Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.

Lead (picture) hook pulled from next queue

• ... that Mexican Federal Highway 40D from Durango to Mazatlán features 68 tunnels and 115 bridges, including the world's tallest cable-stayed bridge (pictured)?

Template:Did you know nominations/Mexican Federal Highway 40D @Raymie, Gerda Arendt, and Yoninah:

As always with first, largest, tallest, ... hooks, don't just check that the source makes that claim, but also check that no other sources contradict it, or that the record has been beaten since. In this case, the Baluarte Bridge is not the tallest cable-stayed bridge in the world: it is 403m above the ground, but the 2016 Duge Bridge is 565m above the ground. Checking our own List of highest bridges would have been sufficient... The Yachi River Bridge as well is higher and of the same type. I have pulled the hook, the nom will need to be reopened. Fram (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. You could simply have changed the hook to "Baluarte Bridge, then the world's tallest cable-stayed bridge", no? Or to just "Baluarte Bridge". Readers who remember the DYK of that bridge (like me) will remember that it was the tallest then without adding it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I will not change hooks to something I haven't checked, nor to a mention of a bridge without any indication of why that one is mentioned. Hook is factually wrong => take it back to prep and find a correct one instead. No rushed changes to get it into the queue at all costs. Fram (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I changed the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm dearly sorry for that. Yeah, it makes sense that China's infrastructure development is moving even faster than Mexico's. Raymie (t • c) 16:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh ... I guess it's too much to hope for that any admin who would yank a hook from the top queue within hours of it being on the main page, would move another hook up to fill the gap. A simple courtesy. I moved Sagunto Castle up from prep 5 to fill the top slot. And, yes, I checked the source to make sure the hook is verified. No moaning, please, no whining, no complaining about the imperfections of other people. It's done. @Raymie, Gerda Arendt, and Yoninah: your hook can be re-added to some prep. Sorry it went down this way. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Where can I find the corrected hook? Prep 5 is short one hook because Sagunto Castle was moved up, I think it makes sense if the corrected hook go there. HaEr48 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I re-posted the template on the Approved page. The new ALT is waiting for approval from an uninvolved editor. Yoninah (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah and Raymie: Mexican Federal Highway 40D nomination was in limbo, at neither the Approved page nor the one waiting for approval. I just added it to the Approved page. Let's hope it stays there this time. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah and Raymie: Well ... Wugbot just removed it and sent it into limbo again. Apparently, Wugbot sees this nomination as "closed" and thinks it doesn't belong anywhere. Looking at the template, Yoninah, whoever reopened it should have done a "revert" on the close, instead of however somebody did it. I looked at it in the edit screen, and it had all the coding for the closing on it, so that's why Wugbot keeps deleting it. I pasted over that with what was there immediately before you promoted it. Hopefully, it will now stay on the Approved page. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would you want to have an unapproved hook on the Approved page? This is making things more confusing, not less. Fram (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - camerawork

... that the camerawork of Swedish film The King of Ping Pong was compared to that of Roy Andersson?

I read this and thought, "so what"? Sadly, although Andersson may be an acclaimed Swedish director, he's not commonly known, this hook will be lost on a lot of people. Grand Jury prize (in its category) at Sundance might be of much broader interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the current hook is sufficient. Also, I removed the lead too short tag on the article. The article is short per the type of coverage it received so there really isn't a need for a long lead. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts, and since you're the main contributor, I suggest you let others discuss this. I'm not asking for a "long lead", just one that, per WP:LEAD, "... serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents ..." i.e. not one which is just a single statement of fact about this individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I can discuss it if I want to. On the contrary, as the main contributor of both the article and the hook, I have the right to discuss it. I can't expand the lead if you don't give me more of an idea of what you want. SL93 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought that was evident from the instructions in the {{lead too short}} template, i.e. cover all major points in the lead, such as actors, awards, criticism etc. When I said others should be allowed to discuss this, I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't, just that others should be free to wade in. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Um, I never said people couldn't. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, me neither. Anyway, hopefully you have enough information now to work out how to fix this up, the hook is inconsequential and the lead is inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead has been expanded and the tag removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Bravo, it doesn't address the "hook" issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Northamerica1000 as the reviewer. SL93 (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think TRM has a valid point, the hookiness of the hook depends on know who Andersson was. There is an easy fix, however... add something to the article (with citation) that establishes Andersson as an acclaimed Swedish Director or multi-award winning or whatever... then use that descriptor to change the hook to something like "... that the camerawork in the Swedish film The King of Ping Pong was compared to that of acclaimed Director Roy Andersson?" Failing that sort of change, TRM's idea of using the Sundance Grand Jury prize is worth considering. Also, SL93, removing a tag about a lead that is too short without expanding the lead and when (at a single sentence) it is manifestly not an adequate summary of the article is not good editing. The problem has been addressed now, so there is no longer an issue, but it is worth you recognising that your actions here were less than ideal. EdChem (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I reacted that way because I think that tagging a DYK article without notifying the nominator is a bad move. Not only can tagged articles not be put on the main page, but what if no one notices the tag before the queue is promoted - like recently with one of The Rambling Man's citation needed tags. SL93 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

SL93, any article I nominate at DYK is included on my watchlist. I check changes made to it. TRM has added cn tags and noted other issues in my articles, and I usually respond by addressing the issue, even if I am unconvinced it is needed. Only if I think it is wrong for some significant reason do I dispute it. TRM's manner can be blunt (or worse at times), but he is usually right – as he was in this case – and addressing the issues he notes usually leads to better encyclopaedic content. DYK is meant to bring attention to articles and that means improvements being made as well as deficiencies being noted, both prior to and during its main-page appearance. Reverting valid taggings is not helpful, and it does not matter who places the tag if it is valid. Please, try to look at tags and ask yourself if they point to an issue that should be addressed and put aside who placed them. EdChem (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, you're lucky that an editor who kind of knows the ropes is reviewing these things post-promotion. At least I have kind-of clue as to what constitutes reliable sourcing, suitable leads, BLP infringements etc. That way the chances of enduring the embarrassment of posting such poor articles to the main page is substantially reduced. SL93, you claim that "Not only can tagged articles not be put on the main page...", can you point to that directive as others have been questioning the reason behind posting such tagged articles on the main page. My bluntness (EdChem) can sometimes be summed up by the fact that I have very little time to work on Wikipedia, and I'm trying to keep the main page free of junk, so if I don't jump through all the hoops expected by some here at this particular project (I review ITN, OTD, TFL... too) then sorry about that, but as Fram would agree, it's not up to someone who's making a complaint against an error to follow some kind of arcane procedure to ensure the "nominator" and the "promoter" knows, and all that other project-related bureaucracy. That's a problem for each project to cope with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

We will clearly have to disagree about when to notify or not to notify editors. SL93 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well as I said, you're lucky in this case that I notify people when these erroneous issues are in prep or queue. If they're at ERRORS, then DYK has fouled up two or three times. There's no reason to go looking for the creator, why would anyone do that? This is an encyclopedia for our readers not our editors, and it would serve us all well to remember that from time to time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

My view is if you go to the article creator, who can likely fix the problem, then the creator can fix it and our readers will not have to deal with it. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 will soon be put into a queue and I think this hook should be dealt with already. I agree with TRM's alt proposal as being much more interesting to a broad audience, and suggest substituting it for the hook:

ALT1: ... that the Swedish film The King of Ping Pong won the Grand Jury Prize for world cinema at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival? Yoninah (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @SL93:. Yoninah (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I said it was fine. Someone might want to change it before its loaded into a queue. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - linguistic order

... that the linguistic research of Elena Georgieva showed that Bulgarian word order may change based on the emphasis a speaker wants to convey?

