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.

LavaBaron's editing restrictions

Per this AN thread, LavaBaron is given editing restrictions on DYK. Any hook nominated or reviewed by LavaBaron must be reviewed by a second editor before it may be promoted to the main page. The restrictions are reproduced below as follows:

1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
4. (To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.
5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

The enforcement of these rules should be the responsibility of all editors who promote DYK hooks. Any editor may undo the promotion of any hook to a prep area or a queue area (for admins) whose promotion was made in contravention to these restrictions, assuming good faith and citing this AN restriction. --Deryck C. 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this addition to the header section of T:TDYK really necessary? It feels to me like a scarlet letter. LavaBaron has agreed on his or her user talk page to note that double reviews are needed in his nominations and reviews, which is where the reminder is needed, so is a header notice necessary and appropriate? EdChem (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary given Lavabaron's commitment to add a note to his contributions, so have reverted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass - thanks, but I don't have an issue with it. It may be better for everyone involved if it was still in place. I'll defer to your judgment, though. LavaBaron (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, EdChem, I very much appreciate your comment. However, by way of explanation, I don't have any issue with the header, personally. This restriction will eventually slip off other editors radars and I don't want to risk getting blocked if another editor doesn't notice my own warning notes and accidentally promotes anyway. In the grand scheme of things, I'm fine with being publicly exhibited in the stockade for awhile if the alternative is the hangman. I'm probably wrapping things up here anyway, so it's not really a big deal. LavaBaron (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You are not going to get blocked for the actions of another editor! However, since you've made the commitment to remind other editors of your restrictions in your contributions to T:TDYK, you will need to stick to it as failing to do so might attract unwanted attention. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity, I think LavaBaron is wise to include reminders on his nominations and reviews. Just because something is objectively unreasonable doesn't mean it won't happen, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, however, I was just blocked on accident the other day - which I've just learned can't be WP:REVDEL from my log and will be part of my permanent record as long as my account exists - so I would like to be extra careful in any edit I make, or any edit anyone else makes that may in some way reference me by name. (I apologize, in advance, for publicly disagreeing and if the preceding comment seemed insolent; it was not my intent to be but rather to observe a personal experience as a possible reason for maintaining the header alert so that as many people as possible know that my DYKs require extra scrutiny. I appreciate all the work you do for WP as an admin and will defer, without further debate or objection, to you judgment on this question.) LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

EdChem you claim Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity..., could you provide an explanation for this including diffs please? As far as I could tell, most people who are pulling hooks are doing it based on the fact that they are erroneous, or ill-sourced or malignant. Of course, you could correct me if I'm wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I expressed my opinion. I am in favour of higher quality and minimising inaccuracies in articles on WP. I am not, however, comfortable with the discussions which come across as disdainful of the contributors and contributions to DYK. Examples, quotations all being from you, FYI:

• "Admins who deal with errors here are under no obligation to do anything" is the exact attitude of image patrollers who tag and notify when fixing the problem was as easy or easier, and ignoring the disruption caused. It comes with an apparent belief of superiority which is really irritating. That you can just pull a hook rather than fix does not mean that that course of action is appropriate or wise. Also, you signed as an admin who "participate at DYK but rarely move prep sets to queues and updating main page" but reserve the right to disregard the structures of DYK ("DYK rules are non-binding on admins", "I'm not arguing, I'm stating fact. Admins are not under any obligation to comply with the arcane and multifarious "rules" of DYK") - hardly helpful. Maybe things wouldn't be so oppositional if hooks were corrected rather than pulled (by all means discuss here or with the nominator / reviewers afterwards) or returned once corrected. You could build some goodwill by protecting the main page and advancing the goals of DYK within that broader goal, rather than always coming across as critical. Admins are supposed to be editors with extra buttons not rulers, and while I have no doubt you can make a case for being uninvolved, from my perspective you come with a pre-existing opinion and bias against DYK - you come across as disdainful ("DYK are no longer interested in interesting hooks it would appear, they are just too obsessed with self-preservation").
• "... not worth the grief and the disruption to the arcane processes and delicate individuals here" - good to see your healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here.
• "... the review process is up shit creek" - this is an over-broad generalisation which does not acknowledge or recognise the good work being done by many reviewers. Take me, for example... I've never had a hook pulled from the main page (nor do I recall one from the queue) and I don't recall one of my reviews being subsequently faulted. I've noted problems with paraphrasing and sourcing and I believe I am thorough (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - you can look at all my DYKs if you like). In some cases, I have posted after a tick is given to address a problematic review. Is my work "up shit creek" too? Or are there people here who could use some acknowledgement and who can serve as examples for new reviewers to follow? The QPQ system has its flaws and I favour removing QPQ credits from poor reviews so that another review is needed for their nomination to proceed, but the flaws don't make DYK worthless. There is some high quality work done here, both editing and reviewing, and that seems to go unnoticed. For example, I am proud of this case where what was brought to DYK was inaccurate and low quality and what went on to the main page was much higher quality (IMO).
• "The answer: slow the rate down" - you said this in the context of the JetBlue hook which you described as "dreadful and promotional" (an accurate assessment, IMO). You have posted repeatedly about section length and rate and built no consensus for change. I suggest that is, in part, because your approach leads to a high degree of defensiveness. I can't see why 8 hooks rather than 7 is a problem for DYK, and if that is better for balancing the main page then it is something that should be collegially achievable. Isn't it better for WP and our readers if we can work together?

All of the above are from the last two weeks or so. In that time we've also had a proposed topic ban at AN, and you are not alone in having an approach which I see as counter-productive. DYK has problems with reviewing, there is no doubt, and at times hooks need to be pulled from the queue and (sadly) sometimes from the main page - sadly because they shouldn't get that far - but what feels like a "gotcha" approach even in cases where a small edit would address the issue is IMO leading editors to feel threatened and attacked when what is needed is for them (and us) to understand how things get missed and to learn from mistakes. EdChem (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

