Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals


 * Variety of reform proposals and discussion, copied from Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

Good articles redux
Given this trial at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_62 which ended 22/18 after one month of voting - is it worth relooking at as a trial? There is some discussion at Requests for comment/Main Page features. I'd normally not do anything but I doubt there will be clear consensus or plan of action on that page for a couple of months. So how about the following, which is modest and doesn't disrupt the existing process much. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To whit - I am proposing a modest trial outlined below, that doesn't impact greatly on the current process but give us a flavour of possible how it'd work?


 * Recently Listed Good Articles eligible - i.e. within five days of Listing.


 * A limit of 1 (or 2) GAs per set of hooks (please specify number below).


 * Change mainpage from "newest articles" (which 5x expansions aren't anyway) to "newest and newly-improved articles"


 * Review after a month and see how folks feel about it.

Support

 * 1) Support It has to be acknowledged that Wikipedia is ten years old and needs to slightly shift focus from quantity to quality. Since DYK includes quantitative improvements (i.e. 5x size) it should also allow major qualitative improvements (i.e. reaching GA status). I think a short trial as proposed is a good idea with no major risks involved and it would be fair to test the assumptions of both supporters and opposers of the proposal. GA's which already featured as DYK should be excluded IMO. I think one GA per set of hooks would suffice for the trial, but I would like to see it at the top of the group. --Elekhh (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't see any harm in a trial, but care must be taken so that we aren't biased towards a certain topic area. The arts and sports articles have a higher GA rate than other areas. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, with a caveat, which is probably obvious anyway, that newly made GAs that had previously been on DYK are not eligible and don't get to be featured twice. For the most part this is of no practical significance, but I have seen some articles go from new->DYK->GA very quickly (one of mine travelled this path in less than two weeks). The inclusion of GAs in DYK should be a reward for genuine old-article improvement, which is the essence of this proposal as I understand it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Great idea, let's at least try it and see how it goes. Malleus Fatuorum 07:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm a bit wary, but let's see how a trial goes. There's no harm in that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) I'd like to see a trial of this.  It seems like a way to get some more high-quality content on the main page, encourage GA writers and reviewers, and foster a bit of crossover between DYK reviewing and GA reviewing.  The Interior  (Talk) 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support. Elekhh hit the nail on the head - we need to shift our focus from quantity to quality. As mentioned in the section above this one, some of the articles that appear on DYK are really quite embarrassing as they haven't been checked for sanity by anyone familiar with the topic. More importantly, since DYK articles have to consist of a substantial quantity of new content, this excludes anyone who takes a slow collaborative approach to building articles - i.e. the wiki way. Instead it rewards authors who write their articles offline and then post the finished product. These articles are then rushed through DYK before anyone familiar with the topic has had a chance to look at them. Good articles have none of these problems and are much more deserving a spot on the main page. At the very least, we shouldn't be completely excluding them. Kaldari (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rushed? nominations typically sit for a week or two before being used.  Can you provide examples of articles that haven't been checked for sanity?  This isn't a DYK problem in any case, as I've seen embarassing GA approvals as well. Why haven't editors in the various projects stopped in to help with that?  I typically check articles against their sources, and evaluate sources when I approve hooks.  You could do the same, and so can others.  With a week or more before the nominations are used, that gives you plenty of time to help.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree we sometimes have embarrassing GA approvals as well, but if the article has been around for a while it's far more likely that someone knowledgeable on the topic will have stumbled across it and fixed the glaring errors. Now that I've noticed the problem, I'm definitely going to try to be more active at looking at DYK nominations before they go live (rather than after), but regardless, I don't think adding in some GA articles will hurt anything. Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support There are a fair number of GAs which don't have much FA potential. The proposal both allows for more of our better articles to be brought to public attention and for users who improve Wikipedia to get their work seen more by the public. I don't see it as greatly increasing the workload here as the articles will already have been vetted to some extent.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Elekhh. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support Sounds like a great idea, I think it will probably lead to increased interest in improving articles. Perhaps we should give the top slot with a picture to a GA. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would expect to see the opposite result. On Wiktionary, we feature a "Word of the Day", and this is never a fully-polished entry.  When the word goes up, we get lots of activity adding trandslations and quotations, and other sorts of improvements.  When an article is already at GA, I expect there to be less involvement in improvement, since there will be less opportunity for a general reader to participate if the article has alreay gone through a review process. Putting the GA first is also a bad idea, as it overemphasizes that article, limits the GA choice to a suitably-illustrated one, and prevents the new articles from having their photos featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment about "increased interest in improving articles" was in regards to people being more interested in bringing articles to GA if they knew they could get main page territory. I don't see why we shouldn't give the slot that gets the most hits to the best written article. I also don't see the problem with drawing illustrations from GAs, from a reader's perspective at least. (Of course people writing new DYK articles with good pictures or GAs without good illustrations wouldn't like it, but you can't please everybody.) Qrsdogg (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If DYK were limited to new articles, this would be radical. But it isn't - it already includes articles that have substantially improved in quantity (5x expansion) - so on what basis are we excluding articles that have substantially improved in quality as measured by peer review (Good Articles)? Frankly, a lot of the opposition to this would seem WP:OWNery if exhibited on an article. Rd232 talk 21:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I think it's good to give GAs some exposure; a trial won't hurt. Ucucha 12:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) It would be good to gives articles a chance to be featured if someone revamps a fairly large article (impossible to make eligible under DYK rules) and gets it to GA status.  The only caveat is making sure the article is thoroughly examined because of the potential for substandard GAs. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 12:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support DYK is a good idea, but not for new articles. I'd much prefer GAs to be put in their place. At the moment, we award an article GA status, but nothing comes of it. This would be the ideal place to feature articles that are good but not as good as featured ones. We have long since passed the time of needing an incentive to create new articles. AD 11:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I've thought this for a long time now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm not so sure about the idea, but we rather ought to run a trial and I don't see any harm in that. &mdash;innotata 19:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, DYK isn't working at all, and there is no longer a need to encourage new article creation on Wikipedia; there is a much greater need to encourage article improvements to Wikipedia standards than there is to put up new content that does not often meet standards and requires cleanup by experienced editors, of which we no longer have enough. Replace DYK entirely with daily GAs, perhaps two can fill the space currently occupied by DYK, and they need not be recent-- they need to be vetted by a directorate, which DYK does not have (I suggest GA-experienced editors, so the DYK crowd doesn't just move over to GA to put up inferior content on the mainpage under a different name).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. One GA hook per set. This is a modest proposal which would help to put more quality content on the front page, while still allowing traditional DYK hooks to appear there as well. No plausible arguments have been presented as to why it could possibly be a bad thing. This is not an attempt to destroy DYK, it is not the thin end of the wedge of some conspiracy against DYK, it is just a minor and much-needed improvement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support as one of a number of options for cleaning up the DYK debacle. Tony   (talk)  00:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Run the pilot. We need to be less hesitant about trying things and getting data, vice spending years debating things.  The whole project is a trial.  Let's see how this thing does, even if you hate or fear it.  Nothing will blow up from trying it!TCO (reviews needed)  03:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support It is time to change DYK's focus from not only encouraging new content, but to also encourage improved content. Out of all the recent proposals this one would accomplish that goal best. It is only a trial this, worst case scenario we go back to how it was before. AIR corn (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support It's a step in the right direction. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Getting GAs some exposure would generally be a positive. Rlendog (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would actually expand this to FLs and to FAs that have not yet been in the featured article space on the main page.Rlendog (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you really are looking for TFA lite? r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - A lot of GAs have some very interesting or humourous facts that could be used in DYK. —  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 10:17am • 00:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I think it is a good idea to include newly promoted "GA" as an acceptable criteria. I can not see a down side to running a trial of this proposal My76Strat (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support It seems like a good idea to include them on the main page. This would also improve the quality of WP. A separate section would also be a good idea. In fact, I think just putting Good articles/recent in the DYK section would be a good idea.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - With a few notable exceptions (and most of them are the 5x expansion DYKs), GAs are, as a rule, far better quality than DYKs. I'm not referring to length. Many DYKs have bare URLs or URLs with titles as sources. Many have poor grammar or citations to primary sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A shift in focus from quantity to quality that should have taken place years ago. Lampman (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) The way GA has been running lately, there is little difference between GA and FA for many reviewers.  Articles up for GA are often pushed to FA standards, so those articles should soon have a chance for the Main Page anyway.  I also prefer a uniform set of criteria, not a this-or-that blend in DYK.  It makes the entire process much easier to manage. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please consider that in the last ten years there were 3,335 FAs produced while 12,336 GAs which means there are four times more GAs than FAs. Most FAs have been promoted without being GAs before. Those editors who wish to bring the article from GA further to FA most likely will not bother to nominate for DYK. So doubling wouldn't be frequent, probably not more than between DYKs and FAs anyway. Your other argument is about the difficulty to manage an extra rule. Well, why not be friendly towards those who think that this is a good idea and allow for a trial. Than the results could be evaluated and your concerns proven to be justified. --Elekhh (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument supports my point, in that if so many articles are making FA without ever going through GA, then the function of those two processes has become largely the same. We don't need to double-dip the highly improved articles. Featuring the new articles will do much more to encourage newbies that will featuring GAs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) In just the past couple of weeks I have seen proposals from Tony1 to reduce the number of DYKs per day to 8 and to replace an unspecified fraction of DYK with a large image promoting one article. SandyGeorgia now proposes getting rid of DYK entirely, to make more room for more featured content. DYK is a wonderful feature of the Main Page and it is there to promote creation of new content. There are many other wonderful goals in the world, but it would be better to do a very good job on DYK's own good goals than to start pursuing radically different good goals.    Sharktopus  talk  03:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought DYK and GA have the same goal, which is to improve Wikipedia. This is a proposal to trial a possible improvement of DYK. If this minor proposal cannot be tested, I'm afraid the number of those calling for truly radical change will increase. --Elekhh (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The goal of DYK is giving "publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles. This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles and the encyclopedia, and brings new and expanded articles to the attention of readers who view the Main Page." That is the way we "improve Wikipedia" here. Of course the goal of every feature on the Main Page is to improve Wikipedia," but reviewing and selecting GAs for exposure is much closer to the mission and expertise of the FA section than to DYK's.   Sharktopus  talk  11:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're misguided, GA is not about reviewing and selecting, it is about qualitative improvement. I don't think the concept of having a DYK which stands only for quantity is tenable. --Elekhh (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DYK is about reviewing and selecting new content of quality. But I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion, and perhaps you don't either?   Sharktopus  talk  14:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If there is a need to feature recently promoted GAs on the main page, why not propose just that as its own section? DYK's purpose is to feature new content, encouraging both new editors and frequent content creators. Diverting 25-33% of the slots to freshly-minted GAs would divert DYK from its mission, create a slippery slope towards the de facto destruction of DYK as the same tiny group of editors propose these changes over and over until something sticks, and only add to the workload of DYK reviewers with no benefit to DTK's mission. - Dravecky (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are about 100 times more new articles than GAs. That's 1% not 25-33%. No reason to be scared. --Elekhh (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposal is for one or two hooks per DYK. That's not 1% - it's a lot more. That's why people are concerned about this proposal: it devalues the new content creation process. VIWS talk 21:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) For the same reasons I have given in all the previous repetitions of this perennial proposal (e.g. Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page, Village pump (proposals)/Archive 62, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 33). GA status means nothing to our readers, most of them don't even know what a GA is; this proposal has always seemed to me to be more about editors wanting to scratch their own backs then about improving the experience for readers. Is there anything new in this proposal that hasn't already been gone over in the numerous previous discussions? r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that including Good Articles would not improve the experience for readers? Considering how abysmal some of our DYK articles are, I think we could only stand to improve from this change. Kaldari (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is already discussed at length in the numerous links I posted above; please take the time to read them. And, as Sharktopus pointed out above, take care not to bludgeon the discussion. There is no need for you guys to respond to every single opposing comment; your opinions are already known. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with Dravecky that this would be better done in a separate section (and I'd support it there), as mixing these two in one section would confuse and dilute the important mission of DYK in encouraging new content creation. -- Khazar (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't writing good articles part of new content creation? More importantly, isn't it about adding high quality new content, which is the one thing that Wikipedia really needs to support more of? Last time I checked, we weren't suffering from a lack of articles. Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, what's with the badgering of each oppose vote here? Second, I think you're missing the point a bit. I agree that encouraging the refinement of articles is important, which is why I'd be fine with a section of the front page that recognizes GAs as we do FAs. But I also think that quality first-stage content creation is equally important to recognize. Because the truth is, Wikipedia is suffering from a lack of articles, at least on certain subjects. Check out the DYK section of my my user page, if you like; all of those appeared on DYK since May of this year, and I'd estimate that 49-50 of the 53 were wholly new. You can argue that Ali Salem (Egypt's most famous playwright), Zayar Thaw (a well-known Burmese hiphop artist, now a political prisoner), Thepchai Yong (an internationally-recognized Thai journalist who heads the country's largest TV network), or U Gambira (leader of the monks in Burma's 2007 "Saffron Revolution") don't belong in Wikipedia, I guess, and that we should stop encouraging people to create articles like those. But IMHO, you'd be wrong; to keep the encyclopedia growing, we need to continue to expand our coverage in both breadth (quantity) and depth (quality), and our awards and front page should reflect that. I get a bit tired of those interested only in the latter dropping by to deride even the idea of working on the former. -- Khazar (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, it is not badgering, is a good faith attempt for dialogue. Second, the proposal is not to stop encouraging new articles or expanding articles. It is about a sensible shift after ten years of creating new content towards encouraging quality improvement. There are still 100 times more new articles created than GAs and there are 1,813,206 stubs waiting for expansion. --Elekhh (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Per the other opposes, in particular rʨanaɢ and Khazar. This suggestion is step towards disbanding DYK as it is today - by reducing the newness and the variety. Manxruler (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per the other opposes, for a broad international and cultural representation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) For many of the reasons above.  DYK encourages new content, and that remains an important element in the continuing development of Wikipedia.  Placing featured articles on the main page promotes those who work to elevate articles to top quality level.  Both elements are important.  Already, FA is more prominently featured than DYK, but the current balance is appropriate in my mind.  By watering down DYK with inclusion of GAs, it shifts the focus further toward the top quality element at the further expense of new content. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Rjanag and Khazar. cmadler (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree with just about all of the oppose reasons given above. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) The point of DYK is to foster new content and feature users' work on the main page, if only for a moment. I think it works fabulously as an incentive to create new articles, and I have to oppose any proposal to modify it with GA material. Nomader  ( talk ) 20:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) DYK should encourage new content. Personally, I would like to see new GA's replace the stagnant "On this day".--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) There are still tons of valid topics without substantial articles, so we need to continue encouraging new articles. Someone who comes to DYK and starts imposing his own criteria for reviews should not be surprised to find a "DYK debacle" — when you try to impose your own will on everyone else, a debacle will result that consists of your own actions.  