Élizabeth Teissier for a thesis defending astrology?
And I add
- (ALT11c): ... that four French Nobel laureates from scientific and medical fields protested Paris Descartes University's awarding of a sociology doctorate to Élizabeth Teissier for a thesis defending astrology?
I added this to address StAnselm's point about clarity while retaining the softening BlueMoonset suggested by including the laureate's fields; I also copyedited for brevity to stay under 200 characters. All input on the acceptability of these suggestions for the main page, and preferences between the alternatives is welcome. EdChem (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Prefer ALT11b:My view is that these are not unduely negative with the direction of the protest at the university rather than at Teissier herself, and I agree with StAnselm that the laureate's fields is unnecessary to the hook. EdChem (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)- Prefer ALT11b: per EdChem. StAnselm (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- ALT11b It's not unduly negative to touch on or imply that smart people know that astrology is nonsense. Giving the fields weighs the hooks down. EEng 02:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- ALT11b seems fine, and with the focus change to the university, I don't believe the Nobel fields are needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Following further discussion at the nomination page, we've ended up with another tweaked version:
- (ALT11e): ... that four French Nobel Prize-winning scientists protested Paris Descartes University's decision to award a doctorate in sociology to Élizabeth Teissier for a thesis defending astrology?
I invite StAnselm, EEng, and BlueMoonset to reconsider their preferences, if they wish. I also invite the nominator Adam Cuerden to comment, and as the concerns about undue negativity of a BLP on the main page are best resolved before posting, I invite Fram, The Rambling Man, and David Levy to provide input. I have chose these three admins as editors who have recently acted to protect the integrity of the main page and so can provide perspective on main page suitability. Opinions of all other editors here at WT:DYK are both welcome and encouraged. EdChem (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Prefer ALT11e: I have struck my previous preference because I think this re-wording to include the laureates as all scientists is relevant and much less intrusive in this form than in other options. EdChem (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- ALT11e 'cause I'm a go-along kinda guy. EEng 23:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- In theory, I'm fine with all of them, but think 11e is best. Can I propose this discussion count as reviewing it, with it being moved into the Queue when the discussion's done? Otherwise, we risk a situation where NOONE can close it, because everyone's involved. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, 11e looks fine to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my support based on the sourcing concerns raised on the nomination page. Apparently the French language source says only that the Nobel laureates were going to protest. StAnselm (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
My DYK activities
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a table illustrating the last three months of my activity at DYK as it relates to Fram's actions. I hope it is self-explanatory and I place it here to set the record straight.
Header text | Articles promoted by me in July |
Articles promoted by me in August |
Articles promoted by me in September |
Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
Prep 1 | 50 | 26 | 10 | 86 |
Prep 2 | 46 | 30 | 14 | 90 |
Prep 3 | 58 | 23 | 15 | 96 |
Prep 4 | 32 | 24 | 17 | 73 |
Prep 5 | 41 | 20 | 20 | 81 |
Prep 6 | 27 | 12 | 21 | 60 |
Total hooks promoted by me | 254 | 135 | 97 | 486 |
Total hooks promoted by me and pulled by Fram |
0 | 4 | 7 | 11 (2.3%) |
My own hooks appearing on main page * |
43 | 42 | 18 | 103 |
My own hooks pulled by Fram |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 (1%) |
Hooks I had reviewed pulled by Fram |
0 | 3 | 2 | 5 (4%) |
Total hooks appearing on main page* |
434 | 398 | 240 | 1072 |
Total hooks to which I contributed that were pulled by Fram* |
1 | 7 | 9 | 17 (2.4%) |
Notes
- Based on 31x14 hooks in July, 25x14 + 6x8 in August and 30x8 in September. There were probably fewer hooks than this because of occasional delays in loading queues.
- Based on my 103 DYKs, I would have done 103 QPQs, but in fact I do a number of voluntary extra reviews and so the total is probably at least 125.
- For details of which hooks were pulled by Fram, and how the figures were obtained, see my sandbox1.
- The total here is 11 hooks that I have promoted during the months of July, August and September 2016, and which were pulled by Fram, 5 hooks that I have reviewed and approved that were pulled by Fram and one hook (Notiomys) that I have nominated that was pulled by Fram. There have been a few other hooks that I promoted that were returned by other editors to the nominations page, but these editors do not publicise their actions in the same way that Fram does so are harder to track down.