Isn't this true of most languages? Word order changes to emphasise different things all the time: "I love that dog", "that's the dog I love", etc etc etc. Is this special somehow? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging SusunW, SL93, Cwmhiraeth, HaEr48. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

What happens in other languages isn't the subject of Georgieva's work. We don't determine whether her work was special, sources do, and specifically, one of them states: "The impact of her work on the field of Bulgarian syntax was considerable… Slovored was and is a high-water mark in the field for a number of reasons…it was the first work on Bulgarian syntax to view Bulgarian sentential word order as the culminating result of a number of different factors." Dyer p 14 "Georgieva’s contention is that Bulgarian sentential word order has multiple faces…and of the creation of an emphatic or stylistic atmosphere in language communication…” Dyer p 15. SusunW (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the point I'm trying to emphasise is that this isn't unique, or even interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:: Please check Word order, the example examples you cite aren't changing word order. They're all still SVO. That (S) - is (V) - the dog I love (O). Saying "The dog love I" to mean "I love the dog" would be OVS, but English doesn't allow this. In English sometimes there are sentences with non-SVO order, e.g. "I thee wed", but it's not normal. A language having variable word order is certainly not unique, but given that this is the English Wikipedia and English has generally strict word order, I think this is an interesting fact for English speakers. HaEr48 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but it means the hook is somewhat inaccessible to most of our readers. Please revise it to make it "interesting to a broad audience" per the guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess where we differ here is that you are assuming since you find it uninteresting that others will agree. Your opinion, and I am not trying to be disrespectful, doesn't necessarily represent that of a broad audience either. And thank you HaEr48 you said pretty much what I was writing when we had our edit conflict. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I guess pageviews will let us know. This is not interesting to a broad audience by any means, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful either, but I wondered if there was something more hooky to publish. You're sticking to your guns, fair play, let's see how it plays out. My guess is sub-2k hits. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe The Rambling Man should write an essay about his personal opinions of what is hooky and we could all go by his almighty word... I can be pretty blunt to. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to Topic-prominent language might help? It is fairly unusual in European languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.146 (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Per above, perhaps a re-word here to ensure a few more hits than my normal talkpage daily visitors? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Continuous errors in DYK articles' coordinates.

I have to continuously correct the coordinates in DYK articles, such as this one today. Is there any way that a check of the coordinates be added to the Reviewing guide? Abductive (reasoning) 21:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Personally I would have no idea how to even do that? Any suggestios for a good way to double check this?  MPJ-DK  22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  I do sometimes compare coordinates to Wikimapia and Google Earth to see if they make sense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I just realized you can click onthe coordinates and chose to see them through various sites, I chose the streetview of Google and boom righte there where it's supposed to be - that is awesome, and easy to do too.  MPJ-DK  22:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've learned a lot of things by reading instruction pages on Wikipedia, but I've never found a page that explains how to do coordinates. Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think co-ordinates are a very minor part of articles and don't impact on DYK much. Often I find that if you put the invisible co-ordinates needed tag on an article, someone better versed in it is able to come in and correct it. But it doesn't affect anything in the article that is related to DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So in your mind, being off by a literal mile (as in my example diff) is no problem on the Front Page? Yep, you must be right, and I must be wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 16:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Abductive: Requiring this from each reviewer is asking too much, and can lead to edit wars . And it comes down to "Whose coordinates are correct?" My example on recent DYK Big Chief Restaurant:

• Version One: 38.581111, -90.659722 from the coordinates listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Louis County, Missouri. That took me to GeoHack. I used the decimal coordinates that show in the upper right hand corner of that page.
• Version Two: 38.581040, -90.660459 Changed by an editor while it was on the main page Big Chief Restaurant. This is the second time in a few days someone changed the coordinates on a DYK of mine.
• Version Three - 38.5824105,-90.6635067 Google maps for the street address and zip code as listed on the restaurant website
• Version Four - 38.5802, -90.66063 Bing maps for the street address

So which of these 4 versions are correct? In fact, both Google and Bing give conflicting results within themselves depending on how detailed you input the address. I appreciate that you are diligent about coordinates. But I don't think we should make this a requirement on reviews. — Maile (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Some of those violate the Manual of Style; MOS:COORDS. Abductive (reasoning) 16:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well ... then it's Google, Bing and the National Park Service who are violating our MOS, and not ours to control. — Maile (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• No, their coordinates are often decimal conversions of dms coords. And they can be rounded. But this is not my main point. My example shows the coords were off by 1.6 kilometers. They need to be checked. Abductive (reasoning) 18:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5

@Prioryman: @Gerda Arendt:

• ... that Sigurd Slembe is a trilogy of plays by Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson about a worthless bastard who tries to seize the throne of Norway?

Sigurd Slembe was a real person. Though he was illegitimate, is it encyclopedic to call him "a worthless bastard"? The phrasing also seems to indicate a value judgment. Yoninah (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable to use "bastard" as we are using it in the correct context (Indeed when Flag of Guernsey ran, we called William The Conquerer a bastard in the hook for that is what he was. The question is; is the word "worthless" encyclopedic? Is it in the context of a quote or an accusation by the writer of the plays? Personally it should either be in quote marks or remove the word worthless but I see no legitimate reason why we should remove bastard from the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

'Slembe' in context can mean multiple things, bastard, worthless, bad etc. The article in question Sigurd Slembe (trilogy) makes this clear - as far as the intention of the naming of the plays are concerned. 'Slembi' in old Norse means something else again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and the name has been translated multiple ways - "Sigurd the Worthless", "Sigurd the Bad", "Sigurd the Bastard" etc. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect, given the wordplay, this ought to be the "quirky" hook, just to avoid people making a fuss. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm moving it to the quirky slot in the next set. Yoninah (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing infoboxes

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

---

Missing infoboxes

This discussion is closed
A visual representation of the weather forecast pertaining to this topic
Chances of requirement being added	Next to no chance
Utility of discussion continuing	Next to no chance
Name of user closing discussion	Bencherlite
Time of closing of discussion	20:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have noted that many DyK articles are missing infoboxes. Is there a way that a check could be made prior to approving a DyK for an appropriate infobox? Perhaps a brief mention of this could be written into the instructions for the DyK writers or for the reviewers. Abductive (reasoning) 16:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Why? I mean I get the use of info boxes, but the lack of one does not seem like a hinderance for it being on the main page. Do we need yet another check point when there are enough issues making sure we hit all the current quality checks?  MPJ-DK  16:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Infobox's are not required on any article and many articles have editor consensus *not* to have one. As far as I am aware having an infobox is not a criteria for being a FA, GA etc either (but I could be wrong on that) so it would be beyond laughable for DYK to require one. (Its also considered bad form to include an infobox on an article where the primary creator has decided not to use one) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Signpost 2013-10-02 Arbitration report on Infoboxes. They are an individual choice, not a requirement on any review process. — Maile (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• In addition to Maile's point, it's a fact that most articles here are relatively short, which often means that there is not enough detail of the sort that makes an infobox worthwhile. Vanamonde (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• That's the weirdest request I've heard of here in a long time, and especially from such an experience editor. NO INFOBOXES ARE REQUIRED. Close this discussion as soon as possible please, it will not generate anything other than heat. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