Stop making up crises when they don't exist.  Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Trisakti shootings was just created a few months ago, and it is one of the more important events in Indonesian history, comparable to the Kent State shootings. Numerous other important Indonesia-related articles have not been created. Other areas are also underrepresented, including some lesser-known ethnic groups and languages (which we can hopefully all agree are notable). Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - DYK is about new or newly expanded content which meets basic article criteria. GA is about gradual, rigorously qualitatively improved content which meets Good Article criteria. We agree? These things label themselves: "New Content" and "Improved Content". There you go. Whenever a GA goes through, it gets a box below, or next to the DYK box, which with decorum, announces, "The following new articles have, after extensive review and improvement, reached Good Article status: (short list)". YAY. No need to horn in on DYK, since the goals, skills, and accomplishments are, by definition, completely different!  GAs are long, DYK articles are usually short! Why would you want to horn in on DYK anyways?  I have the sneaking suspicion you're here discussing this because it's deucedly difficult to add a section to the main page...  --Lexein (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only good faith will bring us forward, not suspicion. Otherwise I don't really understand your arguments: How can an article have a different goal (than informing the reader) only for appearing in DYK? How is new content "completely different!" from improved content? Is not an improvement? Why would short articles not mix with long ones? Btw ....did you know that GAs can be short while DYKs can be long!--Elekhh (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose rʨanaɢ and Khazar sum up a lot of the valid reasons for opposing this plan. Above all, GA is just a trumped up peer-review positioning itself as FA-lite. While the peer-reviewing and improvement from GA is certainly admirable, I don't think it is distinguished enough to shoe horn into DYK and push the highlighting of new content off the main page. I understand that it won't completely replace DYK, every slot given to a GA is one less slot that goes to a new content DYK. AgneCheese/Wine 05:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - we have too many noms already, how are we going to deal with even more of them? This is going to create more work for everyone involved, not less. Apart from which, many DYKs go on to become GAs in any case. No-one with an eligible GA need miss out on a DYK as things currently stand, so what is the point? Gatoclass (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Maybe tighten up a little, but we don't need to create another monster. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Upping the length requirement is a simpler first step. This presents the viewer with a lottery where some clicks take them to new, short articles and others to well-developed pieces. Marking them as such in the DYK box would be messy too, as the average DYK clicker doesn't know/care about GA ratings. I also have concerns about entering into a trial with no means of measuring the success or failure of the trial.as discussed below It will simply result in this same support/oppose discussion after a month  Jebus989 ✰ 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Remember that DYK is not only a means of recognizing new content, it is a means of improving that content by eliciting feedback in the DYK review process, as well as bringing articles to the attention of editors who have knowledge and resources to further improve the article, and members of WikiProjects who can tag these new articles. None of those things will really happen with a GA, and the value of DYK is diminished because of it. If you want to feature GA content on the main page, please do so, but do it somewhere else. VIWS talk 21:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Imho new content needs more championing than GA. That's not to say GA cant find other ways to motivate its proponents. AshLin (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. I agree with Rjanag's rationale.  Spencer T♦ C 04:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per rʨanaɢ and Dravecky. If GA were to be included on the main page, then it should have its own section.  Royal broil  11:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Royalbroil. Which means per rʨanaɢ and Dravecky. And GA's own section. DYK is a firm part of Wikipedia and does not need to be taken down.  Rcsprinter  (talk)  16:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Do GA nominations for DYK need to commit to a QPQ review? If not, DYK will be swamped overnight. Besides, this seems to be entirely going against the discussions further down this page to reduce the volume of articles through DYK - and besides, every time there's a GA review-a-thon it'll result in DYK suddenly having an extra 200 hooks appear in the space of a week. The system cannot expect to cope with that sort of burden. It seems to me that if you want the latest GAs to be listed on the main page, then how about taking the recently promoted GA template from WP:GA and placing that on the main page - it's straight forward, requires no reviews and the bot updates it automatically. Miyagawa   (talk)  12:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think if GAs are going on the front page, they should be highlighted as good articles. That is, I don't want them mixed in the same box with new articles. I think a better idea would be to highlight GAs some days and new articles other days (like every other day), or have a separate box for GAs entirely. —Designate (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DYKs are a mix of new articles and old articles improved through quantitative expansion (5x). Adding qualitatively improved articles does not really change the current new-old mix. The difference between new, 5x-expanded and GA articles might be important for editors, but readers just want to see quality content. --Elekhh (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The 5x expanded articles are at least 80%-new prose and usually more than that so they genuinely are 'new' content. I do support the idea of a separate box for newly promoted GAs, perhaps in a screen-wide box under the featured picture. - Dravecky (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think GA has the strength to support a section on its own on the main page. I think the proposal would benefit both GA and DYK. --Elekhh (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some folks (like me) are in favor of eliminating the "featured picture", as this is something Commons already does. I would think it could be replaced with a GA section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FPs often get more views than DYKs, so there is clearly interest for them. Also the current poll shows that editors appreciate FPs and rather consider the main page should have more, not less images. --Elekhh (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If people cared about providing readers with quality content, then they would be arguing for the inclusion of new FAs, which are of higher quality than GAs. Ever since this was first proposed nearly 3 years ago (and there may be earlier proposals I'm not aware of), people have been wanting this as a way to reward editors who write GAs, not as a way to improve the experience for readers. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think some people are missing the point here: some opposers state that DYK is for new/expanded articles, and they seem to be unable to budge on this opinion. The fact is, DYK can be for anything, if there is agreement to change it. We don't have to stick with new articles just because it's always been that way. As I noted in my support we are long past the time where we need an incentive to create new articles. Why should new articles get exposure on the main page, over someone who slaved away making a good article who will get no such time? AD 11:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I argued with Tony1 about this over beers on Friday night. I am thinking we do this instead of reducing, and was thinking of 1 (or 2) initially so the reduction would be minor only and we could see how it goes and how folks enjoyed it. I also think that as many GAs are only reviewed by one reviewer, it might be a good way of a fair number of them just getting a second pair of eyes on them before (hopefully) going to FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about suggesting to Tony1 next time you get together for beers that your joint project be hosted by FA for a month instead of by DYK? They have more pixels than DYK, the mission and editor expertise there are more similar, plus this would give FA an inside track to overseeing GA. Furthermore, since writing the actual FA blurb seems to be a last-minute job with little oversight, it might be good to make FA blurbs shorter.   Sharktopus  talk  20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we set a designated 'end' date to possibly blunt some of the opposers' wariness? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's part of the proposal, it says clearly that is for one month. --Elekhh (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the proposal says nothing about how we will gauge the success/failure of all this. Is the proposal simply saying that we'll do it for a month, and then go through the same set of arguments again, or is there some objective way we can gauge whether all this wrangling has resulted in something positive? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely being a bit more empirical could help... I would have thought. --Elekhh (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Every empirical scientist first establishes a plan for the experiment, so that he or she will be prepared to watch for and interpret the data, and will have set up the equipment necessary to collect the data generated by the experiment. Will the data be temperture changes, and thus reuire a thermometer, or will the data be in the form of spectrum absorbancy, in which case a spectrophotometer is needed.  Not being prepared means that data will likely be missed, and almost certainly misinterpreted.  Setting out raw meat which then produced maggots spontaneously was long thought to support the concept of abiogenesis, principally because the empirical approach was uncontrolled and so the results were grossly misinterpreted.  The proposal has no plan for interpreting data, nor even a statement about what kind of data we expect to get.  Good experimental design is a fundamental part of collecteing and interpreting any data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, really confusing. What have natural sciences in common with this? Are you really expecting a comprehensive social research to be set up before any modest change is tested for DYK? --Elekhh (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a fair concern. The pending changes trial was equally vague and caused a huge mess, involving several straw polls and RfCs before eventually being ended. When proposing a trial, the absolute minimum requirement should be the length of trial and a method of determining the success or failure during the test period  Jebus989 ✰ 09:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In part because we are not long past the time where we need an incentive to create new articles. There are many, many thousands of topics not yet covered on Wikipedia, or that are covered only as a short stub in need of vast expansion.  Thus, an incentive to find and start/expand articles on those topics should not be eliminated.  Also, featuring new artiicles on the Main Page will draw attention to what may be articles in their infancy, and infants need more help and care than the adult articles that already have their diploma. Opposers are not missing the point; we're disagreeing with the premise behind it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the proposal does not replace any of these. It is a modest shift. I fully agree that there is huge scope to expand stubs (55% of articles are stubs!), but the need to provide incentive for new articles has massively decreased, and is time to provide a bit more incentive for quality improvement. I can't see any vital article missing. --Elekhh (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember the beer with Cas, and putting the point that the focus should move from quantity (achieving a set number of DYKs per day come what may), to quality (properly reviewing each nom and exposing it only if it meets the policies and quality benchmarks); in other words, the main-page exposure time for DYKs should be a movable valve to match the number of DYKs that have passed review at any particular time, and no more stress-outs for the queuing admins. I'm not sure Cas agreed entirely with my view. On another matter he contended—that GAs are themselves newly expanded and/or newly improved articles—I was skeptical, but went away thinking about it and was won over. To have even one GA as a DYK each day seems like a win–win, for these reasons: (1) DYK is the natural start-point for the trajectory towards GA, both in terms of individual articles and as a training ground for editors; (2) DYK articles via the existing rules would benefit by association with one GA per day on the main page; (3) DYK, let's be frank, loses reviewers at least as fast as it gains them, and can't nearly manage the flow—a good way of dealing with this would be to get DYK and GA to work with each other, not against each other; (4) GA really really needs more official recognition: it is second to FAC as a model for article quality, and creating a five-day window for one newly promoted GA per day to be DYKed would lift GA's presence in the project and motivate more editors to participate at both forums; and (5) WP:peer review is moribund, isn't it? We need to coordinate and strengthen the fabric of article improvement, not maintain such separate islands. Tony   (talk)  07:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading through the Main Page RfC, I think I can articulate the problem with the proposal: DYK content is articles that need other editors to be aware of them, so that they can get pulled into WikiProjects, or have a few knowledgable people add some citations, perspectives, and pertinent content. In some ways, DYK articles need parents, because the one person that cared enough to put in the work of giving birth has run out of steam. A DYK article is waiting to be shaped and molded by new people who bring resources. Good articles are exactly the opposite. They don't need parents, they need friends. They need someone to watch their back while they strive to change the world. Admittedly, I'd love to see DYK change its focus from "here's some new stuff for you to look at" to "here's some new stuff that needs your input", but adding GA content just further obfuscates what I see as the one community goal that DYK really fosters. VIWS talk 13:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat separate but not really thought
Regardless of the vote above, I think the wording on the Main Page should be changed to some form of "newest and newly-improved articles", as 5x expansions are never "new" articles. Am I alone in thinking this? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "From Wikipedia's newest content:", which is not the same as "new articles". The content is new, in the form of at least 4/5 new prose. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What Adabow said. Furthermore, adding "newly-improved" is not a good idea, as it opens the door to precisely the kind of nominations DYK has been rejecting for years (e.g., articles that have been copyedited or otherwise improved without any substantial expansion). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the proposal above is successful, I think we should just axe the text completely. Readers don't care if the articles are new or not, they just want to read interesting, well-written articles. Kaldari (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you know what readers want?
 * If all readers want is to read well-written content, then why not just have four TFAs? DYK is meant to serve a different purpose than what you are insisting on (as are ITN and OTD, which also are not necessarily showing interesting or well-written articles). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To Rjanag I will outline my idea of how the article treadmill has worked at wikipedia - essentially getting a bite of the mainpage cherry has been great at pushing editors that little bit, from stub or nonexistent article to DYK, and then finally at the last hurdle, FAC. Over the past few years, FAC has become more and more exacting. I personally don't see this as a bad thing but as a natural development as wikipedia looks more and more like a professional encyclopedia. In this production line, GA has become more and more important as a waypoint for review on the road to FA status. I was thinking that as GA status can be achieved with only one reviewer, that sending a few through DYK might be a good carrots-rather-than-sticks approach at getting more eyes on them and giving them more of a shove to FAC. I have always been happy having good content which has some incompleteness accessible from the mainpage so that the reader sees WP as a work in progress. Anyway, help in bridging the step between GA and FA is what I see as more of a development in the past 18-24 months as opposed to previously. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Related RfC which has been announced to people at FA but not here at DYK
People including many commenting here are !Voting on Main Page features. The RfC asks what features of the Main Page should be eliminated, including DYK. It seems to me a bit off to be !voting here to change DYK and !voting there to eliminate DYK entirely. I also notice that when the RfC listed the goals of the Main Page, somehow the goal of DYK, to motivate creation of new content, was left out, but I just put that in there.  Sharktopus  <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Realistically, I was thinking it'd be a couple of months before anything really happened to the mainpage. That is one RfC that really needs to run its course, have results analysed and figure out where to go from there, which I suspect would be more proposals. I figured this would be a trial to try in the meantime. My initial idea (when arguing with Tony) was that cycling 4 queues a day containing average 5.5 DYK and 1 GA meant 22 DYK and 4 GA cycling through vs 3 x 6.5 DYK which leaves us 19.5 DYK hooks going through. This is based on an off-the-cuff calculation of between 6 and 7 hooks per set. I thought this'd be a net gain for everybody.Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I should bloody well hope the Wikimedia Foundation has more sense than to let its front page be redesigned by a random walk through !voters with COI. Of course the FA people think we should have more featured content, and of course getting rid of DYK, ITN, and OTD would create more room for featured content. Of course I like DYK because I like creating new content and I often notice that Wikipedia needs something it doesn't have. If you offered me twice as many "ribbons" for critiquing other people's metric conversions, I'd drown in boredom. That's my COI. Of course new articles do not have the same smooth proof-read-ness of articles that have been vetted for months, but I follow Main Page/Errors, and we rarely have more errors picked up in 3 or 4 runs of 7 hooks each per day than FA has in their one blurb per day. People don't come to Wikipedia because they want to read polished prose about arbitrary topics, they come here because they are curious and lively and hope to learn something.   Sharktopus  <sup style="color:black;">talk  21:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the voting in and of itself there is going to dictate the changes. There has been talk on wikimedia pages before so some foundation input might take place as well. Hence why I think it'll be a few months yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The other "!voters with COI" have no more conflict of interest that you do, with your support for putting DYK above FA. The community needs comments from everyone, because the whole page belongs to all of us, not just to DYKers—or FA folks, or ITN stringers, or any other group you care to name.  You should feel free to share whatever opinions you have about the Main Page, even if it's not about "your" area.
 * This is the first unified discussion, and it is basically a brainstorming session. The majority of ideas will be rejected.  Those (if any) that seem to have some significant support will be discussed separately, and probably for months on end, before any actual decisions are made.  I would realistically not expect to see any changes as a result of this discussion until 2012.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal - minimum character requirement increase from 1500 to 2500
It is regularly pointed out, correctly, that reducing the number of hooks that rotate through the main page, will not solve the problems, because it will not reduce the number of submissions that need to be evaluated. Therefore, a proposal is to increase the readable prose minimum requirement from 1500 characters to 2500 characters. This should not be very difficult to achieve for the vast majority of articles (I just checked one of my own rather start-class DYKs and it came to 2275 chars, so certainly possible to improve it a bit), and it should act to reduce, slightly, the number of incoming submissions. This would give reviewers and administrators more time to deal with reviewing and checking, and also in turn support a reduction of the number of hooks rotating through the main page, to focus more on quality (and less on plagiarism, sensationalism, boring hooks).