TLDR: DYK regulars don't like the fact they're being scrutinised and that they're being unveiled as a reasonably owny bunch who are content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page. If you think the admin tools have been abused by me or anyone else in pulling detritus from the main page, then do something about it. As for "healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here", damned straight. The process consistently fails, and the individuals involved put up the shutters, heads into the sand and pretend everything's okay once these awkward people pointing out all these issues will go away. Well newsflash, we're not going away. And low quality or erroneous hooks will continue to be removed and those responsible for continually supporting them will be called out. Sorry if you misinterpreted that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Blunt version: Your strategy is frustrating your aim. Your description of MY work as "low quality" and me as being "content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page" as a consequence of my reviewing work is rejected as unsupported by evidence and obnoxious. Your attitude and behaviour convey disdain for DYK which renders your objectivity questionable. Newsflash, DYK isn't going away. You could try working with us to address problems... or is that too difficult? Sorry if this is too sensible for you. EdChem (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I work every day to improve every DYK that goes through the system. I don't have time to double check every hook but have pulled or suggested several be pulled en route to the main page. I have made multiple suggestions to improve things and yet DYK and its guardians see themselves as impervious and near-perfect, and criticism of any type is simply rejected. There's too much ownership and mollycoddling of editors in this part of the main page, it's unhealthy and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. There's not enough responsibility taken for continuous issues, this thread is the first of its kind and is probably about five years too late coming. Sorry if that's too much truth for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I made one suggestion for improving DYK, and you shot it down, in a fit of ownership, perhaps. Lay out your proposal(s), perhaps at VPP, if you don't like this page, and live with the fact that others have different opinions and views than you. Other people are not going away, either, and as you appear to think you are besieged, there must be more of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It takes more than one opposition to "shoot down" a reasonable proposal. And I'm here for the longhaul, whether the masses like it or not, so wise up. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually it got quite a bit of reasonable support, including from Fram. But your comment shows either a lack of the wisdom of self-awareness, or just plain hypocrisy, you act as if everyone who does not agree with you is suddenly a borg, when what's true is they just individually disagree with you and you can't handle it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Off topic-discussion

Then I wasn't the only to object by a long chalk. I can handle all of this, unlike the whinging DYK owners. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Your whingeing ('to complain persistently in a peevish way') shows otherwise. Sure, the borg is the boogeyman. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Not at all, I've offered several ways the process can improve, and indeed I actively engage in improving each and every DYK myself, including preventing copyvios being posted, including removing non-fair use images, including actually reading beyond the hook, checking for grammar and other minor improvements. I have no idea what you're talking about, but that doesn't surprise me. Now either focus on the discussion at hand, or chase me to my talk page to continue in your lame attempt at berating me, but either way, stop wasting time here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Of course, you argue you don't know what people are talking about and then continue with extended arguments that are oddly excited and bizarrely preachy, wise up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I asked you nicely to stop wasting time here. Please continue the attempt to berate me elsewhere. Otherwise stick to the program, improving DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I'm not wasting, anytime. Your way of asking things is decidedly not nice, don't fool yourself. Regardless, this is about improving DYK, as we are discussing the matter of proposing, discussing, and making changes in DYK. As your complaints persist about a borg in charge, here, you've been pointed to how to handle that complaint appropriately. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I've really got no idea what you are continually going on about. I have suggested solutions and actively work on problematic issues here. You? Nothing but odd and meaningless analogies. Try to be part of the solution, and stop eating time here failing in beating me up for telling the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Could someone uninvolved hat this worthless diatribe? We can return to trying to fix the many problems, rather than bizarre Star Trek comparisons. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC) It just cannot be true that you don't understand you whine and complain the "DYK guardianship" or "regulars" "ownership" obstruct your proposals for reform. Just stop and handle it the appropriate way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Alan, you've missed the point entirely. Unlike you I make positive contributions to every single DYK that passes to the main page, sometimes I have to stop them because they're junk for one reason or another. Sometimes other diligent editors have to pull them because they're junk. Those of us concerned with quality will take whatever steps necessary. Now, I urge you, please stop beating yourself up and saying the same meaningless things over and over again, and let some capable people try to handle the problem, and that includes stopping this meaningless guff. Now, over to you for the final word (and then a (ce)) and we're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK, here's my take, speaking as an on-again, off-again DYK participant: First, EdChem is right that there is a sense of a "gotcha" approach that does discourage people from reviewing and promoting DYK hooks. We fear being slamblasted for a good faith error and fear reprisals. On the other hand, if The Rambling Man spots a problem and removes a hook, groovy, so long as I'm not slamblasted for a good-faith error, I can live with that, he does a good job of spotting problems others miss and so long as he wants to do that job, I'm good with it. Similarly, when Moonriddengirl sends an approved hook bac for another round, she does what she does best. At the end of the day, I am fine if I make a mistake and others have to fix it, as long as it is acknowledged that I did the best I could at the time and intended to do a good job -- we all are human. But finally, having created about 200+ articles for WP, and about 50 of them have been DYK, I do hope that everyone here who criticizes content also creates it from time to time and so understands the challenges we face. (I know that TRM does...which is one reason why I'm not too upset if he has a high standard; I've done GAN reviews for his articles, and he DOES create content) Montanabw^(talk) 01:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Obviously, as my sometimes contributions on this page attest, there is no objection to re-running a review, where others take a look and find an issue that needs more discussion or reversal. Such additional review rarely need to be an accusation (or a gotcha) and in extreme cases where it does need to be an accusation, those should go to AN/ANI. And policy reform proposals should either be accepted or rejected here or at VPP, and then move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Query on editing restrictions

Deryck C., I was wondering about the fourth restriction, which starts with "(To balance the maths)". I initially thought this explanation meant the second QPQ would be requested to make up for having two QPQs used to review a single LavaBaron nomination, but the way this reads, LavaBaron's second QPQ can be of a nomination already approved by another reviewer. Is this what you meant? While sometimes this means simple duplication of results (as here, which would not normally be eligible for QPQ credit), it can mean LavaBaron finding issues with an approved review, which does help the process. Also, so far as I can tell, the first review doesn't actually need to start from scratch, but simply that the DYK review has not yet been approved/accepted, unless by "accepted" you mean "accepted for review (but not necessarily approved)". Please clarify. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Your interpretation is correct. One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because...". Rule #2 has essentially side-stepped LavaBaron from the review chain, so I tried to find a way to balance out the reviewer effort while allowing LavaBaron to participate meaningfully and receive oversight at the same time. From the reviews linked above, I think LavaBaron has been using the requirements of his restriction to participate constructively, which is encouraging. Deryck C. 23:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Deryck C. That's very clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

#4 is struck per discussion. Deryck C. 13:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek Day: Trouble Ahead

I have just noticed on Star Trek Day (8 September), we have 20 approved hooks. Given we have just gone to 1 set a day, I can foresee a problem here. I am bringing this to the community's attention so we are aware there is a potential issue with a large number of hooks here. Will the solution be we go to 2x8 (and lose a couple) or 3x7 for that day? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I was wondering that myself too, two sets of 8 would still leave 4 out - but perhaps the rest can run on different days? MPJ-DK  16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There isn't much point trying to figure out an appropriate cycle right now as we may get more nominations yet. But we can certainly run three sets on the day if we have to. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Just run three sets of seven. Easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I was just coming here to suggest three sets of seven - that'd only leave one out (and I'm more than happy for it to be one of the filler expansions I did when I wasn't sure if I'd hit two full sets (i.e. The Lost Era or something). One other thing - the bottom of the holding sections seems to have become malformed, but I can't work out what it is. Can someone take a look? Miyagawa (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Nutcracker dolls