A modest proposal

Should DYK nominations be moved from the template namespace to the Wikipedia namespace? KMF (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole project needs an overhaul to make it more intuitive and easier to follow a nomination from proposal to main page. But sadly it's far from modest, and sadly there's no appetite to do it; the regulars understand how it works, and that's just fine for them, the newcomers are completely discouraged by the arcane machinations of DYK and that's why the project has so few genuinely new editors contributing, the majority are seasoned editors who know the ropes, and those who are gaining points for WikiCup. It doesn't serve Wikipedia well, in general. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is too complicated. I have made three DYK noms, and only on my third (and current) one am I beginning to understand all the plethora of pages. What is really needed is a concrete proposal on how the process could be simplified. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the reason why they were put into the templates were because prior to this, stuffing them all onto one page cluttered it and made it hard to track nominations. Plus I can't recall if there was a nomination template at the time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that newbies are put off by the plethora of templates because all they have to do is fill in the initial nomination template and then follow the progress of their nomination via their watchlist. I think they may have more difficulty with finding where to nominate in the first place (part way down the large page), and then in filling up a cluttered, off-putting and difficult to understand form. What did @PaleCloudedWhite: think of the nomination process? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, the template system is a rather elegant method of keeping track of the whole process. I remember doing my first DYK nomination: there were some tricky parts, but the nomination system itself was not one of them. The C of E is quite correct: our time would be well spent letting new article creators know that nominating here is a possibility. What we also need to do is overhaul our system of rules and regulations. Having a page of detailed rules is not an issue, because they are there precisely to address issues of detail that do not crop up often; but there is no reason to have more than one very basic and one detailed page of rules. Or even a single page. We have four, I think, at present. Vanamonde (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think nominating is difficult, thanks to the templates. Perhaps we should tell users who find it difficult where to ask for help, such as somewhere on this page. I'd be willing to help with first nominations, - someone did the first for me, fondly remembered. - I suggest to keep nominations open until archived after appearing, and to hold all related discussions within, not hook questions here only, for more transparency. Here, we could just link to a list of problem noms, as BlueMoonset does for the old ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the instructions, if not the actual process, need some clarification. My first nom occurred without too much hassle if I remember rightly, but then I slightly mucked-up my second one - despite trying to follow the instructions to the letter - and my recent one was OK but it was only part way through that I realised that filling in the template makes changes appear wherever in the process the nom is. A minor example of how easy it is to misunderstand the whole process: I recently added a couple of comments to Cwmhiraeth's nom for Aulacaspis yasumatsui, and I think Cwmhiraeth thought I was reviewing it, whereas I thought it had already been reviewed, by an editor called "Jerry London (wrestler)", because underneath Cwm's nom is a line that states "reviewed: Jerry London (wrestler)".... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the point in KMF's original question has been missed. As I read it, KMF is wondering whether we should move from "Template:Did you know nominations/Name of article" to "Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/Name of article" - along the lines of "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Name of article". I don't think KMF is asking to do away with the template submission system - as the TFAR method shows, you can easily have a template-based nomination system in WP space. I think that all of these nominations are in template space because of a historical accident whereby everything is regarded as a subpage of Template:Did you know. It doesn't make a practical difference which namespace we use, I don't think, and making the change would require a lot of updating of processes for no net benefit. Bencherlite^Talk 08:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well then I suppose the real question is whether such a move would make the process more intuitive for newbies; and I for one cannot think of why this would be the case. Of course what we really would have to do is to ask newbies, but that's a bit of a catch 22, isn't it; the only ones interested enough to participate in such discussions tend to be more experienced editors. Vanamonde (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Blog and an internet forum as a reliable source

I'm having trouble with Template:Did you know nominations/MBT-80. The nominator is saying that a blog and an internet forum are considered reliable sources for the topic. Certain blogs can be reliable sources, but I don't see anything that would amount to the WordPress blog being a reliable source. I'm doubtful of the internet forum being a reliable source because it seems like anyone can register and even misinterpret the sources that they post. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Under WP:SPS, the only way that blog posts can be considered notable is if they are written by "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Queue 1 (due to go live in 7 hours) - copied from WP:ERRORS

• "... that Pangeran Adipati Anom expected a fake engagement at the Battle of Gegodog, but instead his army suffered a decisive defeat?" - very confusing. "Pangeran Adipati Anom" is linked to Amangkurat II of Mataram, which does not mention "Pangeran Adipati Anom" at all, neither does it mention the Battle of Gegodog. Who is Pangeran Adipati Anom? What, if anything, is his or her relationship with Amangkurat II of Mataram? What has the Battle of Gegodog to do with either? DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree - this is completely confusing. Not to mention that Amangkurat II of Mataram is mostly unsourced and shouldn't be linked from the Main Page. Can someone explain the hook here, because I suspect the only other option is to pull it. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Cwmhiraeth, HaEr48, and Applodion: Pinging. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is the present hook. Perhaps it could be changed to the ALT hook, but really, HaEr48 is the editor who understands this historical article about Java. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• ... that Pangeran Adipati Anom expected a fake engagement at the Battle of Gegodog, but instead his army suffered a decisive defeat?
• ALT... that during the Trunajaya rebellion, Pangeran Adipati Anom expected a fake engagement at the Battle of Gegodog, but instead his army suffered a decisive defeat?

I'm honestly surprised that this hook causes confusion, as in the article Battle of Gegodog it is explicitly stated "then known as Pangeran Adipati Anom, future Amangkurat II". Thats why I passed the article. But if it does cause confusion, then we can de-link "Pangeran Adipati Anom" and go with ALT. Applodion (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Right. He was only Amangkurat II after being king, before that he was crown prince and known as Pangeran Adipati Anom (this is also a title and not his real name). This battle happened when he was crown prince. Kind of like in Battle of Vitoria, the British commander was referred to as the Marquess of Wellington and not the Duke - because he was not Duke yet. HaEr48 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

OK - I've gone with ALT because Trunajaya rebellion is also a much better article to link. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Instructions for removing a hook from prep or queue

In regards to more than one thread above, I looked for the appropriate instructions for removing a hook from prep or queue, and what to do with the nomination template. These instructions, which are the consensus from numerous discussions since December 2016, are on the Approved page. How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue . — Maile (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"These instructions, which are the consensus from numerous discussions since December 2016"? Um, no, these are the same instructions which have been on T:DYKN for years and years (compare with e.g. December 2014 or December 2012). While the "approved" situation was discussed at length, this specific aspect has not been the subject of "numerous discussions since December 2016", or it wouldn't still be this version which is seriously outdated and isn't strictly followed by anyone anymore. Fram (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I largely follow the procedure mentioned, but take a short cut by clicking "undo" for the action in the template's history that archived the nomination, adding a new icon and comment in the process. This returns the hook to where it was previously, on the Approved nominations page, and effectively replaces bullet points 4, 5 and 6 in the instructions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