I am really rather angry with Fram. Despite the tiny proportions of poor promotions (2.3%), reviews (1.6%) and nominations (1%), Fram has repeatedly been emphasizing my incompetence on this page, chose to blame me for the problems at DYK and tried to get me topic banned from DYK at the TRM case. Fortunately for me, ArbCom has more sense than to follow Fram's proposal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It's nice you are wagging your e-peen and stroking your ego but all this means nothing when repeated errors occur. You also really should not feel as if you got any sort of blessing just because something between uninvolved users in a case is not reviewed and/or adressed. For me as a simple reader that tried to peek behind the veneer of wikipedia DYK is a shambles and quite frankly, the joke pages. No offense to anyone personaly of course but it is my oppinion. Now surely someone will take massive offense by what i said and probably remove it but watching this page for a few weeks now... its just getting pathetic by ALL involved. Ego battles and little else yet no part of the Wikipedia is about any of you and can go on without any of you. It's about the reader and nothing else. Regards, a disillusioned reader 91.49.71.28 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- I, too, am perplexed to see this kind of outburst. You're not being dealt anything at Arbcom, so why not just let it slide and instead work on reducing the error rate? After all, that's pretty much all Fram and (formerly) I want. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Plus, I hardly edited in July (and not during some periods in August as well). Looking only at August and September, we get 16 of 638 hooks being pulled by me (how many by others?), which is closer to 2.5%. And this doesn't count things like The vulture and the little girl (Template:Did you know nominations/The vulture and the little girl), which you reviewed and approved, after which Yoninah noted that "There is close paraphrasing from several sources.", and after which I removed a hoax part(!) from the article[2]. Fram (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
(Post-archive edit conflict, important to note that the table above is clearly incorrect) Looking more closely at your table, you are giving "Total hooks to which I contributed
that were pulled by Fram*", but you achieve that number by counting the number of hooks I pulled with which you were involved (17, I haven't checked the numbers), compared to the total number of hooks that appeared on the main page in those the months, no matter if you were involved or not (or do you claim that every hook that appeared on the main page in those three months was either nominated, reviewed or promoted by you?). Basically, you "accidentally" took those numbers that resulted in the absolute lowest error rate for you, instead of presenting reality here. Looking back over the archives, it is obvious that I pulled or corrected hooks where you had no involvement at all, like Template:Did you know nominations/Freda Corbet, Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Burris, Template:Did you know nominations/Moses Bensinger, Template:Did you know nominations/Amafufunyana... So the percentage of errors you were involved with rises again. Next, you only counted hooks I pulled from the Main Page, not hooks pulled from prep or queue? Another inclrease of your error percentage probably... I'll better stop, or my method will give a 100%+ error rate, and that wouldn't be realistic either :-) Fram (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The table above was posted here for the record and archived before I had a chance to respond to anything. I have corrected the sandbox link and altered the percentage figure that was disputed from 1.6% to 2.4%, based on 17 hooks out of a total of 714. The pulled hooks were from the main page, queues and preps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived just under an hour ago, so here's a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through September 6. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 58 nominations have been approved, leaving 147 of 205 nominations still needing approval. The last several lists haven't attract many reviewers; I keep hoping we'll do better. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the 14 that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.
Over three months old:
Over six weeks old:
August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/List of athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics with a prior doping offence- August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Tmetuchl
- August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ağın Bridge
- August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia
- August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/XHLUV-FM
August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Zwölf Stücke, Op. 65- August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Luscombe Castle
August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Chapo Trap HouseAugust 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Lupe Fiasco versus Daigo Umehara- August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Dafo Temple, Zhangye
- August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Yale Institute of International Studies
August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/TEDES (traffic enforcement system)August 23: Template:Did you know nominations/John Hazelwood
Over a month old:
August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Bound (video game)August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Tharsis (video game)- August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Bilberg
- August 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Foyles Building
- August 27: Template:Did you know nominations/2016 Baku GP2 Series round
August 27: Template:Did you know nominations/The Word for World Is ForestAugust 27: Template:Did you know nominations/IWRG La Hora de la Verdad- August 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Numayrid dynasty
September 1: Template:Did you know nominations/The Mutants (musical collaboration)- September 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily
- September 2: Template:Did you know nominations/My Kind of Girl
September 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Gösta Peterson
Other old nominations:
- September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Honors (horse)
- September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Big Sur Folk Festival
- September 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Thoman Curtis
- September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Sambor Ghetto
- September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Humphrey Stafford (died 1442)
- September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Seattle Times Building
- September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Breakaway (video game)
- September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/De laude Cestrie
- September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Tank steering systems
- September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/New London Union Station
- September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford Blue (cheese)
- September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Capital Combat
- September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Min Yaza of Wun Zin
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) 02:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think we ought to close Élizabeth Teissier's DYK as being past its sell by date. I'd do it myself but I've already pulled the nom once. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I knew she'd never appear. It was just in the stars. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I unstruck it from the list earlier, noting that no conclusion had been reached and more eyes were needed. It was restruck without addressing either point. The article is ready and has been for a long time, the issue being the hook. Many seem to think "unduly negative" means anything negative, which is incorrect. We seemed close to consensus on a hook which directed the criticism towards te university, but ran into a sourcing issue, so I've offered an alternative which should not have the same issues:
- I knew she'd never appear. It was just in the stars. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- (ALT2b): ... that Paris Descartes University was criticised by the French Association for Scientific Information for its decision to award Élizabeth Teissier a doctorate for a thesis defending astrology?