 * Support as proposer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for a start.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think this !vote is premature. !Votes should never be proposed before thorough discussion, and this notion has barely been discussed at all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gatoclass. There are already a bunch of proposals and discussions, and "voting" on any one is premature. I think that's how the QPQ problem came about-- the desire for a quick fix without a serious analysis of how to get a long-term fix. I for one would want to know how you're going to check even more content if smaller articles aren't being checked now?  It is not OK that, even if the hook is checked, we're putting some really faulty articles on the mainpage-- why would this not mean we're putting even more faulty content linked from the mainpage?  Perhaps this is the only way to slow down submissions; isn't there another way?  Editors who don't understand how to correctly represent sources in their own words can do 2,500 words just as fast as they can do 1,500-- the original editor whose plagiarism brought this problem to my attention was one of DYK's most prolific editors.  He turned out plagiarized bios from obits that set records, and no one caught it here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, I don't want to slow down submissions, I like the fact that lots of different hooks get featured and that less talented editors can get some encouragement through this process. And I think we would have to slow down submissions a lot before it started having an impact on quality of reviews. IMO we would be better to stick to trying to improve the reviewing at Prep level for the present, we don't want to start making radical changes when they may not be necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points. My gut feeling is that having a panel of directors where the buck stops might be a better way to address all of the issues, but you really really really need a clearer, easier, more transparent process with archives, as well.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, we are doing the archives thing, it was recently decided to have a separate page for each submission, it's just that the coder is unavailable right now. I think your notion of sanctions for sloppy reviewing may also have merit BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that-- that's good news, glad to hear of the improvement. We don't need to point fingers, but you can't solve problems unless you know who is committing them and why (and that's why I keep asking why Crisco ran the alt hook instead of the one TK reviewed-- why did s/he do that? You can't solve the problem without knowing what went into making the problem.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the discussion here is endless, so many pages of it that every time a major concern is raised (which, let's face it, could be done on a daily basis given the quality of some of the material going through) then the process gets backlogged because the people who keep the system running are busy replying to yet another round of discussion. (As just happened). You all need to work out how your proposed directorate is going to keep up with maintaining quality for that level of submissions, if there's never going to be any willingness to increase the standards for submissions or tell anyone they don't have an absolute right to put their article on the main page if they can get it to meet a very basic list of requirements. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't like to further my proposal when you all know better, but my idea is something like this. Admins move the queue to the main page. That is the point at which problems should be identified-- the critical point that matters. Ditch the "any admin" can move it, set up a panel, a directorate at that level, only that panel can place the content on the main page, and they are responsible for EVERYTHING about that hook-- not only that plagiarism and copyvio are avoided, but that other policies are upheld as well. At that level, if an already approved hook has to be rejected, then that nominator can't put up another DYK for a month, and that reviewer can't approve a hook for another month. Just an idea-- you all can make it better. IF a "director" makes repeat mistakes, resulting in mainpage debacles, that director will find him/herself out of business soon, in a vote of no-confidence. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be an ideal system, but I doubt we would ever have the manpower for it. However, I think it might be possible to start doing a few things to tighten up quality control until an appropriate standard is reached, some of which have already been suggested in the various threads above. Gatoclass (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But what would that achieve beyond a blame game? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about "blame game"-- putting some brakes on like this encourages nominators and reviewers alike to get it right the first time, hence lowers wasted reviewer time. OK, Gato, how about a middle of the road compromise?  You're at four queues per day now, right?  Lower it to only three-- you're not losing that much, the directorate will have more time to review, and quality will improve and those that submit faulty articles will be ..... ummmmmm ... exposed and less likely to continue submissions, so submissions will decline slightly while improving in quality, so that you can hopefully move back to four queues daily once the new system is working.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Too many people have come to see it as their right to have their article on DYK if it's 1500 characters—even if it's crap, and even if the hook is boring. I don't think that will stop if we up the character limit, and I think folks here are unwilling to say no to nominators, especially prolific ones who throw their weight around to get their article on DYK. Most importantly, though, meeting an arbitrary character count is not an indicator of the quality of the article. It would be difficult to write a decent article in less than 1500 characters, but it's relatively easy to write a long, crappy article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No. This has been brought up numerous times before; it would be nice of the proposer to provide links to past iterations of this proposal. The reasons it has been opposed include: 1) quantity != quality; 2) increasing the length limit won't decrease the number of noms (if someone wants to nom, they'll write as much as they need to to do it); 3) increasing the length limit will just increase the fluff. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have found numerous articles that are quite tricky to get from 1500 to 2500 chars, but more importantly recently-promoted GAs I think provide a better ground of recently-improved-vetted articles. Their introduction will slow the rate down a little. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as I've suggested this before. To address some of the comments made above:
 * Sandy, this of course isn't meant as a fix-it-all approach, in fact, I don't see why it wouldn't be complementary to some of the suggestions you're making. Second, I don't see that this proposal would increase the amount of content that needs to be checked. By eliminating shorter noms it would decrease it.
 * Gatoclass, your contention that this hasn't been discussed before contradicts Rjanag's contention that this has been discussed before. Basically, it has been discussed before but I've never seen a good argument not to implement it and the discussion usually gets derailed by "it won't solve all the problems", or in other words, people making the perfect the enemy of the good.
 * HJ Mitchell, of course character count isn't a perfect indicator of quality but let's face it, a 1500 character article is barely more than a stub (honestly, it is a stub). As long as sourcing is required - which it is - then in fact it is harder to write 2500 character article than a 1500 one. And one way or another we're gonna have a character minimum and it's always going to be somewhat arbitrary. Obviously we don't want 500 character articles. Or 5 character articles. So some line has to be drawn. And I think the current line is too lax/low.
 * Rjanag, 1) yes, quantity does not necessarily imply better quality but I think in this case it does. A 1500 character article is better than a 15 character article, no? And a 2500 character article is likely to be better than a 1500 character article? Now, if you're talking, I dunno, 5k vs. 10k then maybe you'd have a point. But that's not what is being discussed here. 2)  increasing the length limit won't decrease the number of noms - how do you know? Seriously. You got data or something? Evidence? At least a logical argument for why that would be so? By upping the character count you're increasing the cost on the writer which means the laziest people won't submit noms. And that's the whole point. 3)  increasing the length limit will just increase the fluff - how in the world do you get that? You just pulled that out of thin air. Completely unsupported assertion that doesn't even make sense. It might be true if sourcing isn't required, but it is.
 * Casliber, I have found numerous articles that are quite tricky to get from 1500 to 2500 chars - yes and that's exactly the point! If a topic doesn't have 2500 chars in it, it shouldn't be featured. Maybe as a list or something but not a DYK at least.  recently-promoted GAs I think provide a better ground of recently-improved-vetted articles - sure and I supported that idea above. But why does it have to be either/or? Why can't it be both? I've never seen a GA that is less than 2500 characters (and if there are such out there somebody needs to review them again) so this proposal is not going to affect that proposal in anyway.


 * Basically it's hard to escape the feeling that the opposition comes from the "it's not perfect, hence it's not good" attitude or something like "I didn't think of it first, so it can't be good". I'll stop there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to your comments addressed to me: more in-depth discussion of all these issues is included in the previous discussions of this perennial proposal. The person proposing it this time neglected his responsibility to share links to the past discussions, but if you look up those discussions you can find answers to these questions. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I do not think that's a good idea as it is hard to get some new articles up to 1500 let alone 2500 based on certain sources that avaliable at the time. And in support of Blofeld's comment, quality not quantity. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't agree with the rationale for this proposal. The idea seems to be that a longer prose requirement will reduce the number of submissions.  Well, maybe.  But will it "give reviewers and administrators more time to deal with reviewing and checking"? No.  The problem isn't that we don't have time to review nominations.  Rather, the problem is that there aren't people reviewing half of the noms until they're two weeks old, and by that time it's difficult to get an editor/nominator to make changes within the expected timeframe.  If DYK participants just spent more time reviewing newly nominated articles, instead of bickering, there wouldn't be a problem for us to have to fix. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think it's silly that we're !voting on this at all without a more comprehensive discussion as a preamble, but if other editors insist we are, I guess I might as well cast my !ballot. My first instinct is that this is likely to do as much harm (more cluttery submissions, potentially suppressing quality submissions) as good (reducing workload, encouraging longer new articles). While I'm interested in looking at ideas to improve DYK quality control, this seems to me to be one of the less promising of the ideas proposed today, and I'm reluctant to introduce too many of these at the same time; attacking the issue nine different ways at the same time seems likely to create confusion, and be potentially less effective than if we applied solutions one at a time. And finally, I'd to show V. Marek that not everybody opposing this is doing it because only because they "didn't think of it first", since I've agreed with one of his excellent proposals elsewhere on this page, which I didn't think of first either. =) -- Khazar (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, I think the quality is hardly correlating with the quantity in a simple linear relation. The more concise the better, encouraging "fluff" is not the way to improve article quality, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quantity does not always mean quality, as shown by numerous POV rants found in the histories of controversial articles. Someone could write 50k of readable text that is a POV rant and it would be less worthy than 1,500 bytes of well researched information on a difficult to research subject. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Length does not equal quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We've considered this many times before; read what I wrote then. cmadler (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as someone said above 1500 is little more than a stub. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Also more emphasis on expansions, less on new articles per se (soften the 5x).TCO (reviews needed)  04:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This has been discussed several times in the past, and I still don't think it's a good idea. Rlendog (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Crisco. Manxruler (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Crisco and per the idea that length does not equal quality. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator. Slowing down the DYK churn would give people more time to do better reviews. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There's nothing wrong with throttling back on DYK, but this doesn't fix the issues Sandy has been raising: it's trivial for someone to bring an article up to 2500 characters with a cut-and-paste copyvio or a clot of unsourced trivia, much less so for an editor who's thoughtfully writing a useful article. This will, perversely, encourage these sorts of problems. Choess (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is and will be a considerable number of interesting articles that are 1500 character-long. Increase of this number would lead to under-representation of smaller, yet interesting entries. Also, there are always topics, which cannot be expanded further because of insufficient knowledge of them. Brand meister  t   14:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