When was the last time you (or anyone else for that matter) "Add a link to the nomination subpage at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed to help in tracking removals."? That page is marked "inactive", for crying out loud, but is still required in the instructions which were arrived at after numerous discussions since December 2016. I'll continue to remove problems from main page or queue if I happen to look at them (which I rarely do any longer, nonsense like this very discussion makees it abundantly clear that too many people at DYK are beyond hope) and explain this here, without taking any further steps which I'll gladly leave to the bureaucracy of this page. Fram (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(e.g. there is no next queue, but in the first prep is a hook for Template:Did you know nominations/NDR Chor; the Chor was created in May 1946, it's sevntieth year was 2015/2016, this is their 71th year; they have celebrated their 70th birthday in May 2016, which means they are now in their 71st year, not their 70th as the hook claims; this is the kind of carelessness that fills DYK constantly). Fram (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And the next hook in that prep claims that in Canada a person "charged with an offence in a provincial court normally has to be tried within 18 months?", but the article makes it clear that this is 18 months without preliminarie inquiry, and 30 months with one: it doesn't make it clear at all which of these two (if any) is "normal", so it may just as well be that the Supreme Court ruled that people normally have to be tried within 30 months instead of the claimed 18 months. Fram (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I qualified my reply by using the word "largely". I think what you are saying is that when you pull hooks, you don't follow the instructions, but leave the "bureaucracy of this page" to clear up after you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No-one is obligated to adhere to some arcane ruleset when preventing errors getting to the mainpage. How many times must this be stated? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No one needs to "clear up", if people want to give pulled hooks a second (third, fourth...) chance by putting them in noms again and restarting the process, that's their choice. Nothing is broken by pulling hooks from queues or main page and doing nothing else. Thanks for making me laugh with your attempt at an excuse for your mistaken statement above, "largely", which you followed by describing a shortcut for some points, but simply "forgot" to mention that you don't do the last point at all. Typical... Fram (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Fram, knock it off with the rudeness. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes Fram, rudeness is so much worse than dishonesty. Fram (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello C of E, I left you a message about your spin-off articles on your talkpage, I was wondering if you could please respond? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The C of E, I've made a number of requests now, and seeing as the ivy article, and the Fucking article are both being re-merged, could you please point me to any of the other spin-offs you created for DYK? Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Still in the same queue, Template:Did you know nominations/Cornell Pulpwood Stacker: what do you mean, "the left side"? The article says "A "Save the Stacker" fund was set up in Cornell, where as of 2009, it was estimated that it would take a minimum of $350,000 to clean off the rust and refinish the old equipment,[11] a process that would require workers to climb up the left side of the 175-foot (53 m) stacker at its 45-degree angle" which is a good example of WP:SYNTH; there is a catwalk on the stacker which was used for routine maintenance when the thig still worked (prior to 1971), which is sourced to the NRHP text: and there is a group now (well, a few years ago)[1]: "working on raising $350,000 to sandblast and resurface the rusty stacker." There is no evidence there of them using that catwalk to sandblast it, and not scaffolding, a crane, ... Apart from that, it is hardly surprising that when you have a 175 foot building or structure at a 45° angle, that people working on it will need to climb up and down the structure. Fram (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And a fourth one from that very same prep, "... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical issues?" This was discussed before, but somehow still isn't changed. The article also has the hook claim, but the source[2] makes it clear that the retirements were due to mechanical and electrical problems: "an assortment of engine failures – of the mechanical or electrical variety – ".

That's four dubious or problematic hooks in the next set of 8 hooks. I'm really not going to bother with a list of outdated and dubious rules to sort this out if this kind of thing is set to hit the main page. Fram (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Next queue short by four hooks

As mentioned above, at least four hooks in Prep 2, which is set to become Queue2, which is the next queue to be on the main page, were seriously dubious or simply wrong. To prevent these of appearing on the main page in their current state and without further discussion, I have removed them from the prep. Fram (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

NDR Chor

• ... that in its 70th year, the NDR Chor performed in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony for the opening of the Elbphilharmonie?

Template:Did you know nominations/NDR Chor @Gerda Arendt, HaEr48, and Cwmhiraeth:

It was in its 71st year, not it's 70th year. Simply changing the fact makes for an utterly unremarkable hook (why is it in any way important that it was in its 71st year?) Fram (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the year part could just be omitted entirely with the rest of the hook being used. SL93 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• ... that the 70-year-old NDR Chor... would work. It was in its 71st year, so it was 70 years old. Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps something like ... that the NDR Chor performed at the opening concert of the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg, Germany, singing in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony? Bencherlite^Talk 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have returned this to Prep 2 with the "in its 70th year" omitted. If anyone wants to change the hook, they are welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw this coming ;) - It occurred to me that the celebration of a birthday is the completion of that year. It's their 70th-anniversary season, - they celebrate the whole 2016/17 season. I find "70th-anniversary season" a clumsy term, so didn't want to change. The opening of the long-awaited hall was quite an event, even without that. I plan to mention other events from their career with their conductors. Another option might be:

... that the NDR Chor, founded after World War II, performed in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony for the opening of the Elbphilharmonie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

R v Jordan (2016)

• ... that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a person charged with an offence in a provincial court normally has to be tried within 18 months?

Template:Did you know nominations/R v Jordan (2016) @Valmi, Maile66, and Cwmhiraeth:

No, they normally have to be tried within 18 months or within 30 months, depending on whether a preliminary enquiry is done or not. Nothing in the article or source indicates that 18 months is the normal situation and 30 months the abnormal one. Fram (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Also, majority of article sourced to a primary source. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Returned to the nominations page for further consideration of the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Cornell Pulpwood Stacker

• ... that to repair the 175-foot (53 m) Cornell Pulpwood Stacker in Wisconsin, workers would need to climb at a 45-degree angle up its left side?

Template:Did you know nominations/Cornell Pulpwood Stacker @Maile66, NearEMPTiness, and Cwmhiraeth:

What do you mean, "the left side"? The article says "A "Save the Stacker" fund was set up in Cornell, where as of 2009, it was estimated that it would take a minimum of $350,000 to clean off the rust and refinish the old equipment,[11] a process that would require workers to climb up the left side of the 175-foot (53 m) stacker at its 45-degree angle" which is a good example of WP:SYNTH; there is a catwalk on the stacker which was used for routine maintenance when the thig still worked (prior to 1971), which is sourced to the NRHP text: and there is a group now (well, a few years ago)[3]: "working on raising $350,000 to sandblast and resurface the rusty stacker." There is no evidence there of them using that catwalk to sandblast it, and not scaffolding, a crane, ... Apart from that, it is hardly surprising that when you have a 175 foot building or structure at a 45° angle, that people working on it will need to climb up and down the structure. Fram (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Returned to the nominations page for further consideration of the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach

• ... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical issues?

Template:Did you know nominations/2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach @Bschneider53, Orygun, and Cwmhiraeth:

This was discussed before, but somehow still isn't changed. The article also has the hook claim, but the source[4] makes it clear that the retirements were due to mechanical and electrical problems: "an assortment of engine failures – of the mechanical or electrical variety – ". Fram (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: Apologies, typo in the previous ping. Fram (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Shall we go with "... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical and electrical issues?" Or I suppose we could drop the phrase altogether and say that they simply retired from the race... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

My only issue is that the source says or rather than and. Also, the article has still not been edited to reflect the hook. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have dealt with both of those too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, SL93, and Fram: Thank you for your concerns. It looks good to me. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't the simplest solution to change one word in the hook, "mechanical", to "engine"?

• ... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to engine issues?

Or "engine problems"? Or "engine failures"? I also raised a question at WT:NAME about the use of corporate sponsor names (Toyota, in this case) in article names, and whether this is promotional. Perhaps I chose to raise it at the wrong page as it has had no response, but it seemed appropriate. I still wonder why the page is not titled 2017 Grand Prix of Long Beach... EdChem (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What went wrong?