- Is this really unduly negative for an astrologer that was awarded a PhD contending that astrology is unfairly persecuted by science, to say that her work was critiqued and the awarding university criticised? Am I really so wrong about what is truly undue negativity about a living person ? EdChem (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's a fact, isn't it? Or does it allow en.wiki to laugh along at those silly French Associations awarding PhDs about pseudoscience? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Is this really unduly negative for an astrologer that was awarded a PhD contending that astrology is unfairly persecuted by science, to say that her work was critiqued and the awarding university criticised? Am I really so wrong about what is truly undue negativity about a living person ? EdChem (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Kalanemi (Ramayana)
- I've resolved Template:Did you know nominations/Kalanemi (Ramayana) from July 25. Is this sufficient for a QPQ credit? EdChem (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Normally, I would expect somebody to check all aspects of a nom in order to qualify for a QPQ, but given that you resolved the remaining issues on a long-delayed nom and it has already been promoted, I personally would be prepared to make an exception in this instance, though others may differ. Gatoclass (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, Gatoclass. I'm not looking to push the envelope but it seems to me that some of the oldest noms will be addressed more readily if there is some recognition where it is appropriate. I looked at the top of the list and (as you are probably aware) have tried to push forward Adam Cuerden's nomination for the controversial PhD, I'm still trying to get a suitable hook for the Russian gay propaganda law (and I think we are close), and I've resolved the Kalanemi one and the Severn railway bridge one. Where suitable credit is available (like QPQ from Kalanemi and DYKmake for the gay propaganda), I'm in favour of it - but only within the consensus of the project, obviously. Hence my posting, looking for views. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- EdChem, I suggest you just claim it as a QPQ and if it gets queried, refer back to this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, Gatoclass. I'm not looking to push the envelope but it seems to me that some of the oldest noms will be addressed more readily if there is some recognition where it is appropriate. I looked at the top of the list and (as you are probably aware) have tried to push forward Adam Cuerden's nomination for the controversial PhD, I'm still trying to get a suitable hook for the Russian gay propaganda law (and I think we are close), and I've resolved the Kalanemi one and the Severn railway bridge one. Where suitable credit is available (like QPQ from Kalanemi and DYKmake for the gay propaganda), I'm in favour of it - but only within the consensus of the project, obviously. Hence my posting, looking for views. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Normally, I would expect somebody to check all aspects of a nom in order to qualify for a QPQ, but given that you resolved the remaining issues on a long-delayed nom and it has already been promoted, I personally would be prepared to make an exception in this instance, though others may differ. Gatoclass (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've resolved Template:Did you know nominations/Kalanemi (Ramayana) from July 25. Is this sufficient for a QPQ credit? EdChem (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Prep 2: Heaven and Hell?