Currently the lead hook in Prep 6. I'm thinking this could be saved over for Christmas? We didn't have enough variety in the Christmas sets last year and I'm thinking this one would make a nice addition. Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought when I promoted it to Prep. But there was no request for that on the nomination template, and Christmas is 4 months off. The guidelines on the Special Holding area limits to 6 weeks ahead of the requested date, with the exception of April Fool's Day. — Maile (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The holiday sets tend to be so sparsely populated (I remember the scramble to put something up for July 4, American Independence Day), that I think we should make an exception in this case. Perhaps seeing Christmas in the Special Occasions area will inspire other editors to come up with more hooks, too. Yoninah (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could set up a separate page for holding Christmas hooks, like we do April Fool's Day. That way, people won't have to work up their Christmas articles in a much shorter deadline and chance missing the date. We could potentially get a lot of hooks. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I moved the hook to a later prep set (Prep 4) so it won't be promoted during this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why this discussion is languishing; it seems a lot of editors have deserted the project. I'm going to be bold and open a Christmas section in the Special Occasions holding area. Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Yoninah; too much other stuff happening. I'm actually dubious about letting the various special days proliferate and be given exceptions to our quite generous way of offering special date placements. Should we save Christmas hooks year 'round? Half a year? Will other such religious holidays be given equivalent consideration? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Another thought, is that not every culture celebrates Christmas in December. Please see Christmas traditions. So, whose Christmas celebrations do we do this for? — Maile (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 bowling hook

• ... that Moses Bensinger (pictured) was the initiator of the rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling?

Template:Did you know nominations/Moses Bensinger @Yoninah, Doug Coldwell, and Jsayre64:

As far as I can tell from the article, he was the initiator of the American Bowling Congress, which was the initiator of the rules and regulations. And even the claim that he was the initiator of that congress is debatable, it looks as if Joe Thum has at least as much claim to being the initiator of the congress and the rules and regulations. E.g. the Bowlingmuseum.com mentions the essential role of Thum, but doesn't discuss Bensinger at all. Here as well they discuss the role of Thum and also mention Thomas Curtis, but no mention of Bensinger. Looking there for Bensinger gives no results. The Historical Dictionary of Bowling doesn't mention Bensinger at all! It mentions again Thum's role in 1895, and it mentions the Brunswick company (but nothing about them for the period of the hook), but nothing about Bensinger... This book lists four crucial members at the founding of the ABC, but doesn't include Bensinger (he isn't mentioned anywhere in this book on bowling).

Other sources do indicate that Bensinger helped founding the ABC[1]("played an important role in establishing the ABC")

It seems to me that Bensinger can be described as an initiator of the ABC, which was in its turn the initiator of the rules etc. But to go from this to the hook seems quite a stretch. Fram (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying this problem while the hook is still in prep. I have pulled it, as I don't see a quick fix for this problem and the article may need closer scrutiny. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have verified the four hooks already in Prep 6, but since I had to pull the other three for various reasons, I am probably not going to have time to put this update together now, so someone else will have to complete and promote it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I finished it myself after all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I think the sources cited in the article after the sentence: "He helped found the American Bowling Congress in 1895, which set in place a legislative body that enforced these rules and regulations for all to follow as the standard for the game of bowling."
support a hook like this: … that Moses Bensinger (pictured), an initiator of the American Bowling Congress, helped establish the rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling?
or this, not as exciting:
… that Moses Bensinger (pictured) was an initiator of the American Bowling Congress, which established rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling? Jsayre64 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of a better hook should happen at the nomination template, not here, but in any case: no on the first: you shouldn't change "he helped found A which established B" into "He helped establish B" as that indicates that the had an active role in writing the rules and regulations, while the source only supports the claim that he helped bring together others who then did the writing. Fram (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Q6 Sandra Blow

I've just noticed in Q6 it says Sandra Blow made glass screens for Heathrow's departure lounge. I think that is a bit vague as Heathrow Airport has more than one departure lounge as they have more than 1 terminal. I think that the hook should be clarified as to which terminal it was or reworded to be more general. The Royal C (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The source just says "the departure lounge" so I don't see why we need to be any more specific. Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick google. The other sources available say either 'departure lounge' or 'Heathrow Airport'. I did find this which indicates Terminal 3. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the hook from "the departure lounge" to "a departure lounge" which will be make it accurate in all circumstances. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I imagine Heathrow has something like 50 to 100 departure lounges so to claim that "the departure lounge" is acceptable is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Heathrow has 125 airbridges so that's 125 departure lounges for a kick off. Then there are the others. Please, when making glib assertions that hooks are somehow fine and that an encyclopedia doesn't "need to be any more specific", think harder about it. Some people don't realise that Heathrow has more than one departure lounge, so the hook, as was written, was misleading, probably even incorrect. Try harder please, especially now we only have to verify 8 hooks per day. If we can't manage that, give it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So now it's wrong to state exactly what the source itself says? The source says: In 1995 she completed an important commission to produce large glass screens for the departure lounge of Heathrow Airport.[2] Could there be a main departure lounge at the airport that everybody thinks of as the departure lounge? Could the writer have meant multiple departure lounges, but just been referring to them generically as a familiar space, "the departure lounge", in the same way that one might say, perhaps, that "the plane is on the runway", even though airports typically have multiple runways? So one might just as well argue that substituting "a" for "the" was an example of OR. One can endlessly quibble about such minutiae, but i hardly think that castigating those working to keep the project running over trivia of this kind can be described as constructive. Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's wrong to blindly follow and parrot hooks which are clearly wrong. Heathrow has five terminals so it can't possibly have one departure lounge. There's nothing wrong with applying some common sense to these hooks, and if a reference is dubious, making some odd claim about something that couldn't possibly be correct, it shouldn't be used. I'm sure there are plenty of other hooks in that article, along with plenty of errors too. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Technically Heathrow only has 4 terminals as Terminal 1 has closed. But still agree with the intent of the statement. Just saying. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As usual TRM, in your haste to criticize you ignore alternative points of view. You may be justified in arguing that the indefinite article is more appropriate in this case, but I have no idea how many departure lounges Heathrow might have and I don't think it inappropriate of me to sound a note of caution about deviating from the source in the last post I made before logging off last night. One thing I do know is that switching to the indefinite article made an already weak hook so much the weaker, by further trivializing what was described in the source as an "important commission". There are many factors to take into account in evaluating hooks, hooks are rarely if ever perfect and there is almost always another tweak, clarification or rephrasing that can improve it, the fact that such tweaks can be identified is not actually evidence of negligence or incompetence on the part of set builders as you never seem to tire of implying. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's nothing to do with that. The hook needed to be fixed. It was misleading. End of. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Moot, now at ERRORS!! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've amended the hook to conform with the source highlighted by Andrew D. This is unfortunately one of those issues that occasionally turn up when the source for a hook turns out to be incorrect. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  It really highlights the one of the fundamental problems here, that DYKs are taken at face value by the reviewers, the promoters and the admins who sanction them for the main page. That this kind of thing can change so radically after an innocuous complaint about a dubious hook is testimony to the poor review process. We're seeing, on average, at least one hook per set being modified or worse, rejected, after promotion to a queue. The error rate is creeping over 10% and is something which is certainly unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Sure. Checking for those sorts of errors requires expertise which the reviewers, the promoters and the admins may not have. But putting them on DYK brings more sets of eyes to bear. Much better than leaving the article incorrect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  If by "expertise" you mean the ability to use Google, then yes. I don't believe anyone here is necessarily an expert on the works of Sandra Blow, but several people have pointed out issues with the hook and the article that were overlooked and promoted by reviewers and promoters alike. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The law of diminishing returns also applies here. One can spend hours cross-checking sources to verify that something said in a source is unquestionably correct, or one can do something useful, like, I don't know, adding some new content or something. Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