We are so often told that "human error" is inevitable, but in this one set we've seen a 50% error rate, that's not acceptable, especially since it was just about to hit the main page. I'm trying hard to get to each DYK and review it and its sources, after it's been reviewed, accepted, promoted and then moved to a queue (i.e. the four "quality" checkpoints at DYK) but it's clear that I alone cannot conduct this task flawlessly. I'm sorry for that. If Fram can, in moments, detect four errors in a set then we still have a major issue. Rather than sweep it under the carpet as "we all make mistakes", it's time to confront it full-on. Why are so many errors getting onto or so close to being posted to the Main Page? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A part of the issue might be the QPQ process. It does look like some reviewers just want to do a half-assed QPQ to get their own article on the main page. When I see mostly checkmarks or a quick review that doesn't seem to cover all points, I doubt that a thorough review was completed. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

An interesting and perceptive response. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's an idea, which may not fix everything, but can't hurt. Part of every review is checking to see whether the nominator has completed a QPQ. Surely we can extend this just a little, and say that every reviewer needs to check whether the nominator has completed a thorough QPQ; as in, have they explicitly checked each criterion? So for instance, if I did a review for article X, and submitted it as a QPQ for article Y, but neglected to do a copyvio check for article X, the reviewer for Y could then legitimately fail my nomination. This isn't exactly a radical idea, I'm just suggesting making explicit what seems to be implied by the review process. Vanamonde (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I already do what Vanamonde93 is suggesting. I have refused to accept a QPQ where there was no copyvio check until one was done, and in another case I said the QPQ was inadequate and the editor volunteered to do another. The next steps of disallowing QPQs and even restricting nominations from editors whose QPQ reviews are regularly poor are worth discussing. We also have to recognise, however, that not all errors are equally serious. EdChem (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, not all errors are equally serious. Take the hook "... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical issues?" What that hook is illustrating is that the cars did not exit the race because of collisions or driver errors, but because they ceased to function correctly, they had problems. That some of these problems may have been electrical is only a subset of mechanical, they failed as machines. Big fuss about nothing in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, Cwmhiraeth, that was the exact hook I was thinking of. As someone who watches motorsport, I am well aware that "mechanical failures" can mean specifically a problem with mechanics or a more general "catch all" term for failure to finish that was not due to a collision, a black flag, driver error leading to a crash, etc. Both the concerns raised by TRM and Fram are understandable confusions from (I suspect) non-motorsports watchers, and yes tweaking the hooks led to improvements, but they were minor issues, and it is my view that when treat all errors as equally serious they undermine their own argument. Just in this thread, to me the R v Jordan (2016) and Cornell Pulpwood Stacker cases are the errors that are seriously problematic and that should not have made it as far as preps / queues, and I note that Cwmhiraeth has correctly returned those two to the nomination pages and Fram has correctly added problem tags overruling the ticks. On the topic TRM has raised here, are these more serious cases ones where Vanamonde's point applies?

Looking at Template:Did you know nominations/R v Jordan (2016), the original review by Edwardx noted a problem with 18 months only applying to "most cases" and Maile66 then gave a tick for a hook where "applicable to most cases" became "normally has to be" – two phrases which are similar in meaning but not the same, and as Fram noted, the connotation of "normal" is problematic here. This was a first-time DYK nomination (as Edwardx noted) from an editor whose last 50 edits go back to July 2015, and who last made more than 100 edits in a year in 2006. Had the ALT1 used "usually" or "typically" instead of "normally", the tweak by Valmi would have been much less problematic. According to this reference (added by Valmi on the same day ALT1 was proposed): "There is a presumptive ceiling of 18 months on the length of a criminal case in provincial courts, from the charge to the end of trial" and "[t]here is a presumptive ceiling of 30 months on criminal cases in superior courts, or cases tried in provincial courts after a preliminary inquiry." Also according to the reference, this presumptive ceiling can be exceeded in certain circumstances, and a delay can be found to be unconscionable even under the ceiling. I think the article does not yet fully cover these points and this needs addressing before a new hook is formed. I note that both Edwardx {Template:Did you know nominations/Grosvenor Gardens House already promoted) and Maile66 (already has a tick at Template:Did you know nominations/McLoughlin Promenade) have claimed QPQ credits for reviews of R v Jordan.

Cornell Pulpwood Stacker

Looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Cornell Pulpwood Stacker, the review by NearEMPTiness used the template checklist and raised no problems. "Left side" is always going to be unclear because it depends on perspective, especially if the hook was not promoted with the associated image (as it was not, when Cwmhiraeth built the prep). The article itself also uses "left side" in a statement followed by this NHRP ref, page 8 which substantiates the dimensions and the 45 degree angle but also uses a much clearer east / west description: "It is a steel cantilever truss structure that stands 175 feet above the ground at an angle of approximately forty-five degrees. ... The front (east) lower section of the stacker rests on two concrete piers where it is held in place by steel pins. This served as a fulcrum which enabled the engineers to raise the stacker to its operating position by pouring concrete into the counterweight mold at the rear (west) section of the frame." Note also that the front / east / lower section at 45 degrees is actually on the right side of the image. The other ref on this sentence requires a subscription for access. Unless it is in that reference, I don't see where the assertion that "workers must climb at a 45-degree angle" is in the references. The article says "a catwalk along one side is provided for maintenance workers to climb up and down the equipment" and the picture proposed for the hook and reproduced here shows that the catwalk is not located on the eastern-side 45 degree section but the western (rear) structure that is inclined at a lower angle. Later on is the statement that "A "Save the Stacker" fund ... refinish the old equipment,[11] a process that would require workers to climb up the left side of the 175-foot (53 m) stacker at its 45-degree angle.[4][2]" Ref 4 is the NHRP, 2 is the subscription required, and ref 11 includes: "Winter, spring, summer, 30 below zero, ice, heat of summer, [workers would] still have to walk to the top to make sure things were working properly", likely referring to walking along to catwalk to check the equipment at the apex of the stacker. I don't see anything about climbing the front structure. Now, refinishing would require accessing that structure, but, as Fram notes, that could be by scaffolds and not require climbing the structure at all. I think Cwmhiraeth has been careless in promoting into a prep a hook with "left side" (that is unclear and especially unclear when the image is not included) in it. NearEMPTiness has 12 DYK credits, and appears to me to have not reviewed the sources sufficiently to recognise the SYNTH issue that I think exists here.

Answering TRM, both of these cases trace to issues in the article, in my opinion. Without a thorough review of the hook fact at promotion, the Jordan error was difficult to catch, but the stacker should have been caught at that point based on not the "left" thing being clear without an image, if nothing else, let alone the idea of a restoration of a 100-year old structure having workers in the US climb up the structure on a 45 degree incline without a catwalk structure, which would make me wonder about safety and be doubtful. EdChem (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

GA nom

Can I have a little clarification - what's the date to enter a hook that's been promoted to GA today, but was expanded in January? In otherwords, of course, one that has pent months in the GAN queue. I can't put it in the January column- there isn't one, out of time I guess- but to put it in as today seems misleading. houghts? Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, the date to use for a GA is indeed when it was listed as a GA, even if that's today. What matters at DYK is the moment of listing, not when the expansion or correction work was done. You have seven days from the date of listing to nominate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent news BlueMoonset, and I thank ye. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived very early today, so here is an updated list of the 32 non-current nominations (those through April 20). Right now we have a total of 191 nominations, of which 75 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one from February and two from mid-March that still needs a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