Just noticed in Prep 2 we have the Church of England as the lead hook, yet right at the bottom we have reference to a satanic prayer. Is this an intentional contrast between good at the top and evil at the bottom or an unfortunately risky coincidence? Personally, I'm not too sure we should really be mixing a Christian hook and a satanic hook in the same set. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? EEng 10:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Even if it was unintentional, it's an interesting pairing (both mix religion and legislatures, which is a rare coincidence) which I think we should retain. GRAPPLE X 10:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Hell hook may be another good candidate for use on MainPage on Halloween. --PFHLai (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good point PFHLai, but we don't seem to have a Halloween section on the nominations page, is it being maintained somewhere else? Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, adding special occasion dates like Halloween usually aren't done until there are hooks that should be saved for them, though sometimes someone opens the date in the expectation that hooks will follow. Please feel free to add an October 31 header in that section (it shouldn't go or be anywhere else); I think, however, that nominators should be allowed to decide whether their hooks are saved for Halloween, and be able to request that they be returned to prep right away if that's their preference. Pinging Borsoka for the Dan III of Wallachia hook, and Dustinlull and Sgerbic for this Sohor hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think Suhor's page really needs to be listed on the Halloween themed DYK, I don't see it as a Satanic issue, but a Church/State issue. I do like the idea of themed DYK's, just don't think the Suhor page belongs there. BTW I don't think Satanists really believe in Hell, Suhor is an Atheist, so no belief in a God or Gods either. But whatever is decided, I'm fine with.Sgerbic (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, adding special occasion dates like Halloween usually aren't done until there are hooks that should be saved for them, though sometimes someone opens the date in the expectation that hooks will follow. Please feel free to add an October 31 header in that section (it shouldn't go or be anywhere else); I think, however, that nominators should be allowed to decide whether their hooks are saved for Halloween, and be able to request that they be returned to prep right away if that's their preference. Pinging Borsoka for the Dan III of Wallachia hook, and Dustinlull and Sgerbic for this Sohor hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good point PFHLai, but we don't seem to have a Halloween section on the nominations page, is it being maintained somewhere else? Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Moved back to WP:DYKN. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Added Halloween section to the Special Occasions holding area. I see other hooks for that date waiting to be approved. Yoninah (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gato, I really don't think we should be pulling hooks because someone suggested it may work another time without asking the nominator. If someone thinks a hook may work better elsewhere, then the courteous thing to do would be to ask the nominator directly on their talk page and ping them. Only if they agree should it be moved and even if they do not reply, we should not imply that there is consent. Indeed I once proposed a supplemental rule to that effect for courtesy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with what Sgerbic said above: This is not a Halloween topic, but rather a church/state issue.Dustinlull (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. I think listing of Dan III of Wallachia on the Halloween themed DYK is a good idea. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Borsoka, I've just moved Dan III of Wallachia to the Halloween DYK holding area. Thanks for your quick response. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, please repromote the Suhor hook to prep per the nominator and creator. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I took care of that. Now on Prep 5. --PFHLai (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, please repromote the Suhor hook to prep per the nominator and creator. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Borsoka, I've just moved Dan III of Wallachia to the Halloween DYK holding area. Thanks for your quick response. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. I think listing of Dan III of Wallachia on the Halloween themed DYK is a good idea. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Sgerbic, you are correct of course that your article concerns a Church/State issue, but when selecting hooks for a "theme" day, it is considered sufficient if the hook merely contains an element relating to the theme, regardless of the subject of the hook or the article. It would in other words be perfectly in keeping with usual practice to run a hook mentioning "Satanic prayer" on Halloween, so I would still like to run it on that day if you have no objection. Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, both Dustinlull (nominator) and Sgerbic (creator) have already expressed a preference that it not be run on Halloween. If both agree to change their minds, that's fine, but until and unless both do, it should remain in prep where it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Removed from prep once again
This time from prep6 (it was already in prep 2 and prep5, I believe). I don't know whether the hook was correct or not, but the promotion clearly wasn't done correctly.
Template:Did you know nominations/David Suhor @Sgerbic, Dustinlull, Gronk Oz, SojoQ, Cwmhiraeth, Gatoclass, and PFHLai:
Problems:
- Cwmhiraeth reviewed and promoted Alt1
- A source quote for Alt1 is provided in the DYK nomination: "Source:"On July 14, 2016 Suhor (now recognized as the co-founder of the local chapter of the Satanic Temple) sang a Satanic invocation before the City Council.[1]" The problem is that this quote is taken from the Wikipedia article, not from any separate source.
- The source given for the alt in the article, nor the additional source in the DYK template[3][4] mention anything being sung. There is a "prayer", an "invocation" being "delivered" or "given".
Now, there may well be other sources indicating that this was sung, but this can't be determined from the article nor the DYK nomination, so this should not have been promoted, and certainly not by the same person reviewing the hook.