... that there is no direct evidence that an ancient Roman bust known as the Capitoline Brutus actually depicts the Roman consul Lucius Junius Brutus (d. 509 BC)?

So what? The clearly needed link here is that it's "commonly thought to depict the Roman consul Lucius Junius Brutus". Missing that fact from the hook makes it relatively pointless unless we expect all things called "Brutus" in some form are supposed to represent all things called "Brutus". Plus, I'm not sure why we need the "(d. 509 BC)" as we've already covered that this is ancient Rome we're talking about. Please reword swiftly and succinctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass you promoted this, so I'll leave it to you to fix this issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Getting close to pulling time: PericlesofAthens can you fix this? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, added some more phrasing and removed the nugatory text. Tough if it's not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought the meaning of the original hook was clear enough, but regardless, I think the changes are an improvement, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry that I didn't see this in time to do anything about it. Looks like you guys handled it. Cheers! Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

... that the number of traffic collisions in Gaziantep, Turkey, decreased by about 40% within two months of the installation of TEDES?

The article says that it's only in areas monitored by TEDES that this reduction was observed (to whit: It was reported that the number of traffic collisions at the TEDES-monitored intersections and fast lanes in Gaziantep declined by about 40% within two months...), not in the whole city of Gaziantep. Hook needs clarification or pulling so it can be revised into something succinct. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass you promoted this, so I'll leave it to you to fix this issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Getting close to pulling time, so can CeeGee please address this? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, pulled, I'm off to bed soon, I don't want to see errors on the main page, so better safe than sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I had a lot of trouble reading the underlying source. I cannot read Turkish and Google Translate does an appalling job of translating the language into English. In the end, I pretty much gave up on it and decided to AGF that the hook was correct. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

But the hook, as written, wasn't backed up in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You are right, I overlooked that. I went immediately to the source when I opened the article to verify the hook, but got so frustrated trying to interpret the google translation, decided to AGF on the hook, forgetting to check that the article itself said the same thing. I'll try to be more careful next time. Thanks for picking up the error. Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, everyone. So I'm a newbie and I'm interested in getting a DYK done, but the whole process seems so complicated. I'm writing my draft at Draft:Devonshire White Paper and I'm looking for someone to guide me through the process. I asked Shubinator and they directed me here. If anyone would like to help me out, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, MediaKill13 (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

MediaKill13 it's always nice to see a new editor at DYK. You do seem to write well. Instructions for nominators will help guide you through it. If you make a mistake in creating the template, it can always be corrected. Your hook(s) should be 200 characters or less, have a neutral point of view, and be "hooky", something that makes the reader want to click on the article link. You can use the Character Count tool to check the length of the hook. The hook must be stated in the article and sourced at the end of the sentence in which it is stated. The article qualifies as new the date it is moved to main space, and must be nominated within 7 days. New articles need to be 1500 characters in length, but you've already exceeded that in draft space. If you need more help, please feel free to ask for it either on this page or on the nomination template itself. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: So can I remove the {{New unreviewed article}} template and move the draft into mainspace now? MediaKill13 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

MediaKill13 Yes. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

English invasion of Scotland (1400)

...that King Henry IV's English invasion of Scotland in 1400 was delayed while they waited for the king's tents to arrive? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi did you want this to be a new nomination? Just follow Instructions for nominators and create the template. Don't worry about making a mistake, because we can always correct errors. — Maile (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Maile66 I was expecting my servants to do it for me. Since they made such a pig's ear of bringing my tent. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, another glaring tents error at DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through August 15. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 46 nominations have been approved, leaving 139 of 185 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the six that are over a month old; they all need a reviewer's attention.

Over a month old:

• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/It's Not Me, It's You (game show)
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Kunwar Singh Negi
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/The Triggering
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Rogue Fitness
• July 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Mani Yadanabon
• August 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Cash Trapped (two articles)

Other old nominations:

• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern Region, Nigeria
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Mathilda Twomey
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Satoshi Mitazono
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Austin Petersen
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Bathurst Deane
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Eliza Walker Dunbar
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Political designations in Massachusetts
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Elizabeth Manning James
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Bolivia
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/List of athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics with a prior doping offence
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Rangers signing policy
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jesús Sesma Suárez
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Tmetuchl
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Ioan Kalinderu
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Captain Rex
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor Swift videography
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ağın Bridge
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Trump plant theory
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Heroes of Remix
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Gustavo Cárdenas Gutiérrez
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/José Antonio Arévalo González
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Clare Palmer
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon)
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Kentucky Avenue Renaissance Festival
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Talbieh Camp
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Black
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/La Negra Formation
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Master of Arts in Applied Legal Studies
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/T. J. Friedl
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Revival (comics)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Chapo Trap House