• February 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Sociopolitical issues of anatomy in America in the 19th century

Over one month old:

• March 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Lofty Chiltern
• March 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Pendulum car
• March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/The Old Axolotl
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Malacañang of the North
• March 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Song cycles (Waterhouse)

Other old nominations:

• March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Amendment No. 27 to the Entry Into Israel Law
• March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/V. S. Sangwan
• March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Women's Super Rugby
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Elvis González Valencia (two articles)
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Mexican Federal Highway 40D
• April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Apollo Gauntlet, Hot Streets (TV series) (two articles)
• April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Christoph Siebert
• April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/How I Met Your Music (Original Songs from the Hit Series "How I Met Your Mother")
• April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of al-Yaarubiyah
• April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Russian-Syrian hospital bombing campaign
• April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Inner Engineering: A Yogi's Guide to Joy
• April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Trunajaya's North Coast offensive
• April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Maurice S. Osser (two articles)
• April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Babe Smith
• April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Krityunjai Prasad Sinha
• April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Narmada Seva Yatra
• April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Biswa Ranjan Nag
• April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/The Soft Parade
• April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.
• April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Deval Devi
• April 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Indila
• April 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Edisto Island during the Civil War
• April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Terror Units
• April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Chanchal Kumar Majumdar
• April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Pregnancy in art
• April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Mega Manila Subway
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Josie Sadler
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/White-barred piculet (five articles)
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Gifts (novel)

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) 17:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Credit removal required

The sixth {{DYKmake}} in Queue 5, for Onesimus Ustonson, needs to be removed. (The hook was removed while it was in Prep 5, but only one of the two credits was removed.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for catching that. Mifter (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Harold Edward Elliott

I need some help with this nomination. The hook isn't in the article, but the reviewer said, "It is unusual for the exact hook to be in the article due to the restrictions on hooks". I find this to be not true, but I'm checking here just because the nominator has a bunch of Good Articles and DYKs. This is more of a good faith effort for help rather than outright denying the hook. SL93 (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have provided general advice on the nomination page, though not on the specific hook. The hook's fact(s) must be in the article, with sourcing support, but I don't see that as requiring a word-for-word occurrence of the hook in the article, though there are certainly cases I've seen when the hook is not an accurate reflection of the article, which is obviously not acceptable. EdChem (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I now see that the hook is an image caption. I've never seen that before so I wasn't expecting it. I do read image captions when I review DYK articles, but it didn't register with me that one of them was the hook. SL93 (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been years, I think, but the last time I remember that the hook material was only in an image caption, the nomination was not approved until it was also included in the article proper. We've never had a requirement that the hook be a word-for-word replication of text in the article, just that the fact(s) be in the article and sourced by the end of the sentence in which they appear (the end of the paragraph is not soon enough). BlueMoonset (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 lead hook: Persis Foster Eames Albee

@Doug Coldwell: User:7&6=thirteen @Gerda Arendt: @Cwmhiraeth:

I did some editing on the article, and wondered why the first paragraphs under Career were so chatty about David McConnell's sales efforts. Now I see that text is line-by-line paraphrased from [5]. Compare:

Source: McConnell continuously sought new and different ways to engage his customers, and one method was to give out free samples of rose scented perfume with his book orders. When he realized that the fragrances were more popular than the books, he decided that selling perfume could be a profitable business opportunity. In June 1886, he founded The California Perfume Company and began selling perfumes along with books.

Article: McConnell innovated new ways to sell his books. One technique he came up with was to give free samples of home-made rose scented perfume with book orders. He soon realized the ladies were more interested in the perfumes than the books, so decided to sell perfumes with the books. He started The California Perfume Company in June 1886 and began selling perfumes and books.

The previous paragraph also has line-by-line paraphrasing. I haven't gone through the whole article, but I think this should be cleaned up before it hits the main page. Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done With recent edits by User:7&6=thirteen and User:Doug Coldwell, the problem has been resolved. Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

Please could somebody who is not involved add the hook for Jerry London (wrestler), which is in the special holding area, to Prep 2, for Anti-Bullying Day, which is apparently on May 4th. Yoninah nominated it and I reviewed it. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done: but I've tweaked the wording. The article, and the sources, say "humiliated", and not "bullied"; the two words are, IMHO, different enough that we shouldn't substitute one for the other. The fact that it's related to bullying is clear enough. Vanamonde (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1

@SL93: @Tachs:

• ... that the film Zombie Killers: Elephant's Graveyard has special effects created by Toby Sells, who has also done work for the television series The Walking Dead?

Who is Toby Sells? Shouldn't there be a page about him/her if s/he's being mentioned on the main page? Yoninah (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. I guess we could do "...that the film Zombie Killers: Elephant's Graveyard has special effects created by someone who has also done work for the television series The Walking Dead? SL93 (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? does it make a stronger hook to say "some guy" instead of Toby Sells? Yeah he does not have an article, but that alone is not a standard of notability in any way.  MPJ-DK  17:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been mentioned on this page before that subjects without articles are a poor fit for the main page. If he's so notable, why doesn't he have an article? I suggest finding a different hook. Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So by that logic we should just drop all red link policies in general.  MPJ-DK  21:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Was Toby Sells linked in the hook? I missed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Was I talking to you? Or replying to If he's so notable, why doesn't he have an article? - It ain't all about the Rambling Man.  MPJ-DK  21:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Seriously now, holier than thou, you missed the in general part. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely. If Toby Sells is so non-notable that he doesn't have an article, why should our readers care about this at all? There must be a better hook in Zombie Killers.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I can answer why they would care - The Walking Dead. SL93 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you're somewhat missing the point here, the blurb relates, indeed is predicated on the significance of "Toby Sells". He doesn't have a Wikipedia article. So he's not notable. Or not yet. When claiming "NOTABLE A was fascinating because _non-notable B_ was also involved in NOTABLE C", please consider that our readers will lose sight of any interest once you start discussing someone who isn't even notable enough for a Wikipedia article. (Also, "done work" is shambolic English). I suspect this is another case of an article which is so average that it can't sustain a "Did You Know" moment. Reject it, failed, and hope for better in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If you could find a reliable source, it would be far better to have something like:

... that Zombie Killers: Elephant's Graveyard features no elephants and no graveyards?

which is what this source claims. Infinitely superior to the promoted hook, in my humble opinion of course...... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

(Also, just Googling "Toby Sells" reveals no swift RS that he worked on Walking Dead other than mirrors etc).... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I will find another hook, but only because it isn't worth arguing over. However, I will point out three things - 1) You are not all our readers , 2) Toby Sells may very well be notable. Notable articles are created every day, including about historically significant people from centuries ago. and 3) I have a Google Books page in the DYK nomination which verifies that he worked for The Walking Dead. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I will be glad to see that, (1) I never said I was "all our readers", (2) Wikipedia notability works by having an article or a redlink, (3) I never doubted he worked on The Walking Dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You didn't say it, but you seem to act like it. That isn't how notability works... WP:N, WP:BIO, etc... SL93 (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

SL93 why don't you go ahead and create an article for Toby Sells? Then you could get a double nomination, or at the very least, a blue link in the hook. But I like TRM's alt suggestion too. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I will just change the hook sometime today. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, TRM's hook can be used... or something about the main characters attacking zombies with paintball guns. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about hating to say it, I'm not worried in the slightest, I just want our main page to be the best it can be. Thanks for your consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm moving this back to the noms page so there won't be time pressure on finding a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Queue 6 - stating the bleeding obvious

... that substitution of a hazardous chemical can backfire if it turns out to be a "regrettable substitution" that unwittingly introduces a new hazard?