I'm also not convinced that having a 400 word quote and a 200-word quote isn't serious overkill and more a copyright violation than true fair use, certainly considering that the two quotes are not the subject of much controversy or discussion (unlike the satanic invocation which is not quoted in the article). Fram (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fram, it isn't prohibited to promote a hook you reviewed, it just isn't considered best practice, that's all. Regarding the singing - I think you are wrong about this because I checked that out myself only the other day and I'm sure there is at least one source that says he sang it (in a "mock Gregorian chant" if I recall correctly) and there is also video of the event which I didn't look at but which presumably also confirms it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here's a source which confirms it.[5] Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Gatoclass, you're wrong, it is prohibited. "Nominations may only be promoted by uninvolved parties who were neither the article creator, nor the nominator or reviewer." And please explain to me: "Regarding the singing - I think you are wrong about this": what was it I said that was wrong? Fram (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- That should have been @Gatoclass: of course... Fram (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fram, you said it "couldn't be determined from the article", but the article contains at least two sources that say he sang it. And if that isn't good enough for you, here's a video of him singing it.
- Regarding the quote about promotion, I don't know where you got that from but it isn't correct and is contradicted elsewhere in the rules. This would seem to be another case of elements of the rules not being up-to-date with actual practice. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I meant "from the sources following the hook sentence in the article", not the article as a whole. I thought that was clear in the context of the full sentence, but apparently not. Please indicate where in the rules "reviewing and promoting by same person" is allowed, and how you determined that that was the right rule and my quote was a wrong one. Just saying that my quote "isn't correct and is contradicted elsewhere" is just a bit too easy. Fram (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fram, WP:DYK/G states: Avoid selecting your own suggestions. When possible, it is also best to avoid selecting the same article that you reviewed. Also, Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas states: When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. So our rules are once again inconsistent. No matter, combining reviewing and promoting is something that should at least be "avoided" and at most is prohibited, so a good idea it certainly wasnt'. And this hook is an example in case, as the hook was not supported by the sources that supposedly should support it, and no one even noticed that the quote given in the nomination (which is a new and in theory good idea) didn't came from a source but from our own Wikipedia article. Two separate people making that same mistake of not noticing either of these problems would have been at least a lot less likely than one person taking on the two roles. Fram (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, I honestly don't know when it is not possible to avoid promoting a hook that one has reviewed. It shouldn't ever be necessary—maybe if we're down to half a dozen approved hooks, but I can't imagine a situation when another hook would not be available. In actual practice, we've treated it as tantamount to a prohibition here for years, even if not specifically written down as such, and we've reverted approval/promotions in the past. From my earliest days here, it's been considered desirable to have a new set of eyes at every stage in the DYK process. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- It might be "possible" to avoid it, but that doesn't mean it's desirable - if a hook is the best fit for a set, then that's the hook that should be promoted. It's a nice idea in theory to have different users for every stage of the process, because that should theoretically lead to better quality control, but the reality is that there's little evidence of it doing so. The bottom line is that there's no substitute for a thorough review at some stage of the process, and set builders are in the worst possible position to provide that. I think the current wording has got it about right - promoting articles you personally have reviewed should be avoided if you can reasonably manage to do so, but I think outright prohibiting it is just going to add more red tape and more work to the tiny number of already overburdened contributors who keep DYK running. Gatoclass (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Back in the day when there weren't that many approved hooks in reserve, it was harder to avoid hooks that you'd approved. Nowadays, with 30 to 80 hooks awaiting promotion, it's doesn't take much extra effort to find one you haven't reviewed. Get down into the teens or below, and it does become a problem, but not otherwise. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- It might be "possible" to avoid it, but that doesn't mean it's desirable - if a hook is the best fit for a set, then that's the hook that should be promoted. It's a nice idea in theory to have different users for every stage of the process, because that should theoretically lead to better quality control, but the reality is that there's little evidence of it doing so. The bottom line is that there's no substitute for a thorough review at some stage of the process, and set builders are in the worst possible position to provide that. I think the current wording has got it about right - promoting articles you personally have reviewed should be avoided if you can reasonably manage to do so, but I think outright prohibiting it is just going to add more red tape and more work to the tiny number of already overburdened contributors who keep DYK running. Gatoclass (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, I honestly don't know when it is not possible to avoid promoting a hook that one has reviewed. It shouldn't ever be necessary—maybe if we're down to half a dozen approved hooks, but I can't imagine a situation when another hook would not be available. In actual practice, we've treated it as tantamount to a prohibition here for years, even if not specifically written down as such, and we've reverted approval/promotions in the past. From my earliest days here, it's been considered desirable to have a new set of eyes at every stage in the DYK process. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. So our rules are once again inconsistent. No matter, combining reviewing and promoting is something that should at least be "avoided" and at most is prohibited, so a good idea it certainly wasnt'. And this hook is an example in case, as the hook was not supported by the sources that supposedly should support it, and no one even noticed that the quote given in the nomination (which is a new and in theory good idea) didn't came from a source but from our own Wikipedia article. Two separate people making that same mistake of not noticing either of these problems would have been at least a lot less likely than one person taking on the two roles. Fram (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fram, WP:DYK/G states: Avoid selecting your own suggestions. When possible, it is also best to avoid selecting the same article that you reviewed. Also, Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas states: When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I meant "from the sources following the hook sentence in the article", not the article as a whole. I thought that was clear in the context of the full sentence, but apparently not. Please indicate where in the rules "reviewing and promoting by same person" is allowed, and how you determined that that was the right rule and my quote was a wrong one. Just saying that my quote "isn't correct and is contradicted elsewhere" is just a bit too easy. Fram (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Fram: I did not review this nomination. It may have escaped your attention that the original hook was reviewed and approved by Gronk Oz. I then queried the second half of the hook and ALT1 was merely the first half of an already approved hook, the part I had queried having been removed. On that basis I replaced the tick and later promoted the nomination (it had already been hanging around for two months). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I know you didn't actually review the nomination. Why you then gave it a green tick and promoted it is beyond me, as both reviewers and promotors have to check the hook. Whether the hook was a day, a week or a month old is of course totally irrelevant, we shouldn't lower the standards of review because a nomination is older than most. You are the most active promotor, so if you don't know what you should do (or know what you should do but can't be bothered) this means that the two-level check we normally have is now effectively reduced to a one-level check. Oh, and the original hook was not approved or reviewed by Gronk Oz... Fram (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are correct, the original reviewer was SojoQ and not Gronk Oz. I would have thought you might congratulate me rather than condemn me for my actions in connection with this nomination. ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I know you didn't actually review the nomination. Why you then gave it a green tick and promoted it is beyond me, as both reviewers and promotors have to check the hook. Whether the hook was a day, a week or a month old is of course totally irrelevant, we shouldn't lower the standards of review because a nomination is older than most. You are the most active promotor, so if you don't know what you should do (or know what you should do but can't be bothered) this means that the two-level check we normally have is now effectively reduced to a one-level check. Oh, and the original hook was not approved or reviewed by Gronk Oz... Fram (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Queue 3
The lead hook should have a (pictured) after the subject, and I suggest adding "the" before the name of the plant. Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Added (pictured), but "the" in that spot would not be necessary in American use of the language. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm no botanist, but I think even in American usage you'd say "the Australian Pink Rose is [etc]" or whatever, not simply "Australian Pink Rose is [etc]". The usual fight is whether to say "Economist John Smith" vs. "The economist John Smith". EEng 23:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looking back through the archives, it seems it's been a bit of a mixed bag in the past, so although I'm inclined to the view that the definite article would be more appropriate, I think I will leave it as is. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ah EEng, you truly are a a rose among the grammar thorns. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm no botanist, but I think even in American usage you'd say "the Australian Pink Rose is [etc]" or whatever, not simply "Australian Pink Rose is [etc]". The usual fight is whether to say "Economist John Smith" vs. "The economist John Smith". EEng 23:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
This time I am hoping to get my nomination of Rico Harris approved in time for the two-year anniversary of his disappearance on Monday—I notice that the queues for that date really haven't been put together yet. If this doesn't work, I can always amend the hook to use a date later next week, as outlined in the nomination (And this time I made sure to do a copyvio check on my QPQ). Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Done Approved and ready to be promoted to Prep 6, which could use another bio. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Prep 1
Now this may be what the sources used say, but neon lights don't tend to be able to be dimmed, nor would they usually be used in bars, toilets etc. Was the theatre really lit entirely by neon? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I thought about that, but its what the sources say, and I feared the Thought police would be after me if I promoted the hook without adding the word "entirely". There may have been theatres elsewhere in Australia that were partially lit by neon lighting at that time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
48-hour cycle?
I'm thinking we may soon have to go to a 48-hour cycle. It's unprecedented, but since going to a 24-hour cycle several weeks ago to allow the number of nominations to increase, the number has actually declined with currently only 187 on the nominations page and nothing in prep. Gatoclass (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ick, that would throw off some of the calculations based on the time between updates I added on Wikipedia:Did you know/Lore. Pppery 13:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- There are currently 45 approved hooks, that's five whole prep area that can be filled. Personally I've stepped away from prep building a bit due to the toxic environment where blame in instead of constructive cooperation seems to be the way to go. MPJ-DK 14:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)