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

Cwmhiraeth, AKS.9955, Antidiskriminator: The Mijo Babić article has been recently tagged since 27 August as requiring a copyedit. Despite that, it was promoted four days later with nothing in the article being addressed. I've had a cursory glance - this really isn't the quality of article even DYK should be aspiring to post on the main page. Suggest it is pulled and given the needed care and attention before it is promoted to a queue again. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've given it a copyedit and removed the tag, so it should be fine now. Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's ok, better, but why would it have been promoted in that state? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There's been some debate about whether or not DYK should withhold articles with minor copyediting issues - minor in this case meaning articles with grammatical issues that are nonetheless comprehensible. DYK articles are not required to be perfect given that they represent mostly new content, and it's been found in practice that articles needing a copyedit are quickly cleaned up after they hit the main page. Given that one of the supposed purposes of DYK is to allow articles to be seen and improved upon by a wide audience, it can be argued that featuring articles which still display a copyediting tag is an example of WAD. Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"WAD" ? Vanamonde (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Working As Designed". Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that articles highlighted on the main page of Wikipedia should not require a wholesale copyedit for the basics of English grammar, nor should articles tagged as such be promoted until the issues are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I know you think that, but not everybody agrees. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Having said all that, I do find it somewhat ironic that the supplemental guidelines pay homage to WP:DASH (F5), MOS:NUM (F6), WP:ELLIPSIS (F1), and even have to go as far as to tell editors "Don't capitalize your article as it appears in the hook, just because that's how it appears in the article" (B2), but at no point anywhere do I see anything that says "the article should be written in English, even simple English, with minimal grammatical errors and typographical issues". The project cares more about an en-dash/hyphen debate than readable English? Even worse is the instruction to self-appointedly remove the any stub tags (D11) (because that way you get your article onto the main page quicker and get those WikiCup points!). That's just plain wrong, article assessment doesn't work that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The "F" rules pertain to the hook (except F8, which really shouldn't be there). Obviously, consistency of presentation is required for the hooks that actually appear on the mainpage. MOS breaches in the article, on the other hand, are of little concern, DYK is not FA. Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think given the state of the articles being promoted, you don't need to clarify that. I'm not (and never have been) looking for even GA quality, I just believe that the main page should feature articles that are written in grammatically correct English, and if an article is so bad that it has to be tagged for copyediting, it shouldn't go anywhere near the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

... that Hamilton was first presented at Vassar College as part of the Powerhouse Theater program?

I found this confusing as when I went to the Hamilton article, it stated that it wasn't the musical per se but a "a workshop production of the show" which comprised just "the first act of the show and three songs from the second act". Maybe that's covered by "was first presented at" (which I also find odd phrasing). It also notes that it was actually called The Hamilton Mixtape when performed. And actually, part of Hamilton appears (according to its own article) was performed first at the White House... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to:

• ... that an act from the musical Hamilton was first presented at Vassar College as part of the Powerhouse Theater program? Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Though I think it would be hookier to have something like:

• that award-winning Broadway shows Hamilton, Bright Star, and The Humans were workshopped at the Powerhouse Theater? Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Paging Bobamnertiopsis for comment. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass In case you want to go with that last one, which I also like, I linked the plays. — Maile (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Dab Broadway if that's what you're going with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note the target article doesn't substantiate the "award-winning" claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It substantiates the claim now, and the claim is sourced. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, pity this all wasn't done before it was promoted etc etc etc change the record etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the sourcing, Maile66. All of this looks fine. Sorry this wasn't dealt with sooner. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 22:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Change made in the queue. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Shit Museum

Malformed nomination. Could somebody correct this. Thanks. And my apologies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Right Stuff (blog) on August 28

BlueMoonset, The Wordsmith We have an error here. How do we fix it?

Please check the history on this article.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Right Stuff (blog) was opened on June 23, 2016 and closed July 9 as being merged with Triple parentheses.
• The merge was done on July 15, 2016, leaving behind a redirect.
• The Wordsmith recreated this article over the redirect on August 28.
• The old article had been pending-changes protected on June 8, which has carried over to this recreation.
• A second DYK nomination was created at the bottom of the old closed nomination, on the same template.
• A footnote appears at the end of the hook, causing the footnote to mysteriously appear at the very bottom of the nominations page below the special holding area.

This article never should have been recreated and needs to be converted back to a redirect. We can't just delete the article and salt it to prevent it from being recreated, because there are hundreds of pages that link to the redirect.

Meanwhile, BlueMoonset, what do we do about this template? Sitting in the nominations area, it messed up the formatting. Scroll to the December 25 special holding area to see what I mean. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• First off, I removed the reference, that was an error on my part. It fixed the formatting error. Second, I'm not sure what the procedure is for a second nomination after a failed first nomination is. I don't know that there's much precedent. Third, there's nothing wrong with rewriting an article that had previously been redirected, especially if there are new sources used and the content is substantially different (both are true). That's why the DYK template has a specific option for articles created from a redirect. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• The existing nomination page cannot be reused for the new nomination. I have reverted the recent edits to it, so it is restored to its condition at the original closure. When a second DYK nomination needs to take place for the same article—very rare, but it can happen—then the best thing is to add a " 2" to the end of the original name, for example, Template:Did you know nominations/The Right Stuff (blog) 2. The new nomination template page has to be created directly, rather than go through the normal "Create nomination" process on the nominations page (it wasn't set up for this unusual exception). Whether the article should have been recreated or not is not the purpose of this post, though the DYK template has a specific option for articles recreated from a redirect because a lot of article pages have only ever been a redirect, sometimes years old, before the topic gains sufficient individual notability to be initially created as an article. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip. As you said a second nomination is extremely rare, so I wasn't aware of that convention. I'll take care of the rest of it. I recognize that this is a very unusual circumstance that basically never happens, so thanks for bearing with me. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Amafufunyana hook - inaccurate?

Did you know that amafufunyana is believed by the Xhosa peoples to be caused by demonic possession, but is actually schizophrenia?