So now DYK, instead of being something that seems interesting, novel, or interesting, has become a statement of the obvious? I don't have time to chase all the arcane templates but this will be at ERRORS if it's not pulled or fixed. It's basically saying "if you replace hazard A with hazard B, hazard B might be hazardous". Come on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That looks valid enough to me; I've certainly seen worse at DYK. It's a little clumsily worded, but I assume that's an artefact of sticking to the precise technical terminology rather than the vernacular—to me it translates as "sometimes applying safety procedures can make the situation more dangerous than if you'd left things well alone". ‑ Iridescent 22:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, perhaps it's because I'm coming at it with some experience in both DYK and hazards. This is just a statement of the obvious, but maybe it's exciting for others. How low we plumb. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

What TRM says here may be perfectly valid. The "notability" doesn't seem to be very distinct or particularly "notable"/ interesting? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again. Please stop this stalking, even when you're not making any sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 Despite the number of people who believe otherwise, "interesting" has never been one of the DYK eligibility criteria. (The first ever DYK set was Did you know that a pencil sharpener "is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil"?", ...that in 1971, Pakistani writer Eqbal Ahmad was indicted on charges of conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger?, ...that jumping plant lice and aphids are considered to be the "primitive" group within the Hemiptera order of true bugs?, ...that the Tokyo Monorail, which travels at speeds of up to 80 kph, was constructed to coincide with the 1964 Summer Olympics?, ...that the Balkan comic opera Ero the Joker was first performed on November 2, 1935?, only one of which could by any possible standard be considered interesting—the meme that there was once a Golden Age when DYK hooks were catchy and exciting, but standards have since lapsed, is a complete myth.) I agree that if we have to have DYK, it's a service to the reader to make the hooks catchy if possible, but the idea that "too boring for the Main Page" is grounds for exclusion has only ever existed in the heads of a couple of vocal individuals. ‑ Iridescent 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Shucks yes, I hadn't even thought of that. How well dumb of me. But I think you meant kph, not kph. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

A vocal few control the entire DYK process. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be any error here but the hook might work better if it were truncated:

ALT2 ... that substitution of a hazardous chemical can backfire?

To avoid "regrettable substitution", we should always consult the author and reviewer. Andrew D. (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll defer to the author here, but it seems from reference sources that the term "regrettable substitution" has a specific technical meaning: "regrettable substitution, in which chemicals with health concerns are replaced by chemicals we know nothing about".[6] It's mentioned in quite a few sources.[7],[8] The point of it clearly is that what TRM calls "hazard B" is not known to be a hazard at the time of its introduction, but is only found to be hazardous later. Given that it appears to be an established technical term, I don't think it would be advisable to change it in a misplaced effort to spice up the hook, which seems perfectly accurate to me. Prioryman (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Honestly, I found the term "regrettable substitution" to be amusingly evocative, and that's why I built the hook around it. And most of the alternate hooks in the articles are even more technical (for example: "... that the substitution of dichloromethane with n-hexane as a brake cleaner was a "regrettable substitution" because the latter was found to be neurotoxic?") In any case, I don't think it's worth holding a hook up over an issue that is not a factual error or a copyvio. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the pain caused by the search for things which are amusing. Perhaps amusement should be banned as a non-encyclopedic activity. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Being amused is already banned, practically. A friend was taken to ANI because he was amused, said "I just have fun", 1 January, not 1 April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation - I'd suggest we just continue with the original hook since there seems to be little good reason to change it. Prioryman (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS isn't for hooks that are factually correct so go ahead. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Martinevans123: TRM may be being brusque, but you are adding absolutely nothing to this conversation. Please cut it out. Vanamonde (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I was offering my support to TRM, before he essentially told me to shut up. Iridescent then very cleverly explained why I was wrong. I think a decision has already been made, but I agree with what Prioryman has said. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I asked you to stop following my edits once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, contrary to what Iridescent says, we have a current DYK rule that clearly (and in bold) states "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience.". I.e. "interesting" most definitely is a factor. That some users are confused and/or ignore that is a different issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Where you go wrong, TRM, is that you use as the yardstick what you find interesting. Personally, I found it interesting enough. Prioryman (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, not really, I'm a reasonable enough bellwether to determine what would be interesting to a "broad audience" having edited here for over a decade. Although a lot of people dislike me, my style, my comments, I'm certainly operating on more than a 50% success rating for issues raised here and at ERRORS. I'm glad you personally found it interesting enough, I didn't and I don't think others would, which is why I brought it here for discussion. I have no super-vote, no ability to do anything beyond generate debate here, and that's my entitlement as an editor of Wikipedia. If nothing changes after debate, that's fine by me, but people suggesting that "interesting" isn't part of the DYK ruleset, for instance, isn't going to wash. If people don't want "interesting to a broad audience" in there, remove it from the instructions. Anyway, this seems to have concluded, I just wanted to correct the fallacious assertion about "interesting", and that's done (to death) now, so perhaps we won't need to hear people denying its existence in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hatting this unproductive section. Claiming TRM has no credentials is ludicrous and disruptive. We have better things to argue. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How do you get the feedback from this "broad audience"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC) I'm curious, have you created any content in those over 10 years, or just tagged and debated? I'm just wondering since you critique the work of other people a lot. SL93 (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC) TRM and I are not on good terms right now, but... jesus, this is a really stupid question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC) That's your opinion. I think it's a perfect question. Someone who has been here for over 10 years and barely (or if at all) created any content is someone who I don't think is the most needed for a critique. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC) You misunderstand. I'm saying anyone claiming he hardly creates any content is an idiot. He's got a contributions tab... maybe click on it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC) I went through it, idiot. How far back must I go? Years? SL93 (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) What do you mean by "idiot"? How about checking how many GAs TRM wrote. How does this exchange improve DYK? Last Alf Ramsey, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC) I said idiot merely because I was called an idiot. I was genuinely curious and didn't mean anything bad by it...until I was insulted. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC) I'm starting to get the feeling I've misinterpreted you. Based on you indentation, I assumed you're talking about TRM. Are you talking about someone else? If so, I'm sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC) You're very dumb if you don't realize I mean creating and expanding articles. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC) [9] --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC) So...mostly redirects and stubs? SL93 (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC) So... now you're changing the goalposts once you realize you said something dumb? And do GA's count? Or would your criterion suddenly become "so... mostly non-FA's"? Bye bye. Someone sane can hat as desired, I have no idea why I even bothered. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC) I didn't mean my original question in a bad way, but you seem to think so since you came in calling me an idiot. I was merely curious since TRM did say once that the didn't have much time for Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC) What the fuck? Perhaps nearly 200 GAs, 16 Featured Articles, 90 Featured Lists, and too many ITN and DYKs that I can care to mention. Is that the kind of information you need SL93? What more? Please, feel free to request additional information. Perhaps you'd like to see the GANs I've reviewed (around 145?) or the Peer Reviews I've conducted? Anything else? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC) I was just wondering and I was polite about it until an admin came in and turned it into a long shitfest. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC) (ec) Just a random page with several GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Nope, you stated Someone who has been here for over 10 years and barely (or if at all) created any content is someone who I don't think is the most needed for a critique. So get your facts straight. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC) That's my rightful opinion. I was only referring to anyone in general...and I see you're not like that. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC) No, that's a bullshit accusation and you did not refer to anyone in general. At least we know how to treat your edits hereafter. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC) I didn't state your name in that comment. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC) You didn't need to, we're not stupid. Your comments are noted, your accusations are noted. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Anyone can believe what they want. I can't control that. As long as I know what I meant, I'm fine. SL93 (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - suicide link

that professional wrestler Jerry London committed suicide hours after being humiliated by an American promoter? Vanamonde93, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah.