blame game (or some nicer name for it)
Picking out one of SandyGeorgia's ideas, "if an already approved hook has to be rejected, then that nominator can't put up another DYK for a month, and that reviewer can't approve a hook for another month" - what is wrong with this suggestion, even separately to any other change? (I would change it to the reviewer being prevented from approving hooks or nominating them, since the current QPQ system means that one reason for doing a rushed review might be that they want to get their own nomination on the main page fast.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Demiurge by your own admission, the current fiasco was created by a "novice". Don't worry I won't come around here again. You don't need to add more instruction creep to ensure that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A variation of what Demiurge proposes seems reasonable to me, though I'd suggest adding more room for discretion to account for new users making mistakes. In my first weeks on DYK, I approved two hooks that were later changed to requested revisions for minor causes, and also rejected one hook that an admin overturned as okay; I was doing my best, but just missed some of the less-emphasized criteria. Since DYK is a more likely starting point for new editors than other projects, I don't want to slap them down too hard or make them feel unwelcome. Still, I could name 2 or 3 regular DYK contributors who appear to give incomplete reviews that I've seen repeatedly overturned by other editors, sometimes just putting the check icon without even a word. DYK doesn't seem to have a system to deal with that yet, but I think it's reasonable to ask these reviewers to be more thorough, and if necessary, to ask them to take a break for a bit. -- Khazar (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)I think some version of Demiurge's accountability idea would be good, though I personally think a week would be better. A penalty too stiff will just spawn meatpuppet nominations. Hey, TK, you probably did us a favor by coming in as a relative novice and making an innocent error that somebody else should have picked up and set right. It was generous and helpful, the way you stepped up and explained your process, so that we could look for ways to improve. And apparently your skills in other areas picked up a couple of copyvio problems somebody else might have missed. What happened was a mistake in adhering to DYK's own rule, not a violation of BLP policy and certainly not a scandal or a fiasco. It resulted in an Error on the Main Page, and we are trying to figure out more and better ways to prevent such. Driving away a conscientious, intelligent reviewer like TK is not something anyone wants.   Sharktopus  <sup style="color:black;">talk  18:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed not - I certainly don't. And this proposal wouldn't be retrospective anyway. The implementation of this challenge has helped fix some copyvio issues and also resulted in further improvements to the DYK documentation. That's not instruction creep, that's (a bit of) progress in the right direction.


 * A week sounds a bit short to me... some problematic nominators/reviewers might only do one article a week or less anyway. How about two weeks? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not yet thought about this proposal enough to support or oppose it, but if such a proposal is to be enacted, I'd suggest that a month is probably the right length. I'll agree that it's probably reasonable to (somehow) penalize a "reviewer" who fails to give a thorough review. It might be reasonable to penalize a nominator who nominates an unusable (rejected -- whether initially or after a erroneous approval) article/hook, though I think good-faith allowances should be made in the case of a suitable article with an unsuitable hook nomination (as in the recent case that sparked the discussion) and particularly in the case of new-to-DYK nominators. On the other hand, experienced DYK nominators (not going to name names here, but I'm sure most regulars can think of a few) who regularly submit unsuitable articles, especially when it's the same problem repeatedly, should be given very little slack. cmadler (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is quite a storm I seem to have inadvertently caused. I do not support an extended limit. However, if possible we should add another rule for somewhat negative hooks, roughly reading "any hook fact that can be construed as a negative should be cited in at least two reliable sources. Hopefully that can avoid most problems of a similar nature. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Imposing timeouts for reviewers will be quite ineffective since they will leave their articles in their sandbox and then just submit them at the end of the timout. I guess what we could do, if a QPQ review gets pulled from the queue for some reason, is to scrap the reviewer's accompanying submission. It would be harsh, but would I think be a very effective way of ensuring that QPQ reviews were thorough. We might need to outline the precise conditions under which a submission is scrapped however, which could be a little tricky. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be interesting, but perhaps difficult to implement. It is a rare event that a hook gets pulled back from the queues, AFAIK. Even being pulled back from Prep isn't that common an occurrence. I have a question though: what should we do if the hook is pulled back from the queue or prep due to a problem that could not reasonably be foreseen, such as the lizard hook currently scheduled for August 9? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know, that's why I said it would be difficult to come up with a clear criteria. I'm not sure it would actually be practical, it's just something to think about. Gatoclass (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * dunno, I think this proposal comes over as quite heavy :( no easy answers though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts from a semi-regular

 * 1) The somewhat enforceable request for an interesting hook encourages sensationalism.
 * 2) A raise in the character limit will lead to more padding and chattiness---not to better, or even less fewer, submissions. ✅ This is an argument in favor of the status quo. cmadler (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) The request for reviews ("QPQ" reviewing) was a bad idea. We tried it, it did not work, we should scrap it again.
 * 4) To "ban" editors or reviewers for a period of time will not work: Who's going to check this with 40-odd submissions per day? ✅ This is an argument in favor of the status quo. cmadler (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) The mose basic of all rules is missing: That the hook ref must be a reliable, independent source. ✅ Issue #5 is solved. --Pgallert (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Implement a subset of Good article criteria without a minimal length and with a drastically reduced request for comprehensiveness. Then run one hook set per day. --Pgallert (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the guideline Identifying reliable sources, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This applies to everything on Wikipedia, so I figured that it would go without repeating, but since you mention it, I've added that in appropriate places to the DYK rules, with a piped link to that guideline. cmadler (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pgallert's words are some of the most eminently sensible I've seen on this site for some time. Support.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, Ghmyrtle. --Pgallert (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * cmadler, the articles must indeed be based on reliable sources, but the hook fact need not, according to current standards of reviewing. In fact, for the DYK hook often the shadiest of all article sources is employed because that one allows the most surprising hook. --Pgallert (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The hook citation must be in the article, and therefore it is subject to the same strictures as articles. It may be that this has not been regularly enforced or investigated before a nomination made it to the Main Page, but that does not mean the stricture does not apply.  It does. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree. Articles may contain unreliable (for instance self-published) sources, as long as notability is not derived from them. Articles must be based on reliable sources, not exclusively employ them. The problem is that nothing in the DYK rules forbids editors to pick this very reference to build a hook. --Pgallert (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to read the rest of the opening sentence of that policy: ..."and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles". Since a sensational DYK hook is either a majority opinion or significant as a minority opinion, its citation is covered by this policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ... or at least, we can infer that. So Pgallert is right, we need to add more rulecreep to make that explicit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way, this is something many (most?) of us have been enforcing already, such as in cases where a place-article's hook comes only from a travel website. So, I would see an emendation to "Da Rules" more as a codification of existing practice, in order to make the point explicit (and easier to justify to nominators), than as rulecreep (which carries a pejorative connotation).  --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't need to change the rules in this regard. Of course hooks must be reliably sourced - reviewers shouldn't need to be reminded of such basic principles, if they do, they shouldn't be reviewing. AFAIK this has not been raised as a problem in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that they shouldn't need to be reminded doesn't mean that they shouldn't be reminded. Better to be safe than sorry, particularly with "over-enthusiastic" reviewers.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's instruction creep - in this case, completely redundant instruction creep since it's just a reiteration of a core wikipedia policy. And I don't believe it will have the slightest effect on the quality of reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost whenever you see a hook in the form "A said X", someone has violated that principle. Currently for instance Sam Johnson (New Zealand) where all hooks are sourced with (1) a commentary and (2) a University press release. None of the hooks received a tick so far but the discussion is not about reliable sources. Already okayed is Hunter Greene, the independence of the reference is not apparent to me. See also George McGavin where a reviewer just argues in the direction that hook refs need not be reliable and independent. This is what I found in 15 minutes on a very slow Internet connection; I bet 1000 major edits that there are more in the current set of submissions, and I remember a variety of cases from the past. This is not an isolated incident. --Pgallert (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Greene and McGavin look problematic to me too; see how easy that was? You can do it too! cmadler (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wanted to explain that DYK in general operates like this, to an extent that editors specifically argue that a reliable source is not necessary for a DYK hook. Your addition to the rules solved the problem, see a few posts below. --Pgallert (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that when you read the comments that raised the problem of reliability of citations for George McGavin, you re-interpreted those comments as meaning "that hook refs need not be reliable". That's the opposite of what the comments are saying. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well-intentioned editors often disagree about what constitutes a suitably reliable source in a given situation (as in the case above, where it's a question of whether a self-published source is acceptable -- and remember that sometimes it is), but I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that a reliable source is unneeded. cmadler (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I'm struggling to understand what it is exactly that you are proposing. Our current rules state (I quote):


 * The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it, since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable.


 * That seems to me to explain the requirement quite clearly. What do you think is missing? Gatoclass (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I just added "to a reliable source" to that rule yesterday afternoon. cmadler (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After that addition my point 5 is solved, thank you. I just wasn't sure that this change of rules would stick but judging from the discussion elsewhere on this page I guess it has consensus. Somehow I feel this is a fundamental change that should be published somehow. --Pgallert (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's odd, I'm sure I checked the history to see when that clause had been added and didn't see any recent changes - possibly it was one of those occasions when the history page lags behind the actual edit. Anyway, I thoroughly approve of your change cmadler :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's more than a wee bit appalling that anyone working at an area that puts content on the main page doesn't know that all Wikipedia content needs to be cited to reliable sources, much less what a reliable source is, but I'm more troubled that Gatoclass claims this discussion has not been about reliable sources, when in fact I pointed out early on that a failure to use reliable sources, and misrepresentation of sources, was as prevalent in hooks as plagiarism and BLP bios are, and I have in fact indicated one in this very discussion that uses a non-reliable source. Is there no sense of decency here? I suppose my alarm is just continuing to fall on tone deaf ears. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You have misinterpreted my comments - I didn't mean reliable sources are not an issue, I meant no-one had suggested merely rewording our instructions as a solution. As for the fact that some unreliable sources might be used - as long as the bulk of the article is reliably sourced, and the questionably sourced content is not controversial, I am not necessarily going to make an issue of that. Again, this is not GA, it's DYK, we don't have a week to spend on every article, we aim at ensuring there are no major defects, we don't have the time or resources to address every minor detail. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification-- that helps. I do find it astounding that we have to mention anywhere at any time that *all* Wikipedia content should be cited to reliable sources.  But the bigger problem that is emerging at DYK is that you are putting BLPs sourced to non-reliable sources on the main page, and you continue to do that today, with editors who are known not to understand sourcing.  If you don't have the time and resources to assure that you aren't putting egregiously bad articles on the mainpage, you should not be putting anything on the mainpage.  GA has better quality control, and we no longer need to encourage article creation, particularly when so many of those articles created are just messes someone else needs to clean up, and we no longer have enough editors to clean up these messes.  Let's encourage quality content improvements, not the kind of stuff DYK runs on the mainpage, hoping someone else will bring them to Wikipedia standards, not to mention standards of human decency.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So, will you be actually helping here, or merely criticizing the volunteers who do the actual work? Have you ever looked at the Queue for problems before they went up on the Main Page, or do you wait for them to appear on the Main Page first and then come here to complain?  There is a Queue where hooks are placed in advance of appearing on the Main Page, and you can help spot problems before they appear on the Main Page (which would be helpful), or you can sit back and just complain (which is unhelpful).  Instead of telling the volunteers what to do, why not actually pitch in and show us how to do it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That you have to ask those questions shows that you aren't paying attention. Perhaps you weren't around DYK last Halloween, or perhaps you aren't familiar with how often I tried to help and how often the denialists scream when I do?  Please do your homework before making statements about me-- the delightful thing about Wikipedia is that it's all there in history.  Including the fact that no matter how many times I looked *before* articles ran, you still ran them, just exactly as you are still running articles from a serial offender.  No accountability, and yet, what, you want me to do your work for you?  Fix your process-- it's broken. Soooo ... in addition to rampant plagiarism and close paraphrasing, and BLP vios, we have numerous DYKs built extensively on non-reliable sources.  So, if you must have a minimum expansion and size, how can you verify that criteria are met without looking at whether articles are reliably sourced?  So, anyone can put any ole crap on a page and get a DYK, and then you expect *real* editors to come along later and clean up the mess?  How is this helping Wikipedia?  You still have Quid Pro Quo reviewing-- nominators who may know little to nothing of Wikipedia policies reviewing nominations from other nominators who may know even less.  What are you all doing about the systemic problems here, other than complaining that I'm complaining about it?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did in fact look at your recent edit history. I'm sorry that I didn't realize I'd have to go all the way to last October (9 months ago) to find your participation.  Such an absence strongly suggests abandonment.  You do seem to have a lot of time in recent days to point out flaws and to spot mistakes after they happen, but in the recent weeks and months have not worked to prevent the problems you're pointing out.  This creates a self-fulfilling phophecy. You haven't worked to prevent the problems, because if you do, then you won't be able to complain about them afterwords.  The biggest problem right now with DYK (and always) is that there aren't enough people taking the initiative to review nominations.  If people actually did that, in a timely fashion, we wouldn't need to wrangle about all the other issues.