Is this hook actually accurate? Emphasis on the use of the word actually in the hook. The article says that the term is applied to people suffering from schizophrenia. But it doesn't say that it isn't demon possession. And demon possession, as something that is supernatural, is something that couldn't be scientifically determined or not as a cause, I would venture to say. I'm fine if the hook is left as is, or is tweaked or pulled. This comment was more for future reference. I personally think that a statement like "that amafufunyana is believed by the Xhosa peoples to be caused by demonic possession, and describes schizophrenics?" or something like that (probably could be polished up more) would be more neutral and accurate.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes: it should be pulled or rewritten. The source claims " Some overlap between [amafufunyana] and schizophrenia (DSM-IV) is apparent. " and "The culture-bound syndrome amafufunyana and the culture-specific phenomenon of ukuthwasa are both used to explain symptoms in patients with schizophrenia"[3]. If I read it correctly, the study took known schizophrenia patients and checked whether they had been "diagnosed" with amafufunyana before; it didn't take amafufunyana patients and check whether they had schizophrenia. So while this study confirms that many amafufunyana cases suffer from schizophrenia, it doesn't establish (or aim to establish) that amafufunyana is schizophrenia, it may just as well be a name for a series of syndromes or diseases. Fram (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How about something like, "is often applied to schizophrenics"? Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe just avoid trying to cobble together a pseudo-medical hook and stick with another fact, e.g. that they are commonly treated by exorcism. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've pulled it for now, as there seems to be little enthusiams for keeping it as is in any case. @Silver seren, Yoninah, and MPJ-DK: Fram (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That was totally unnecessary Fram. The hook was under discussion and a quick fix was probably not far away. I would suggest just dropping the "is actually schizophrenia" phrase. Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Leaving an inaccurate hook on the main page while we discuss a better alternative hook is a better solution than pulling it from the main page while we discus a better alternative hook? It takes just as much effort to change the hook as to put it back in the corrected form (and both require an admin). In what way was my move "totally unnecessary", or in what way was it better not to pull it for now? Fram (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not start all this again. Better safe than sorry. Try getting it right before it gets to the main page, after all it's only eight hooks a day, although there seems to be a current error rate of around 25%. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggested alt:
• ... that while the condition known as amafufunyana is associated by the Xhosa people with demonic possession, the preferred treatment is shifting to psychiatric assessment? Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Which seems also to suffer heavily from selection bias. This is the source, which is about "the experience of 10 Xhosa-speaking schizophrenic patients attending a community psychiatry clinic in Cape Town": yes, among these ten people already at a psychiatry clinic, the preferred treatment is the "use of psychiatric services". How many are not using psychiatric services? How many have used psychiatric services but no longer do so? Your hook may be correct, but is not supported by the source. That source actually also makes it clear that the original hook was indeed very dubious, as amafufunyana is a lot more complex than simple being "actually schizophrenia". Fram (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

    Okay, well as I'm not inclined to spend any more time on this, as far as I'm concerned it can stay off the main page. We are not responsible for the fact that the nominator did not take sufficient care in crafting their hook supplied an inaccurate hook. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, the reviewers and the promoters are responsible for ensuring that it doesn't get to main page. Otherwise what's the point of all the arcane steps required to get these hooks to the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, they are, I was simply making the point that the nominator ultimately only has himself to blame bears ultimate responsibility for the fact that his hook was prematurely removed. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, that was incredibly rude on all your parts. And the suggestion to remove the end part was just fine. And your issues with it are really just technical nonsense that could have been fixed with a single word change if necessary ("actually" to "often"). Do you normally treat other editors with such disdain, @Fram:, @Gatoclass:, @The Rambling Man:? How many editors such as myself wake up to find you all badmouthing them for a technicality in wording? Silverseren^C 18:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  An error on the mainpage has to be treated swiftly. This kind of thing is happening all too often. I don't recall anyone bad-mouthing you, other than Gatoclass suggesting that the failure was of your own making, and that was just a statement of fact in reality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Because of you all being upset at a single word not technically being accurate, in your opinion? And rather than changing that one word and fixing the problem entirely, there's this whole nonsense section? Why are you all in charge of this area again? Because it seems you all completely lack the professionalism to be doing anything here. Silverseren^C 18:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  If you think that keeping an inaccurate hook off the Main Page is "unprofessional", perhaps you ought to reconsider that opinion. Fixing it and re-presenting it would be by far the best course of action at this point. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  The latter is what i'm saying should have been done when it was brought up here in the first place. Especially since a simple single word change would have fixed the problem. And this was even brought up in the above discussion and yet no one did it. Also, I dispute "inaccurate hook" completely. The issue brought up here is a technicality based on an opinion of the sources and doesn't meaningfully change what the hook says at all. Silverseren^C 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  No, it does. The hook says that amafufunyana = schizophrenia. Now whilst that may well be the case, the article doesn't make that definitive equivalence. This shouldn't be a difficult one to fix, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Is that even allowed? It was pulled directly from the main page and it's been 12 hours since then. Silverseren^C 19:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Um, I hadn't realised it had been pulled straight off the Main Page. Someone else more familiar with the arcane maze that is DYK rules could probably tell you. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Given the frequency of this kind of issue, it would be worth the DYK regulars preparing some words based on consensus as to whether pulled hooks can or should be reinserted, or even renominated (e.g. if they've only been on the main page for, say, half an hour). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  While you're here, could you clarify where, in particular, I "bad-mouthed" you? That would be very helpful. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  By trying to put me in your "error rate" statistics, when this has nothing to do with the hooks that are actually wrong or biased. This was a technical wording issue around a single word that was easily fixed. And yet no one even tried to fix it. Also, don't you have a long history of essentially badmouthing the entire DYK process and trying to make it seem like it's worthless? Silverseren^C 20:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  I certainly have a long history of observing that the process fails relentlessly and the rate of failure is astonishingly high given the number of "quality gates" through which a DYK has to pass before it hits the main page. It wasn't badmouthing you at all, so you need to redact that, it was simply that the pulling of the hook contributes to the overall failure rate of the wikiproject. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  It shouldn't have been pulled in the first place. It doesn't contribute to a failure rate when it shouldn't have been removed at all. And I stand by badmouthing, per its definition, unless you're going to say your comments above weren't criticism. Silverseren^C 20:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  If you don't understand the difference between criticism and bad-mouthing, this conversation is no longer of any use. It does contribute to a failure rate as it was removed. Sorry if that's hard to swallow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @Silver seren: Welcome to the world of DYK, which is currently suffering from people, and their hangers on, who pull hooks off the main page (sometimes for ridiculous reasons), are scornful, rude and disparaging to others, and generally bully the rest of us, with the result that many editors who used to help with DYK regularly have curtailed their activities, or been driven away from the project altogether. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Silver seren and Cwmhiraeth: what in my posts in this section was "incredibly rude", "scornful, rude and disparaging"? I agree that I pull hooks of the main page (though never for ridiculous reasons), but the rest of your post is a severe personal attack. I only discussed the hook and sources, not the editors involved with it. There was 6 hours between the initial post here and my first reply, and a further hour between that and my pull. Should we have waited until Silver seren was again available for comments? Then you can just as well close down this page, as all anyone would have to do to make certain that his or her hook remained on the main page was keep quiet for a few hours. So how should I have handled this, in your opinion? Fram (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I already stated how you should have handled it. If the problem with the hook in your opinion was the one word, then you should have just changed "actually" to "often" and fixed the problem, with no need to pull the hook. Silverseren^C 18:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Silver seren: It may seem that a one-word change is the only issue, but sometimes that masks deeper problems. For example, in Template:Did you know nominations/Sketches from an Island 2, it was initially discovered that the hook had incorrect quotation marks, but there was also a fundamental misreading of the source that supported the hook. Simply fixing the obvious error would have still left an incorrect hook with an error that might not have been spotted at all. Pppery (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue here. The issue raised was that not all cases of amafufunyana are necessarily schizophrenia, just that they often are. Thus, the one word change would have fixed the hook entirely. Other cases being different have no application here. Silverseren^C 19:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing "incredibly rude", "scornful, rude and disparaging" in any of this discussion other than the indignation of the nominator at having his/her hook pulled. We have an endemic issue in this project, and despite what folks like Cwmhiraeth claim, there's not a jot of scorn, rudeness, disparagement, or bullying, it's simply a continual and repetitive and boring statement of fact that the project can do its job properly, i.e. place eight hooks onto the main page once a day without numerous issues. Yet the head-in-the-sand continues, it's all about the people who complain and protect the main page, and never about those who repeatedly make mistakes, promote erroneous hooks, advocate sub-stub articles, defend non-English tripe. Other cases being different is absolutely the case, "your" hook was erroneous, just as all the others that have been pulled were. Now, I would suggest anyone interested in this project spend more time in actually creating reliably sourced and accurate hooks, decently written articles and then there'll be no problems. If the project got that right, the project would probably never see "Fram" or "The Rambling Man" in the talk page archives ever again. Imagine what a halcyon era that would be? I bet that Fram would be as happy as me to not have to provide oversight to this project to the extent we are doing. Three or four stages of review should be enough. Why so many errors? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I have modified a couple of my comments above, which in retrospect might be read as unduly abrasive. My response arose from a growing sense of exasperation about the number of issues I have been finding in nominations that need to be dealt with, at a considerable cost in time, but Silver seren is not personally responsible for the systemic problems, nor is there any reason to single him out for particular criticism. I do understand how difficult it can be to write an appropriate hook when one is the author of a new article and still very close to the source material, so again, chief responsibility for identifiying hook issues lies with the initial reviewer. At the same time, however, I think it bears repeating to all nominators that if you take the time to craft your hook with sufficient care, you will be in no danger of having your hook removed prematurely from the main page regardless of the quality of the initial review. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Set builder needed