Firstly, this is a little macabre, to feature a suicide (on a selected date no less, for some unknown reason), but worse this somehow points a finger at this "Roy Shire" individual as being, at least, partially responsible for the death. People commit suicide, or try to do so, for a wild variety of reasons, even here on Wikipedia. To relate the last person's comments to them as being somehow key or even related to their death is a stretch too far. The only source I have access to is hardly something I'd consider massively reliable; the offline source might shed more light, but nevertheless, the blame culture issue here, i.e. pinning a suicide on a single incident, is absolutely incorrigible. I would urge the community, particularly in light of some recent events, to find a more wholesome and less pointed blurb about this individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oh I don't like this either, not at all. Thank you TRM. If I knew how to do it I'd pull it, but I trust that someone who knows what they're doing will do it, at least pending consensus. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely, that needs to be pulled. Roy Shire is dead (he died in 1996) but that is in no way an appropriate hook for the Main Page. Not only that, but the sources "showing" that Shire humiliated him are rubbish, pulled from other sources. There's no reliable sourcing there at all. I am, again, astonished that this made it all the way to a Prep. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• (ec) As it's in prep, you can simply remove it Drmies, delete the line. There are other related tasks that the project want to mandate (e.g. you could find the nomination template and "undo" the promotion, you could add it to the [mainly deprecated] "removed" section of the project, etc etc). I've pinged the main individuals, and we have a day or so before this gross nonsense hits the main page, but in short order, just deleting the line from the prep template would be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Apparently it is a special nomination for Anti-Bullying day (May 4) - much as I'm on board with that, we do need actual reliable sources instead of poor links and insinuation. There's enough time for the pinged editors to have a look at it - but it clearly can't go forward as is. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've done a few Google searches on this subject. The Biographical Dictionary of Professional Wrestling briefly says he committed suicide after losing a match. Only wrestling websites and message boards speak of the "dressing down" he received in front of other wrestlers backstage. The book cited in Further Reading, One of the Boys by Jack Laskin, apparently goes into detail about his death, but I have no access to that book.

In addition to being distasteful to members of the community, I might also say that the connection between his suicide and the "dressing down" is not firmly established, as he left a suicide note (quoted on the Wikipedia page) stating, "I'm tired of the farce of life. I wish to explore the beyond". Maybe he killed himself for another reason. I suggest returning this to the noms page for further work and forgetting about Anti-Bullying Day. I have pinged the page creator, who is an IP, and who has not edited since posting this on April 9. Also pinging @MPJ-DK: our in-house professional wrestling expert. Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. He's a fairly interesting character in wrestling, there's got to be a decent hook there somewhere - just not this. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at my sources and books and stuff and I'm not really seeing anything that correlates the two - yes there was a dressing down, yes there was a suicide based on what I have read, but they stop short of blaming the sucide on Shire, noting that London had been depressed in the weeks leading up to it. I only see message boards and semi-garbage sources (like Online World of Wrestling which is good for results and title history, less so on anything else). It is an extraordinary claim, but I am no finding a source to match it.  MPJ-DK  23:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Haha TRM--I don't even know how to find the "line" in "prep2". The last time I looked through preps and queues and stuff I got hopelessly lost--but I trust that someone who knows what they're doing has taken care of it? Black Kite? Yoninah? Drmies (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Returning to noms area. Yoninah (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in retrospect, the sourcing was not as good as it should have been here, and so taking it back to prep was the right call. (Redacted) Also Yoninah; when I saw your comment on the nomination, I did assume that you were, in a sense, signing off on it. Was I wrong about this? Vanamonde (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: No. I was trying to do a favor for an IP, and didn't look closely enough at the sourcing of the hook. I'll think twice before being so helpful next time. Yoninah (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Well, I should have caught it too, so I suppose that's okay...Vanamonde (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Attributing someone's death to a particular individual on the main page is not a good practice, period. It's not neutral. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't seriously expect an answer to the recent events question, I assume. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

YGBSM!. This is a BLP issue, and in bad taste to boot. Causation is speculative at best. Make it go away. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I edited the speculation out of the article. The hook is back in the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Drug lord

• ... that suspected drug lord Antonio Oseguera Cervantes is also known as "Tony Montana"?

Template:Did you know nominations/Antonio Oseguera Cervantes

Having discussed the suicide of a wrestler, perhaps you could look at this approved article about a suspected drug lord and consider what hook is appropriate. It's not clear to me that he has been convicted of drug trafficking, but the whole article concerns his criminal activities and reputation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 138#Prep 6 - (suspected) drug lord who has been released which was only here around three weeks ago, and to which you contributed. An alternative hook was derived that didn't need to focus on the possibility of him being a "drug lord". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I remember that, which was why I brought the matter up here, hoping that you, or others, would read the article and suggest a suitable hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Even something simple like:

... that former leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, Antonio Oseguera Cervantes's nickname is Tony Montana, after the character in Scarface?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see mention of "Scarface" in the article, I am not sure he was "the" leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, and does use of the word "former" imply that he is dead? This is a BLP you know, and we have to be careful what we say. (Only kidding!) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Then we should unlink Tony Montana in the article as promoted because it links to Scarface, i.e. makes that leap without referencing. The article explicitly states "former high-ranking leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG)" so "former" yes and "leader" yes. Perhaps you missed those three points in the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't his nickname Tony Montana be a reference to Scarface? Though it doesn't explicitly say this in the source, I think it is a no-brainer that his nickanme is a reference to the fictional character. I can agree with taking of "suspected drug lord" from this and future hooks, but I don't really see the point behind unlinking Tony Montana. I still tried to do some digging and see if there was any reference of Scarface but didn't find anything. BTW, he's "former" because he is not at large anymore. And "the" leader of the CJNG is El Mencho. Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• ALT: ... that U.S. citizens are prohibited from engaging in business transactions with Antonio Oseguera Cervantes? ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 3 - Clifford Kinvig

... that the military historian Clifford Kinvig, whose surname is an anagram of Viking, came from an Isle of Man family? Yoninah, ComputerJA, Philafrenzy

Call me stupid, and many have, but I fail to see the purpose of the hook. People's surnames are anagrams of other words, frequently. I guess the missing link is the assumption that all our readers would know that " it was not unusual on the Isle of Man which had been settled by the Vikings in the tenth century". If it's that notable, I would have expected an article at Kinvig to exist. Anyway, the hook left me cold as I was unaware of the settlement over 1000 years ago. Maybe exchange "an Isle of Man family" for "the Isle of Man, settled by the Norsemen in the tenth century?". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I take the point, it was The Times that made the connection. I think the hook could be more explicit about why it is relevant. I will try to think of an alt. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, at least it did actually get me to learn something today, my knowledge of Vikings is limited to Vikings, and only the first season of that.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Alt ... that the family of military historian Clifford Kinvig, whose surname is an anagram of Viking, originated in the Isle of Man where the Vikings had settled in the tenth century? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure if it's possible to approve this hook again, but I think this helps clarify TRM's concerns. I wouldn't want this one to go back to the nomination page again unless you guys think it should... Cheers. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)