 * And what have I been doing? I've been reviewing articles, pointing out uncited hooks, encouraging explicit citations, and contributing to the project.  The DYK is a developmental effort that points new editors towards the standards of Wikipedia through interactive education.  GA and FA processes only deal with elitist advanced editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have avoided this conversation for the past few days but I do have to throw in that I agree with Sandy and others about QPQ reviewing being a problem. Granted, it was implemented to solve another problem (and I feel partially responsible for it, because last year during the DYK plagiarism ruckus I remember complaining about editors who nominate tons of articles and never review, although I didn't personally propose QPQ), but it hasn't solved that problem (the backlog is still as long as always) and it has created new problems (crappy reviews). We should just get rid of QPQ and go back to the way things were before: an understanding, similar to at WP:PR, that if you nominate it would be nice to offset your nomination by also reviewing, but that it's not required. Forced reviews from people who don't want to be doing them are not worth the trouble they cause. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eliminating the QPQ would be a good start, but wouldn't solve all of the problems here. Some seem to think that mainpage exposure is a right, and that it's up to others to solve DYK's problems.  An experienced Wikipedian came over here because she was challenged to help here, reviewed a hook, found numerous problems, got them corrected, and then some DYK regular came along and ran a *different* hook because it was splashier, and then three DYK regulars up the line missed that it violated UNDUE.  So, these challenges to just get in here and help make no sense-- the process is broken, has been for as long as I've been editing, and the *process* needs adjustment, since there will be another new crop of regulars in here three months from now who don't know the history of DYK.  It is not up to others to solve DYK's problems-- if DYK won't solve them, they should not be on the mainpage.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Sandy, that's not right, as I already explained above. I'm not quite sure why you keep repeating that inaccuracy, when TK has certainly made no attempt at any such pretence. There were two hooks for that nomination when TK came to do the review, and TK put their review underneath the second hook. TK did not specify which hook they were approving. The principal responsibility lies with the admin picking the hook and putting it in a queue (that's why only admins can do it...), but repeating yourself over and over in an attempt to re-write the facts of the incident according to your taste, makes your case weaker, not stronger. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I keep repeating it because it is right. TK did not review the alt hook becuase she didn't know she was supposed to (the process here is too complex), and the discussion at the thread makes it abundantly clear even to an idiot like me that she did not review the second hook.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Demiurge, you've been trying mighty hard to blame this on me. You know and I know that you challenged me to review a DYK for copyvio or plagiarism (which you seem to believe doesn't exist). I accepted your challenge and found problems. I did not comment on the hook. Although I don't have them displayed on my page, I've had plenty of DYKs and reviewed plenty of them. Usually the alt hook is exactly that: an alternative. I didn't comment because it didn't seem necessary; the primary hook was fine, except I didn't actually check the wording of the hook and if I had I would have found it too was plagiarized. In the future if you want to throw stones please come to my page to do so. Thanks. 13:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? So now you're saying that the reason you messed up the review was that you were focused on trying to prove wrong a belief that I don't hold but you'd decided to ascribe to me? Wow.


 * How many other DYK reviews have you done? What was the focus of those? Something similar? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec, re Sandy) I wonder if it would help if the project regularly appointed a "director", something along the lines of what Raul is for TFA, who is expected to personally review all hooks before they go up? Right now the project has several experienced editors like Gatoclass, but they're not necessarily able to be involved all the time (or, like me, have more or less lost interest), and thus much of the grunt work is done by inexperienced editors, since DYK has a high turnover (it gets boring quickly). It might be better if there were someone who agreed to check every queue before it went up, for a year or something like that, and who knew that that was his/her responsibility. I think it would not actually be a huge job (assuming people get the queues prepared beforehand, the "director" could check all the queues once per day and just reject hooks that are inappropriate, without necessarily having to spend a whole lot of his/her own time trying to figure out how to fix them). Such a "director" should probably not be able to reject hooks based on boringness in this capacity (although he/she could still comment on boringness at T:TDYK like any other reviewer), since it's too subjective, but any experienced editor in this position would be able to keep hooks with, e.g., BLP problems from making it to the main page. (Catching plagiarism is a much bigger task, though, since it requires much more reading, and would be too much or one person to do on a daily basis like this.) <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have always advocated that DYK (and GA as well) should have some sort of directorate or clearing panel-- someone responsible when a debacle occurs. FAC put plagiarism on the mainpage once:  I (we) did something about it.  I would expect to be "fired" if we didn't.  But I would strongly oppose putting Gatoclass in any position of DYK responsibility-- he doesn't see the issues, and didn't even a year or so ago.  The notion that those of us who think DYK does a huge disservice to the main page are supposed to dig in and review, in a faulty process, is absurd.  If I disagree with any corrupt, inept political system, does that mean I should join their party to change them from within?  How silly.  Those of you who participate here and know you are putting plagiarism, BLP vios, incorrectly sourced articles, and plagiarism on the mainpage are responsible to stop it.  The problem seems to be that so many of the regulars here don't know verbatim copying and poor sourcing even when it's put right under their noses, hence have no business writing anywhere on Wikpedia, much less putting content on the mainpage.  I haven't looked at the new proposals added here-- there are 144 posts since I last read here-- will go there next.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict): QPQ wasn't introduced to help with the backlog but to relieve the workload on the handful of users who were doing all the reviewing. And on that score, it's actually made a huge difference, there are currently 205 articles at T:TDYK and almost half of them are verified. Before QPQ, it was not unusual to have less than a dozen hooks verified - sometimes not even enough to create an update.


 * If a problem has arisen it is that those people who used to make the effort to do the reviewing have not used the extra time available to do other things at DYK - they've just cut the time they spend at DYK instead. Which means less oversight on the project overall. So I think it's premature to start talking about dumping QPQ. If we are going to make changes, IMO we should start by looking to improve the oversight at the Prep level. I suggested a method of doing so earlier, by making admins involved in moving updates from Prep to the Queue more accountable. Right now, the move is often treated as nothing more than a mechanical process instead of being also an editorial one. So if there's a perception that standards at DYK have slipped, I think that would be the place to start. Gatoclass (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that a combination of what Gato proposes here and what Tony proposes below would create a better sense of accountability. -- Khazar (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to replace DYK with new Good article DYKs and demote the current system to a sub page
My feeling on this is that we should replace did you know of new articles on the main page with did you knows of recently passed good articles. Then I would have a link underneath like in the featured article section, more DYKs of recently created/expanded articles and then I'd demote the DYK for newly expanded article as it currently appears on the main page to a sub page. This way it gives credit to those who've recently had a good article promotion, general quality on the main page would be much improved without obvious blunders and the often embarrassing did you knows would appear on a sub page and be hidden from appearing on the main page. Given that we just don't have the numbers to ensure the quality hitting the main page is universal the only solution to deal with this problem in my view is to simply stop it from doing so. The problem is we can't paint all DYKs with the same brush. There are some very good DYKs which are new GAs anyway which I've seen today, but to keep that sort of level for every entry would be great in my view. Maybe I'm biased I don't know but the deal with DYKs for me has never been an excitement about it appearing on the main page so I could accept that the current system could be demoted to a sub page and replaced with GA DYKs. The problem is how to accommodate those editors who enjoy creating start class articles and having their articles appear on the front page and to retain the system that motivates them to expand content. I myself would be perfectly happy to see my did you know hooks appearing on a sub page of the main page as page views illustrate a small percentage actually view them anyway.

What I propose is a nicely designed sub page for new hook DYKs rather like User:Gerda Arendt's user page (but tidier in format) linked from the main page and for every hook if possible to have an image by the side and to include more hooks in the list. It would alleviate the pressure and some of the negative comments associated with the main page. Every hook created on a certain day would be listed on this sub page for 24 hours maybe with a 5 day approval period leading up to it. So any proposed and authorised article created today would appear on this list on 28 July and be listed for 24 hours with all others created/expanded on that day. Any which have not been approved within that time period because of issues will be scrapped. This would easy the pressure on those who have to regularly update the main page with new hooks, editors would see their new DYKs featured for much longer than the measly few hours at present and many of the beautiful images which would not appear on the front page because they are not the top entry there would be room to list them all. We could also give it a major revamp and organize DYKs on a page by topic like geography, sport, history, wildlife etc with many colorful images and themes, have thematic days and collaborative drives on certain topic to produce a combined input on any given topic as well as the usual mix and mash we have to make it more enjoyable and challenging. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. DYK is heavily biased towards promoting the mass creation of content in obscure areas, with minimal quality control. Promote good editing, not fast editing. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support—nice one, Dr. Blofeld, and Mkativerata sums it up well. I'd also support drawing on GAs, FAs, and FLs. DYKs must be from content that contains an interesting, catchy, punchy hook in the first place, and as SandyGeorgia has pointed out, it can easily become forced if you're not selective (the cheap hook). A good proportion of articles at whatever stage or status are just not DYKable, something that has plagued the current DYK model. So changing the scope so it's classier and broader makes a lot of sense—solves a bunch of problems in one go. Everyone knows I'm not a Jimbo groupie, but he has just injected a fresh view with the benefit of distance from the process, having moved from a position of supporting solely FAs as DYKs earlier today. Tony   (talk)  12:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose to this perennial proposal, for all of the same reasons every time this is brought up. Since it's the same small group proposing this over and over, hoping it will eventually stick or wear down the regulars, I feel no obligation to repeat myself for the umpteenth time. If there is a burning need to display not-good-enough-to-be-FA content on the Main Page, propose a new section for GAs without targeting a useful extant project like DYK for destruction. - Dravecky (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say DYK would be destroyed. To accommodate those who enjoy contributing new articles for DYK and being credited I think that it should be kept but demoted to a sub page, if anything it could be a big page of hooks just like the DYK nom page is right for those who are interested in viewing new articles. But I believe that articles which have been shown to be poorly reviewed and many containing a plethora of problems are not front page worthy even if for just a few hours. I believe the front page should be reserved solely for the cream of wikipedia. We need to clean up our act and deal with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of speling the death-knell of DYK, this proposal could be the beginning of a brilliant future of DYK, in the form of a DYK portal linked to from the main page and other portals and templates; it will be a portal where content can be displayed in full glory, instead of one-line hooks, images and other embellishments will be permitted. I see repeated mentions that DYK isn't broken and doesn't need fixing, but this seems to be denial of the problems that Sandy and many others have clearly identified and elaborated on; supporters have not come up with satisfactory answers nor ways of dealing with the issues, which continue to recur on a regular basis; they therefor feel like they are being bludgeoned by repeated retabling of similar proposals. That is the real reason that this proposal is perennial; it's not the fault of the proposers. 88.160.245.226 (talk) (aka Ohconfucius) 16:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support This proposal would see a measurable improvement in the content of the main page, and show readers (and potential contributors) what writers should be aiming for. Nev1 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Most of what is used in DYK could never reach GA simply because the sources aren't there. If we were to limit DYK to GAs, systemic bias would rear its ugly head immediately; if FAs, FLs, and GAs, we'd be invading on TFA and TFL's turf, which could theoretically cause major conflict. This is not the way to improve DYK. Quality control may need to be improved, but not to GA-level standards; GA length alone would preclude many otherwise sound DYKs from reaching the main page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the proposal? I have not proposed to scrap new article/expanded DYK. Rather to keep them off the main age when they are often poorly reviewed and reserve the main page purely for reviewed material. As I've said there could be a direct link from the main page for new DYK articles on a smart looking sub page.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did read the proposal, but a sub-page is not the main page itself. We'd be expecting interested readers to click on one link to open the subpage, then another to choose the article they want to read. Effectively, we'd lose around 50 to 80% of our readership. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I like the multicultural flavour of DYK, written by many for whom English is a second language, covering a broad range of interests. I don't envision that quality for GAs. The opposite might work: have a subpage on GAs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it too, but is it really a good idea to have poorly reviewed material with problems hitting the main page in the eyes of millions on a daily basis?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "millions" would only see the hook. Less than 100k would actually have any exposure to the sub-par articles themselves. As for Gerda's idea, I'd support such a motion. A mix of new DYKs and recently promoted GAs may be acceptable too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For some reason I fail to see the multitude of poorly reviewed poorly written DYK. I reviewed more than 80 this year, only 4 had to be rejected. I hope they were reviewed well, smile. I keep a collection of DYK Germany, didn't see a single bad one there. I also collect DYK opera, same thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Respected editors such as Sandy Georgia claim to have never seen a DYK set without multiple issues. I think she knows what she is talking about. I regularly see articles hit the main page with suspect sources, POV and needing a jolly good copyedit even if many of them are absolutely fine. The problem is there is an inconsistency and I think the main page should not be inconsistent.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about accepting the fact that man is inconsistent? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Accepting that should not be used as an excuse not to progress and improve. Improving the quality of the content that appears on the main page certainly sounds like a good idea to me. Nev1 (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'd prefer other options of solving the problem raised by Dr. Blofeld. Extending the scope of DYK to also include new GA's and FA's ect but not removing new content altogether. Extending the timeframe from 5 days to about a month to allow for more scrutiny. Agathoclea (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * New content would be featured on a sub page linked from the main page and would allow more room for multiple photographs and some additional features which at present cannot be presented on the main page because of its restrictions. This proposal is not to entirely scrap new DYKs, just keep poorly reviewed articles off the main page.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Baby with bathwater ... Out of sight out of mind. New articles do benefit from mainpage exposure. Therefore I do dislike the subpage idea. Agathoclea (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually if you compare DYK page views and main page views an extremely small percentage actually visit the articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True. But from my experience with Funtensee there is a spinoff and that would be severely reduced by having an extra page inbetween. Agathoclea (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitary break