We need somebody to complete the set in Prep 3 as the queue is empty again. I can verify completed sets, but I can't both build sets and verify them, it's too much to do. Gatoclass (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I've done it myself. But we could still use some additional sets. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see you need me, so I'll relent ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pringles unsung

Currently in prep 3, we have an article on Pringles Unsung, a music competition, which has no information on the actual competition, like, I don't know, who won it? Aren't DYK articles supposed to be comprehensive? This one, while long enough for DYK, can hardly be described as anything but a stub IMO. I can't even tell, from the article, whether it had one edition, two or more ("Pringles Unsung was a music competition in the United Kingdom that ran from 2006 to 2007" is all it says, and that line seems to be unsourced). A highly unsatisfactory article. Fram (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• An article about a talent competition which does not actually tell you what the result was is, or who won, is pretty pointless IMO. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get around to looking at that one yet. If the problem is that it fails to name the winner, that can probably just be added from one of the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not, as far as I can tell, from any of the sources currently in the article at least. Fram (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

After quite a bit of searching, it appears a band called The Toy Band won the competition [4]. This is the only page I can find claiming this, though. Putting "The Toy Band"+Pringles into Google produces only this page as relevant. We have no article on the band (Toy (band) are a different group). There is so little about this competition that I do wonder if it's even notable as a stand-alone article, and should be merged to the Pringles article if not deleted. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I pulled it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In Prep 3

... that golfer Thomas Detry broke the Challenge Tour record for largest winning margin with his 12-shot win at the 2016 Bridgestone Challenge?

• So let's start by pining hook creator @Fram: and then reviewer @Herostratus:. Being in the prep area means this will hit the main page at some point soon so this requires immediate attention. The actual fact used for the DYK hook is not directly sourced in the article, there is a source after the next sentence, but not the hook sentence and that is not acceptable.  MPJ-DK  11:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a technical breach, yes. But I don't see any point in making a song and dance about it. This can simply serve as a reminder to Fram and everybody else that the cite is supposed to come directly after the hook fact. Gatoclass (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. Fram (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that we're all human and no one is infallible.  MPJ-DK  12:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh jeez I missed that, sorry. Fram fixed it. Herostratus (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just one thing more that perhaps I should add - the rule requiring the cite to be placed directly at the end of the sentence containing the hook fact was originally added because many nominators would forget altogether to add a cite, or would put the cite someplace where it was difficult to identify. So the rule is there for the convenience of reviewers, it's not meant to be something that a reviewer must ensure has been done before approving a nomination. Nominators should certainly follow the rule, but if they have failed to do so and the reviewer was nonetheless able to find the cite with ease, then there is no problem and the review should move ahead regardless. Gatoclass (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible hoax?

I'm always a bit bothered when I see an article with no checkable references. English invasion of Scotland (1400) is one of those. I can see no mention of an English invasion in the Henry IV of England article, although that may be simply because the invasion was apparently short and uneventful, but still, it would be nice if somebody with some expertise in this area took a closer look at this one before it gets promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a hoax[5][6]. Fram (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I just found one of those sources myself. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanking Gatoclass for the large dollop of WP:ABF there; a genuine thanks to Fram for pointing out the ease with which sources are, after all, discovered. The rather outrageous attitude displayed originally, though, persuades me against promoting any further articles in this quarter of the project. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh for goodness' sakes Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, this has nothing whatever to do with ABF. The fact is that we have had hoaxes on DYK in the past, and it's standard procedure to check the bona fides of articles sourced entirely to offline or foreign-language sources in such a way that you cannot verify that the subject of the article actually exists per supplementary rule H3. Having said that, you are quite correct that I should have made a google search before posting here, but as I was in the middle of something else, decided to leave a note here while completing the task in hand. I immediately thought better of it, initiated a google search and quickly found a source, but when I returned here to delete my post, found it had already been responded to. I will nonetheless offer an apology for my over-hasty post, and add that I hope it won't deter you from further participation here. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Gatoclass In any case, has this been pulled. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, it hasn't been pulled, it's still on the nominations page. Did you mean you want to withdraw it as a nomination? Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I am gracious in forgiveness and bone-idle in vengeance :p let it stay :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I bet you typed that thinking 'Don't do me no favours...' _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Broken code on WP:DYKN