 * Oppose for all the reasons stated above.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Torn. I think something like 3 GAs per day in the same space as DYK would make sense.  "Today's Good Articles".  I would want a director(s) like person(s) to pick them and would draw from the whole bank, not from new ones only.  Think the implicit named difference (and lower down and 3 versus 1) makes it clear to reader that articles are not as polishd as TFA.  but good to show some (still strong) difference of article quality on Wiki.  We could have some proposal thing on the side like TFAR, but that is just mechanics.  (KISS though.)  The only bad part of this is it basically blows up DYK and takes their main page space away from them.  And hurts the individuals who like DYK.  And I really don't mind if we just leave DYK in place for avoiding hurt feelings from blowing it up.TCO (reviews needed)  12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current DYK process works well enough and so doesn't need fixing. If GAs feel the need for some love too then maybe we could add achievement of GA status as a qualification to appear in the DYK queue. Warden (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't think it is working well enough, even many of the most active DYK contributors and operators including myself claim it is not like it used to be or has problems and I think if we created a DYK Hall of Shame it would expose that there is a problem which exists. I personally have felt under pressure recently from DYK operators like MaterialScientist in regards to sourcing and standards and quite rightly and I'm not the only one. Do you realize how many complaints there have been in the last month alone about certain articles hitting the main page? Of course there are many regular DYK contributors who work incredibly hard at producing quality and interesting new content but its got to be said that to some it has almost become a sort of game and that the notch on the board is more important than the article itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The current system is broken and doesn't deserve to be on the main page. A radical change has to be made. Lightmouse (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support At what point will people realize that incentivising new content might not be our top priority anymore? When we have 10 million articles, 20 million, 50 million? Articles on previously not covered content are always a good thing, but quality content on any subject we cover should be a priority, especially now that have over 3.6 million articles. I don't think this proposal will destroy the incentive for new content. What it does is create incentives for people to improve current content, and/or to create new content with the goal of making it top quality instead of simply making it passable enough to get another notch on the old DYK belt.Griswaldo (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because something isn't our top priority doesn't mean that we shouldn't be proud of our new articles. Getting some of them on the main page, even for a few hours, generates interest and may lead to more editors signing up to create articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose this half-baked idea, and for the umpteenth time, why do some users feel the need to continually start polls when there hasn't been any preceding discussion? Polls are supposed to occur at the end of a discussion, not the start. Gatoclass (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well for such a "half-baked idea" I count at least 5 problems it would solve in one go.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I'd also link the new-content-DYK subpage with the new "interested in contributing?" section I hope we'll see on the Main Page. These would be candidates for improvement and expansion. At the end of the day, the act of creating a new article carries one of the highest intrinsic rewards, I think; and therefore rewarding this action further with Main Page exposure like now never made much sense to me. A subpage is a bit of a compromise, allowing the system to persist but with less use of scarce Main Page space. Also worth noting that a lot of the problems with DYK-as-is may be traced, I think, to over-incentivising. Over-incentivise something (like easily measurable quantity) and you inevitably under-incentivise something else (like hard-to-measure quality). Rd232 talk 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. I have participated in GA and in DYK. Of both of these, I have enjoyed DYK far more. The "drug" of seeing a DYK through a new article is enhanced by my involvement in topics completely new to Wikipedia. Edit for edit, DYK was more satisfying, fruitful than any GA I wrote or reviewed. DYK motivated me to search for interesting new facts which were new in Science but not on Wikipedia. The resultant stub often hosted more information than the solitary source contained. On occasion, when the authors of the papers from which the facts were taken were contacted, some awaited the DYK keenly and responded by adding images and providing more references, IceMole being a case in point. In the case of Nest-building in primates, two Flickr authors with restricted licensing &  changed their licensing to allow me to upload their images for the DYK stubs. From my point of view, the DYK mechanism promoted me to deveop quality stubs. It is highly doubtful whether I would have got involved with DYK through GA or had a fraction of the pleasure. GA does not need DYK to incentivise it, but new articles and stubs do. The problem here is not with DYK or with the new articles per se as it is with the system or the actions of individual editors. Trying to solve that particular problem by switching from new articles to GA, or develop hybrid systems, is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath-tub. If GA needs to be revitalised and brought to the Main Page, a different scheme may be used which adds another box for highlighting GAs in a different manner. As such, I am in favour of correcting the problem in DYK, retaining the existing system and not in fundamentally changing its nature in any way to do away with the problem. AshLin (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not every article is meant to be a GA. How do you make a 1500 character article into a GA anyway (that's for those who opposed my proposal to up the char limit)? I can also see this dragging GA standards down while failing to drag DYK standards up. Add GAs to the main page but not replace.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support in general anything that gets DYK off the mainpage, but I suspect instead that we'll be back here another year from now, still looking at enablers and denialists still putting copyvio, BLP vios and faulty sourcing on the mainpage. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Until the theEnd of History, Wikipedia's going to continue to need expansion in terms of breadth as well as depth. FA and GA serve a valuable purpose by encouraging the latter; DYK encourages the former. Both should be represented on the main page. Several reasonable proposals for increasing quality control have been made on this page in the past 24 hours, and so far most of SandyGeorgia's complaints appear to focus on the closely-paraphrased contributions of a single editor. I don't feel like we're facing an insurmountable problem here. -- Khazar (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how moving DYK to a sub page and replacing it on the main page with better GA articles would suddenly disrupt wikipedia's breadth or potential. If all that motivates editors to expand articles is a brief view on the main page there is something wrong. Yes, we do need editors building up stubs but what proportion of articles are still stubs? If we really want to do something about that then losing DYK for new articles on the main page will make little difference. In replacement we need something which will give editors more encouragement than ever before to expanding existing content.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Blofeld, c'mon, do you really need to WP:BLUDGEON every oppose vote here? But to reply to your concerns anyway, my experience is that the promise of having other immediate eyes on an article is 1) an added motivation to create it; 2) an added motivation to do it well; and 3) provides an extra round of article improvement when that new article does hit the main page. You say that's a bad reason for me to be writing, but I'd argue we have to accept that not all Wikipedia editors do this through perfect altruism; sometimes we do it because it's fun. For me, getting that immediate feedback and exposure (which the current, hopelessly backlogged GA system doesn't provide) is part of that fun, and also a key part of improving what I'm writing. -- Khazar (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said, Khazar. I've noticed that my more recent DYKs are a pretty big improvement on my first ones. (Heck, I'm writing one that has 15k characters already and hope it can make it all the way to FA) Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Per my comments above. There are too many inherent qualitative problems with DYK that the simplest 'fix' is to replace it with a more proven quality mechanism. 88.160.245.226 (talk) (aka Ohconfucius) 15:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a DYK contributor myself, the increasing pressure of late and negative press about hooks and quality of text/sources had made me seriously address what is going on. It largely comes down to the fact that many editors, myself included believe the main page should be representative of our best content and standards. There's no denying we regularly have articles hitting the front page which are cringeworthy and should never have got through. The fact remains that we just do not have the numbers to maintain the sort of universal quality that many expect of the main page. If we simply moved it to a sub page linked from the main page, sure we might lose 50% at least of people viewing the articles but it would alleviate the pressure on editors. My feeling is that if we moved to a sub page we could give the whole thing a revamp and customize it and make it more fun that it ever was before.  We could even split it into subjects like geography, wildlife, sport etc and have different themed days or collaborative drives on certain topic to make it more fun. Do DYK contributors really care about their article being on the main page for three hours? I most certainly don't, what I enjoy is working with other great editors and expanding stubs into something half decent and having a log I can look back over and choose the best ones to develop into GAs.♦  Dr. Blofeld  15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While all editors may not feel the same, I do feel the pleasure and pride of having a DYK on the Main Page. AshLin (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Dr Blofeld has canvassed for opinions on his proposal from talk page watchers at SandyGeorgia's talkpage. Possibly he has also made similar approaches to people who are not quite so keen to see the DYK part of the mainpage re-used for more thoroughly audited content, or possibly he forgot to do so. If the latter, then it might be a good idea to assist in that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. I was talking to Sandy about this issue anyway and said I'd let her know when I propose something. If I was going to canvass everybody I'd go to talk pages such as Iridescent, Malleus, Giano, Hans Adler, anybody who has expressed disgust of DYK. If these people really want to vote oppose! or support! then they'll do so regardless. In fact I have informed some people about this who would like strongly oppose me.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Letting her know is one thing; also making a specific appeal to her talk page watchers, as you did, is quite another. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. As stated in countless prior votes, DYK serves a vital and valuable purposes.  In addition to promoting the creation of content (which remains today and will remain for many years a needed function), the DYK process encourages new editors and is the best forum for the widest base of editors to get their content featured (even if briefly) on the Main Page.  As a Wikipedia newbie four years ago, someone took an article I created and nominated it for DYK (which I didn't even know existed).  I thought that was a nice gesture and it served as a pat on the back.  I am sure it has served a similar encouragement for hundreds (probably thousands) of other editors.  It seems as though there is a group who comes back here every few months with a new proposal on dismantling DYK, citing one or two errant hooks (out of hundreds) to support that goal.  In response, DYK supporters (myself included) seem timid in defending what is an incredibly good and valuable part of the project.  I love DYK and oppose all of these efforts to dismantle, destroy, or dilute it. Timid no more.  Alliterative and loud in my support of DYK. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How exactly are dull as dishwater factoids such as "...Karen Stollznow writes for two skeptical magazines (Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer) and hosts two skeptical podcasts (Point of Inquiry and Monster Talk)" or "...a small single-runway airport serves Kapoeta South County in the Greater Kapoeta region of South Sudan" supposed to encourage people to contribute to Wikipedia? Are they supposed to be inspired by banality or is it the low standard of article as highlighted by SandyGeorgia? Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is the real issue of those. I mean look at the references in Skeptic (U.S. magazine). Click ref 6 for example. No source information and a dead link and bare url. Articles with sourcing that bad should not go through period.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That criticism would perhaps carry more weight if the prominent illustration on the right side of the page didn't provide the exact information the author was trying to link to (I assume a thumbnail from the back issue ordering page). Look: I think that the material appearing on DYK should be a) original (no copyvio/plagiarism) and b) not a pack of lies (which we defend against with WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS etc.). Sandy's provided enough evidence of these things to make a good case that there's a problem. But picking this as an example of totally unacceptable work reeks of the "Pompo" Heneage brass-polishing tradition. Choess (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Cbl62 4.8 million people on average visit main page daily. Few DYK articles get more than 2000 hits. if you do the maths roughly 2499 out of every 2500 ignore DYK. Doesn't that concern you? I've contributed a high number of DYK article and I can count those who actually expand them with meaningful content beyond basic edits when they hit the main page on one thumb. There is an extremely high percentage who couldn't care less about our DYK feature as they choose to ignore it and search for whatever they want. The stats speak for themselves.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nearly as high a percentage of Main Page visitors who don't care about TFA, ITN, OTD, or TFP either, and ignore them all to search for whwatever they want. According to (unsourced) stats provided on the ongoing Main Page RfC, more than 99.5% of Main Page visitors fail to click through on any of these projects. Should we scrap them all and just put a big search box in the middle of the page? Possibly, but that's not a decision to be made here. cmadler (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - DYK material on the front page needs to be of the highest quality, and isn't that what the GA process is for? Adopting this proposal would ensure higher DYK quality, and increase the attention on the GA process.  I suggest that DYK simply be a follow-on step to the GA process:  when an article achieves GA, a hook from it goes into DYK.  --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It saddens me to see so many opposes that amount to "don't move my cheese". If the purpose of DYK is to provide an enjoyable experience for the editors who participate in it, then let's just shut it down. This is an encyclopedia, not a social website. Of course it makes sense to draw DYK material from content that has been audited. If that means that the DYK of the future looks different from the DYK of the past, that's fine. As an intermediate approach, I'd also suggest that we could try drawing DYK from both the traditional new content and audited content for a while, and see how that works out. I also agree with the additional support rationales given by Mkativerata, Tony, Nev1, Griswaldo, and Noleander. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons that I've given many times before. cmadler (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * for that very reason don't you think its a good idea to change to stop this anti-dyk discussion going on and on until we are blue in the face?♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have noted my support for a variety of proposed changes, and will continue to do so when the proposed change seems to me to be beneficial. I refuse, however, to support change simply because the proponents of that change are doggedly persistent. cmadler (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Brilliant idea, getting something to GA status isn't really that hard (non-native speakers are able to do it) and it often catches a lot of the issues that sneak by DYK reviewers. This will definitely encourage quality content building. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – GAs themselves can be passed by only one editor, and the quality of reviews has a tendency to vary widely. By doing this, we risk trading one problem for another.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 19:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While one editor can pass a GA, the standards – which are intended to ensure an article is well-developed, decently written, properly referenced, and unbiased – are considerably higher than those of DYK which only asks that the hook is referenced. The DYK rules ask for a referenced hook and 1,500 characters of prose in a new article or a five-fold expansion, so that is what most reviewers will look for rather than assessing the quality of an article. Nev1 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know the average GA is better than the average DYK. What I want to know is if GAN reviewers regularly check for source reliability and plagarism/close paraphrasing, seeing as those are the issues pointed out above by Sandy. If GAs have problems in this regard (and there are still a lot of new GAs that have trouble when they come to FAC), then we'll be back here in the future with the same problems. Why should I trust GAN when that process has had its own faults in the past? The perception I have is that some reviewers are really good, and some are less than that. Almost sounds like DYK. Since you probably know GAN better than I do, are strong source reliability and plagarism checks being done?  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Giants2008 makes a fairly compelling point: if, as Sandy has suggested, part of the problem comes from people gaming DYK to get "points," so to speak, the net result of this will probably be to drop the problem into the GA process and break that too (e.g., through cursory QPQ reviews that don't meet our present standard at GA). If there's a high volume of unacceptable material coming through DYK, it seems to me there are two possibilities: either creation of unacceptable material is encouraged by DYK, in which case we should be trying to rapidly and effectively cut off the individuals doing it, or Wikipedia is filling up with unacceptable material, in which case we should be seeking global solutions to the problem rather than trying to whiten the sepulchre by hiding it. Choess (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Giants2008's "compelling point" is a logical fallacy. It cannot be reasonably disputed that the quality of GAs is far beyond that of the average DYK article because of the GA criteria. Just because a solution is not perfect does not mean it should be abandoned if it is still an improvement. This proposal will get better quality articles onto the main page, surely a good thing when you consider that we are writing an encyclopedia and should be presenting decent articles to our readers. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling this a "solution" and "imporevement" doesn't make it so; we're arguing the pros and cons in order to make that determination. It is not a given, but an idea to be tested.  Consider: Right now DYK is often the only review new articles get when they are created, and the DYK review does discover prose problems, citation problems, and copyvios.  If DYK goes to a GA-based focus, then that review process of new Wikipedia content is removed.  The proposed "solution" to poor quality of new articles is thus really a proposal simply to look the other way, and to assume that the problem in new content will thus be solved by ignoring it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My point was not intended to be pro-DYK; it was intended to be anti-GA. There's a difference. Putting something on the main page because it's less bad than something else isn't the right way to handle things. GAN needs to be able to stand on its own merits, not get moved in because of DYK's weaknesses.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Geez, how many times do you people need to post the same proposal at once? The way the "replace DYK with GA" crowd likes to throw things at the wall over and over again in the hopes that something will stick, is starting to get pretty boring. It seems like you people just want to keep making the same proposal again and again in the hopes that one day you will luck out and happen to get a more supportive audience than usual. You guys have repeatedly jumped to make this proposal at the very moment DYK is getting criticized by outsiders. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to point out but your comment is inaccurate. The proposal you link to is not the same at all. That one is about a trial of enabling GA to become part of DYK, in a mixed system that is though to be a win-win solution. But if even modest proposals as that are massively opposed, don't be surprised that more and more editors want to remove the current type of DYKs from the main page altogether. --Elekhh (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I linked to several different proposals; more proposals are linked to from within those. And if you read the "support" arguments for this or any other of the proposals, you will see that many of the supporters are actually supporting very different things from the proposals. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The benefits of having it on the main page, and encouraging new articles, outweigh the costs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There are articles which have been successfully nominated for DYK, but would never be GA in coming future, and many of them even have higher readership than TFA.  undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   03:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose New articles need to be highlighted on the Main Page. Cmadler demolishes the clickthrough argument quite effectively: it's a baseless reason simply being used as an excuse for trying to get rid of DYK because of the way in which a few people use it extensively.  Moreover, as has been noted already, many topics pass our notability standards but simply don't have enough coverage to make it to GA: we can have simple articles on them that pass 1.5KB and demonstrate notability, and there's nothing wrong with putting those on the Main Page.  What's wrong with having something such as Saxony Apartment Building on the Main Page?  Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose demotion of DYK from the main page. Strongly feel that new articles and newly expanded articles will always have a place in DYK on the main page. This is a growing encyclopedia, designed to grow in both depth and breadth. No need to sacrifice either. In the real world non-Wikipedia web, new content on a daily basis is king, and produces loyal, sticky, recurring readers. Where other websites seek "conversions" by converting clicks into ad revenue, we want "conversions" of readers into contributors/editors, who can learn the ropes and make positive contributions as quickly as possible. Of course DYK quality is important, but oversight is the way forward for that. Demotion is not. Don't attack/deprecate other loci of WP activity. A separate notice for GA announcements makes sense, but not at the cost of DYK on the main page. --Lexein (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Khazar makes a good point above (depth and breadth of Wikipedia). Make the reviews better (for instance by giving special credit for flawless DYK reviews---badges often work wonders) and whack the few serial offenders, both of substandard writing and of sloppy reviews. --Pgallert (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I wouldn't mind having a featured Good article section for single good article every day or 12 hours or however we work it, but I am extremely opposed to switching out the current DYK with only Good Articles. Silver  seren C 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This will clearly improve the quality of content on the Main Page. For anyone who is unsure whether this would result in an improvement in quality, I strongly encourage them to compare the most recently promoted GAs with the most recent DYKs. Jenks24 (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The solution is to improve DYK, not to demote or kill it. Prioryman (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose for all the reasons already given. Plus, at a time we as a community are tearing our hair out because we think we're not getting enough new editors (a problem I'm beginning to have my own doubts about, but that's another story), what kind of sense does it make to drastically destroy the one thing that can most readily give new editors a sense of reward for their contributions? Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Daniel, if you've got your own doubts about it, why are you building your case for "Strong oppose" on it? Tony   (talk)  15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was in a rush and didn't feel the need/wasn't able to go into detail, so, I suppose, next time I should assume only good faith. But ... apart from whether the decline in newer editors is the indicator of the community's overall health that people, important people, have begun to take it on faith that it is, I think a section like DYK is ideal for helping develop new editors, by which I mean people who actually research and write articles, and review those submitted by others, as opposed to the many new users we get who make their bones by loading up with Huggle and Twinkle and reverting vandals and doing newpage patrol for hours on end, a process which doesn't do much to develop collaborational skills but could well be, in the absence of DYK, where we would be getting our new editors from. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose in current form, following Giants' reasoning. Don't get me wrong, the Good Article process is far from perfect. But at present there is relatively little motivation for someone to review a GAN unless they want to be a good reviewer, and there is relatively little time pressure. On balance, most mistakes at GAN are made by people who want to be good reviewers, acting in good faith, which is in stark contrast to the quid pro quo situation at DYK. Furthermore, at present it is considered a good thing for someone knowledgeable about a subject to review a GAN. This proposal is likely to change that perception, and increase the chances of people who like a specific field or article subject to go easy on it in the GA review. I support the idea of bringing GAs into DYK somehow, but effectively getting rid of DYK and replacing it with GAN + hook drafting is not the answer. —WFC— 16:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This proposal seems short on details and I fail to see how it's going to be sustaining presuming we follow a similar structure to DYK. From Wikipedia:Good article statistics it looks like we could probably do GAs in a sorta DYK format with about an average of about 6 hooks a day (rather then every 6 hours) i.e. ~2,192 a year. However if we limit ourselves to DYK (i.e. recently created or expanded) qualifying articles, it seems rather unlikely it would work. It's quite unlikely nearly all current GA promotions qualify for DYK as would be required to sustain 6 a day. There may be some increase if we make the new format but what's been proposed here seems to require a magic increase in numbers. I do agree the subpage idea is a bit pointless. If we want to get rid of DYK or non GA DYK or whatever then just do it, don't create a page that few people are going to visit Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the idea, but why not have two different DYK's? One for the new content and another for promoted GA articles? I'll support it if its like that. AJona1992 (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the opposes above, won't solve the problem and smacks of the notion that DYKs should be mini-FAs, which is not what DYK is all about. Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose As the easiest way for an editor to get their work featured on the main page, it's a really fun way to motivate content creation.  I might support having one or two hooks per group being from good articles, though.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the idea that anyone could nominate a fact for a DYK from a GA or FA article, I think that would be a worthwhile expansion to DYK. As regards existing DYKs an extension to thirty days would be useful, not least because it would include articles found at the back of the queue at newpage patrol. I think that would be a good expansion to the system, but we also need some sort of editorial process so that "overly similar to x" becomes a good reason to defer a hook for a few days.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Sorry that this involves taking away some editors' fun. There are more important things. Linking to 3 or 4 good articles from the main page is a much better idea than linking to half a dozen possibly (too often) dodgy ones. Isn't that obvious? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While I agree that it makes sense to include GAs on the main page, I do think removing DYKs as currently defined from the main page will be a net positive. There is still value in exposing new content on the main page to attract further expansion/improvements. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the reasons have been stated innumerable times before, including above. Manxruler (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - As en.wiki matures, the focus must evolve from quantity to quality. There's no point encouraging the creation of more low quality content when we have so much work to do on improving the content we already have. Kaldari (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Multiple RFCs confusing, simply remove DYK from the mainpage
There are at least five RFCs running now on DYK, so I can't endorse the idea of weighing in on any one of them specifically. What is abundantly apparent is that the DYK regulars who endorse the poor quality they are putting on the main page are doing so because they truly do not understand Wikipedia's sourcing policies or copyvio. DYK does *not* have enough knowledgeable editors to prevent the daily debacles that have been occurring for over a year, and DYK is encouraging editors who never improve their skills to the GA or FA level to plagiarize, commit copyvio, violate BLP, and put up articles based on blogs and other non-reliable sources. It is not a service to Wikipedia, as we no longer have enough editors to clean up the deficient content these editors create. Good and able editors do use DYK, but those editors will go on to get GAs and FAs, while those who never improve their editing knowledge beyond the rudimentary level of DYK continue to fill Wikipedia with content that violates our policies. There is no solution to DYK: this discussion has gone on for years, and many of the regulars here are tone deaf.

Remove DYK from the main page, period. We have plenty of other options that can take that space, and we can use those where editors improve the quality of our articles rather than churning out hundreds of deficient articles that DYK regulars don't even recognize as deficient.


 * Support. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Vide the reasons I gave in previous RFC. AshLin (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If Dr. Blofeld's suggestion above was likened to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, this is throwing all the interior plumbing as well. Working to improve DYK (and perhaps participating in some reviews) would be much more effective than sensationalistically suggesting it be scrapped altogether. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose and while I'm at it, how many FA's exactly did Rlevse manage to score and over what period of time before the oh-so-vigilant regulars at FAC noticed that he was a serial "close paraphraser"? Just curious. Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose A proposal without an obvious rationale other than to get rid of that annoying DYK section, or that is how it comes over. Some of those RFCs that are being derided look like coming to useful conclusions (I'm actually a little surprised that's the case) that should improve the process and are generating more light than heat, which is a nice change. Mikenorton (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Overblown and per Gatoclass.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. DYK has an important mission; several reforms are in motion; and per Gatoclass. -- Khazar (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It's quite obvious that DYK has been getting worse, not better over the years, and it shows no real signs of accepting the need for improvement. Time to scrap it; Wikipedia doesn't need more articles, it needs better articles, and DYK is the antithesis of that. Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the field of Science, that is certainly not the case that we have adequate number of articles, imho. AshLin (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And how many science DYKs have you seen? There isn't even one on the main page right now for instance, so it seems disingenuous for you to argue that DYK encourages the production of new science articles. If there is a lack of such articles, as you claim, then that seems to be yet more evidence that DYK isn't working. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You just missed Inocybe godeyi being on the main page by a few minutes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Strong supporter of DYK per my comments in the proposal above, which also seeks to dismantle DYK. Cbl62 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Lightmouse (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think it's been demonstrated that there are problems, but reform is the way to go, rather than scrapping the program. Let's work towards that goal. The Interior  (Talk) 17:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the response here do you really think that reform is ever actually going to happen? For too many clearly are happy to go on ignoring the complaints and issues with DYK articles. They are content to go on without changing a thing, this is the problem. At this rate we'll be here next here with no change just like the front page stalemate. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what page Dr. B's looking at here; it doesn't seem to be this one. At least five reform proposals either have already passed or currently have majority support, right?
 * A new page format allowing watchlisting and archiving of individual noms, to encourage accountability and lengthier discussion. (Already passed, soon to be implemented)
 * Loss of DYK privileges for QPQ editors who make an inadequate review, or nominators who repeatedly submit inappropriate material to DYK.
 * A more thorough checklist requiring editors to explicitly note that they've checked each minimum DYK requirement, again encouraging accountability.
 * Including items related to plagiarism and prose issues on this checklist.
 * A one-week time limit to bring submissions up to DYK quality to better focus reviewer attention and to more swiftly eliminate inadequate submissions.
 * I respectfully suggest that those editors insisting that DYK can never reform at least try proposing their reforms (and also comment on the reforms currently being discussed). The only "reform" proposals that appear to be clearly failing here are the ones to take DYK off the main page entirely, which seems to be "reform" in the same sense that Jack Kevorkian was a "doctor". -- Khazar (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Advocates of the current format assert that it encourages new editors, but apparently without consideration. If the purpose of DYK is encourage new contributors, a well-written article is more likely to encourage faith in Wikipedia and get people involved that the examples of poor work SandyGeorgia has highlighted. More over, having poor articles on the front page might create the impression that such standards are not just acceptable but encouraged as by appearing on the front page an article appears to have been endorsed by the Wikipedia community. If DYK cannot be reformed then it needs to be scrapped. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia regularly has articles that don't live up to our standards.  If we were realiou trulio serious, we would not publish the stuff and wait until it was more finished.  Like a normal website.  And people see them all the time, people Google into the 'pedia WAY more than using the main page (adding all the article views).  Now, I can consider a view that the MP should be a standard setter, etc. But that's a subtley different issue.TCO (reviews needed)  17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. There is an increasing drive to drive new content and new editors away. This idea is one of them. We should rather be thinking on how to capture the willingness of people and looking for ways to include them in the process. Agathoclea (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose DYK does have problems, but I trust that some of the reform ideas will really end up benefiting the project. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nah, I have confidence in our ability to fix it. This is an over-reaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose. This is a terrible idea. If implemented, it would effectively kill DYK - which is no doubt the point of the proposal. Prioryman (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Don't take this as a tacit support of the current system, because that's not my intent. There need to be strong changes to improve DYK. I believe in the goal of highlighting new content, and there are some quality creations/expansions each day. The problem is that too many articles are being run, and just about every eligible article is put on the Main Page. Indiscriminate is the word that comes to my mind. What needs to happen is for DYK to run one batch daily of the best creations/expansions for a given day. That is what will save the process, and strengthen DYK's reputation, which is suffering at the moment. However, I believe that DYK can be saved and improved.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 19:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support. DYK outlived its usefullness a couple years back. When it began, major articles were still being added to the encyclopedia. Now, pretty much everything of major importance is created, and now it's all about getting something written quickly to get on the page. DYK has been through reform after reform, and while it's better than it was in 2007, there is no way to modify it enough to keep junk off the main page while maintaining its original purpose. DYK's "vital purpose" is something I'm actually no longer sure of with all the proposals anymore. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that "pretty much everything of major importance is created" is flatly incorrect, unless you consider one- and two-sentence stubs to satisfy your creation requirements. See Plant ecology for just one example of a major topic that has more section headers than text on its page.  DYK (as it currently stands) is as much about expanding these stubs with new content as it is about writing articles de novo --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but it's not worth my time to re-hash reasons that have been posted over and over. I'm spending my time here improving things. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, with thanks to EncycloPetey for improving - this is what we should do instead of wasting time here. Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, sadly. DYK cannot go on, as it encourages the creation of articles that violate WP:BLP and often contain copyvios and unreliable sources. There are many capable editors who use DYK, but per Sandy they take their work to GA/FA. We are supporting the creation of content which is unhelpful to WP. Talk of a system to stop this happening has not resulted in any changes, so axe DYK or change from new articles to new GAs. —  Andrew s talk  00:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as latest in a series of attempts at bludgeoning DYK out of existence to make a handful of GA enthusiasts happy without offering an actual solution to an actual problem. GA is chock full of junk reviews like this one, so egregiously slight that the author of the article felt compelled to request the review on his own. If that is the standard of quality to which supporters aspire, it's not the DYK folks who need a good long look at themselves in the mirror. - Dravecky (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The benefits outweigh the costs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? What benefits? What costs? --Lexein (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Discouraging proposal.  undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   03:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Baby/bathwater. DYK serves one purpose, GA/FA serves another. When I've reviewed DYK suggestions, I have been quite careful not to pass poor/negative hooks, poor sourcing, or poor articles. New content, and new-expansion content will always deserve space on the main page - better oversight (and better tools for guiding reviewers) is what's needed, that's all.  I'm pleased to participate in consensus against demoting/deletion of DYK from public view. --Lexein (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose That's a horrible idea and, to me, your wording was very offensive. Silver  seren C 10:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For me the wording was like a kick in the teeth, frankly. A lot of people are working to produce good content for DYK and comments like that suggest that you think we're just wasting the community's time. Prioryman (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, obviously. Why not userfy everything below A-class, or maybe take Wikipedia offline altogether? Most articles are actually worse than DYK content. --Pgallert (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - from what I can see, some of the reforms are actually going to be implemented. This (late in the day) proposal looks like some sort of over-reaction or some way to see what support there is for the extreme option. One thing I do agree with is that the multiple RfCs on this page are confusing, so can we please not have any more until some of the earlier ones are closed and some form of consensus emerges. If anyone want to put up yet another proposal, please, please discuss it first or mention it in one of the current RfCs. Carcharoth (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose For all reasons given in above opposes. Nominator has long made claims that DYK is full of "poorly-sourced, plagiarized and POV material" without giving any examples that this is a continuing issue. Certainly there have been flareups such as Carol Spears and Rlevse, but I don't see where this is a regular problem. I do agree the quality of our hooks could use some improvement of late ... however, I see it as being too many reviewers not realizing how dull a hook is, or not rewriting or being willing to rewrite or even recognize awkwardly worded hooks. I don't see endemic sourcing or POV problems ... look through the nominations and you'll see many, many instances of this being raised (Consider, as one of my hooks with photo is leading the section, that last night one of my hooks got flagged for something not at all related to the main hook submissions). Where is all this rubber-stamping? If I don't get it after almost 450 DYKs, I can't imagine a new editor should either. Maybe, if anything, we need a more constant group of reviewers like we used to have a couple of years ago ... I think we had a better quality of review when there were no bots involved and we had to, so to speak, walk four miles to school and back every day in the snow (And we liked it!) Back then I routinely reviewed five hooks every time I submitted a new one. Daniel Case (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback: the list of Opposers here will be interesting when we revisit the DYK Daily Debacle next year. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandy, if you're going to have that kind of attitude about this, you might as well just recuse yourself from any discussion of reforms to DYK because remarks like that could be taken by others as prejudicial to any assumption of good faith they would be willing to grant you. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can fail to AGF all you want, but I'm looking more at your failure to actually read the discussion or acknowledge the years-long history of DYK when you make unfounded statements like "Nominator has long made claims that DYK is full of 'poorly-sourced, plagiarized and POV material' without giving any examples that this is a continuing issue." Please try to focus on the discussion at hand, and it isn't wise to weigh in with allegations about other editors without informing yourself of the facts.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose DYK is the most interesting part of the main page. DYKs are not and should not be mini-FAs. And yes there are way to many threads going on about DYK. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - look for my name elsewhere on this page if you didn't read yet why. I want to create content that is good to know (such as TvM, who died 5 years ago, tomorrow, Q6). Others do the same, look at a collection (repeated), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose a little more focus on how to improve DYK and a little less hostility to DYKers would be useful at this juncture.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this as best option if Dr. Blofeld's proposal doesn't fly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support I don't think there's a consensus to get rid of DYK. But felt I should voice my criticism for DYK right here in hopes that someone will try to make it better... or if they fail, that we can revisit whether we should have it at all. Dzlife (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I basically agree with Gatoclass. Rlendog (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gatoclass and others. Manxruler (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Carcharoth; this thread is an epic overreaction. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 17:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Brainstorming related to RFC
I don't want to put this as a proposal yet for voting, but here's a related idea: What if we had a mostly GA DYK section, with non-GA slots (maybe capped at a certain number) reserved for editors who have never had a DYK before? This could get some recognition for new editors, but if you are a regular contributor you need to go through a more intensive review process to get your article on the mainpage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A suggestion would be to remove the more problematic materical from DYK, starting with any BLP's. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's still not helpful for readers (Calliopejen's suggestion) because, as I have said before, most readers don't know what a GA is and I venture to guess they don't care; likewise, I doubt they care about the stature of the editors who write these articles. Any division along these lines is just confusing. (The same could be said about new vs. recently-expanded articles, I guess, and we do sometimes get readers confused at why there are non-new articles on DYK, but that's another topic entirely.) <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reduce the DYK cycle to every 12 hours giving more opportunity to review and clean up issues. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good articles and New articles?
While there is currently no consensus for either adding good articles to the DYK queue or moving DYK to a sub page and replacing with good articles, there are a number of opposes to these propositions that are not against the idea of having a good article section as well as a new article section. Is there a way to do this?

My idea is to have one or two good articles that run for 24 hours as a DYK. It can be chosen from any of the current good articles that have not appeared previously as a DYK and a vote can be carried out to determine if the article and hook is suitable (similar to choosing ITN items). New articles can get their own section on the main page, titled to make it clear that they are New Articles. They won't have a hook, but will be presented with a short description about what they are (similar to disambiguation pages). Do away with quid pro quo, impose a cap on nominations (?15 per month), and impose a maximum character limit (?5,000) to go with the minimum. Keep other requirements the same, including some form of checklist.

Advantages - New articles still get reviewed and their time on the main page. They are specifically under a New Article section so the reader is less likely to be disappointed at their quality. The quality of the main page as a whole should increase and hopefully "boring" DYK hooks would be excluded. It should still take up roughly the same space on the Main page. DYK, GA and FA roughly corresponds to editors editing ability (new, intermediate/experienced and talented), so there will be achievable goals for anyone to aspire to on the main page. It may encourage more editors to focus on quality over quantity. Decreasing the number of eligible new articles should slow input, which will allow reviewers more time to check nominations. Reviewers and nominators would not have to worry about hooks for hookyness or possible BLP violations. As the article size is controlled there will be less prose to check for copy-pasting (and less information to double check against references). Articles that do not meet this criteria can still reach the main page through the GA process. Space on the main page would correspond more equally to the amount of effort an editor puts into an article.

Compared to most of the commentators here I am relatively inexperienced with the processes behind keeping Wikipedia running, but I would be curious to know if this idea was feasible or utter bollocks. AIR corn (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me what exactly you are proposing. In particular, the second paragraph of your message contains several proposals that don't seem directly related to the GA thing (getting rid of hooks, capping nominations, maximum character limit).
 * As for having a GA section in addition to DYK, I'm pretty sure this proposal has been discussed before, in the numerous previous discussions of GA-in-DYK, several of which I have provided links to in other GA-related discussions recently on this page. Please take a look at those. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * GA section in addition to DYK is unlikely to fly. Requests_for_comment/Main_Page_features. Rd232 talk 10:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, it seems blindingly obvious that there should be a separate subpage for discussing DYK reform/process issues (Did you know/reform perhaps) - including all the review issues as well as the criteria for inclusion etc. Mixing these voluminous discussions with everyday DYK issues is a recipe for mess. Rd232 talk 10:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding a GA section to the Main Page, in addition to DYK, should be discussed at the Main Page (and probably also at the GA project). If they are done separately, it does not need to involve DYK. cmadler (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Way up above somewhere, I suggested moving lots of threads to Did you know/2011 reform proposals, but no-one did anything. I would suggest calling it 'proposals' and giving it a year, as just 'reform' and no year makes it a bit nebulous. What I am going to do now is start moving some threads and see if the moves stick. Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I made a start. Apologies for not finishing. Simply too many sections to move. If someone else wants to try finishing it, please do. I've left the 'Daily DYK scandal' and the formal RFCs alone, as the former is not really a reform proposal, though the latter (the RFCs) are, but should really be closed before being moved. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the pie charts above showed weak support (maybe not consensus) for having "one or two" good articles among the DYKs. The obvious thing would seem to be to split the difference and make one hook from a new GA for each DYK batch, or perhaps as you say per 24 hours.  I don't think this should be in any way differentiated from the other DYKs except a) it should come before them, b) it should start with the Good Article logo which should link to more information on Good Articles, and c) of course, there needs to be some reworking of the DYK rules to allow good article hooks, perhaps from a Good Article passed in the last five days. Wnt (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really making a proposal, just thinking out loud (I will move it to the sub page as it probably fits better there). I was trying to tie Good Articles and DYK together in a way that would satisfy some of the concerns raised in the above RFC's. AIR corn (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yomangani's suggestion
From Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive_69: "Having the admin recheck every article that they move to prep isn't going to work, and the turnover of editors and admins is too high to work these problems out of the system permanently anyway. DYK is fixable in my opinion, but not by attempting to make the review process more rigorous than FAC (where's the FAC checklist template?) Accept DYK for what it is: a shop-front for works in progress. Change "From Wikipedia's newest content:" to "From Wikipedia's newest content; these articles may need improving, correcting or deleting. If you'd like to help, pick one and start editing." Do a quick check that the articles don't obviously breach any core policies (just as you would on New Page patrol) and then tip them out on the main page for editors and potential editors to fix up. All you are doing then is sifting the new page creation list for articles that have potential. This is supposedly the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so why should the main page be filled only with content that discourages editing by its apparent completeness? (I use "apparent" advisedly as some absolute nonsense gets through DYK and remains unchallenged because it has superscript numerals nearby.) Encourage visitors to become editors by giving them something they might want to edit."

This idea got support from several DYK editors (Johnbod, Gerda Arendt, Daniel Case, Bruce 1ee, Gatoclass, and myself) but then got lost in the rush of other proposals and arguements about templates. I think it's worth more consideration. It would make reviewing (and prep-composing, etc.) more manageable, and is more in line with the DYK mission statement ("The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles. This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles and the encyclopedia, and brings new and expanded articles to the attention of readers who view the Main Page.") than many of the other recent proposals. cmadler (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the point of DYK is to simply encourage the creation of more content (regardless of quality), then DYK is an outdated concept. As has been echoed a hundred times in the discussions above, the focus must evolve from quantity to quality. Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)