I am encountering a lot of broken code at WP:DYKN over the last couple of days, for example, the NSO Group nomination looks like it has been verified on the nominations page, but it actually hasn't, the verification belongs to another nomination that is half hidden. I've come across several of these in the last 24 hours, and it's making it difficult to select nominations as some of them show verifications that don't apply while others can't be accessed at all. We need somebody with a bit of technical expertise to go through the page and try to track down and correct the error or errors. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Intelligentsium Is this related to Problem with the closing "/noinclude" tag when the DYK template closes? — Maile (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass what you are seeing on the nominations page appears to be left over from Did you know nominations/Capitoline Brutus. It didn't close correctly and has to do with the noinclude. I tried to fix it just now, but that hasn't worked. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Does this all have something to do with the new DYK review bot? Because this is a problem with more than one nomination, I have encountered three or four noms with the same problem and it's getting quite annoying. Maybe the bot should be disabled for now to see if it fixes the problem? Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's the review bot, if you go by Intelligentsium's talk page link above. It also looks like he thought he had it fixed, but maybe not. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, I deleted the Capitoline Brutus nom from the nominations page, and at least now NSO Group is displaying correctly, but I don't know about the other nominations I've seen with a similar issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, I note that several days on the DYKN page - August 16 and 17, for example - start with broken code, which may be of some assistance in tracking down the error. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass Yeah, it's the review bot, all right. Both those nominations were just promoted today, and the closing apparently messed with the review bot code or vice versa. Straf mich nicht in deinem Zorn and Albert Sherman Christensen. — Maile (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a known issue, as discussed above in WT:DYK#Template:Did you know nominations/Vic Lambden. I've been taking care of these as I see them, but I'm not always around. Basically, all of the nomination templates that were reviewed by the bot when it started regular operations on August 25 and over the next couple of days, before Intelligentsium made the bot fix early on August 28, will have this issue when they are promoted. Eventually, we'll run out. The issue was fixed and recent reviews will not have this problem. So it's a temporary condition, but one that will crop up over the next couple of weeks with fair regularity, and then happen with less and less frequency. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, BlueMoonset is correct; this is an annoying problem but has been addressed and will not affect future nominations. I'll also make the fixes when I see them. I could attempt to automate it to lessen the work in fixing these but it might take too long to go through BRFA. I think the most time-efficient solution is if you see a nomination like this that hasn't yet been human-reviewed, just undo/revert the bot's review and it will replace it with a new review (which is not affected by this issue) on its next run. Intelligentsium 17:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify what the problem was (for those new to the discussion): at the end of the BRFA there seemed to be a consensus to hide the full bot reviews from the nominations page to avoid clutter and improve the page loadtime. I originally went with one of the suggestions to add <noinclude>...</noinclude> to the bot review so it would not be transcluded onto the nominations page. When a nomination is closed by subst'ing, it surrounds the nominations with <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags to hide closed nominations from the nomination page. The issue which I did not foresee is that the MediaWiki software interprets the first </noinclude> close tag as the close tag for the entire nomination, so anything after that is still transcluded. I have removed the <noinclude> tags from the bot review template so future reviews will not suffer from this issue, but reviews that were saved before that still have them. Intelligentsium 17:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Please withdraw following nominations

I am going to leave WP for an extended period. Unless someone would like to recover them, I have the following active DYK nominations that can be closed (I believe this is all-inclusive, however, if there are others please consider them also withdrawn at request of nominator). I apologize, in advance, for inconvenience this may cause to reviewers or promoters.

• Proposals for concerted operation among the powers at war with the piratical States of Barbary
• Italian Parliament (1928-1939)
• Ecology Party of Florida
• Political designations in Massachusetts
• Master of Arts in Applied Legal Studies
• Opera Lafayette
• Austin Petersen
• Trump plant theory
• 1917 United States declaration of war on Austria-Hungary
• A7FL
• Chris Keniston

Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with your extended leave. I fully expect Arbcom will be knocking on your door should you find a few "New message" notifications. Happy Christmas! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - regarding what, The Rambling Man? To tell me you don't like me? I don't think Arbcom delivers personalized greetings like that, but I could be wrong. Happy holidays to you, as well. LavaBaron (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry if it wasn't clear. The behaviour of individuals at DYK is forming part of the forthcoming Arbcom case, so there'll be a few pings going around no doubt. Happy days! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do not think these nominations should be withdrawn en bloc, but each one should be considered on its merits. I will volunteer to help resolve any issues, and if the proposed hook is found to be unsuitable in an otherwise acceptable nomination, an alternative hook can probably be found. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth, I didn't see this until after I had already closed several per LavaBaron's request, which is his right as nominator: a number of these had long been awaiting action by LavaBaron and I think those should remain closed (i.e., the Barbary, Italian Parliament, Trump plant, and declaration of war nominations). If you want to bring back Template:Did you know nominations/Political designations in Massachusetts or even Template:Did you know nominations/Austin Petersen, which I closed because they were on the list of oldest nominations needing reviewing and it seemed silly to leave them there when the nominator had withdrawn them, you can, but in that case they become your responsibility going forward. All ones that are not ultimately withdrawn will still need two reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My enthusiasm for helping does not quite extend to reopening nominations you have closed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek hooks

Prep area 2, 3 and 4 are for the Star Trek anniversary hooks in the special holding area. I have put in a total of 16 hooks in the 21 spots - and there are three hooks I reviewed so I cannot move those: Lincoln Enterprises, Ronald B. Moore, Sarek (Star Trek: The Next Generation). once they are moved by someone we'd have all Trek hooks in with two spots open, so close to a clean sweep.  MPJ-DK  02:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I had a go at doing Sarek (Star Trek: The Next Generation). It is now in prep 3. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 needs to be 8 hooks to completely promote all existing ST hooks. — Maile (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done All approved Star Trek hooks are now in Preps 2, 3, 4. I made Prep 2 the 8-hook set, while 3 and 4 have 7 hooks. — Maile (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

REALLY, REALLY, REALLY important. We've had several weeks to know this anniversary was coming up. For those of you who like perfection hooks and articles, you've also had that long to review everybody else's work. If you have questions, please list the hook and details here, rather than wait and pull something from either prep, queue or the main page.— Maile (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• That is also one of the the reasons I filled ALL prep areas, get eyes on the hooks before they hit the Queues or main page. And the Paralympic hooks are next, anyone feel like giving them a once-over that would be great as they are up soon too.  MPJ-DK  13:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. We all want to make sure these are correct. Now is the time to speak up. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, if there are concerns about the hooks or articles, please discuss here so a fix can happen. Thanks to everyone for their hard work on this anniversary. — Maile (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There was an uncited banner on Victor Lundin which was in one of the prep sets, but I've just gone through and cited it, removing the banner as well. Miyagawa (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Linda DeScenna hook, Prep 4

• Linda DeScenna hook, Prep 4. Yoninah When I loaded this hook, I left an edit summary saying I have changed "five" to "5" to keep the hook within the 200 character limit. When you changed it back, it then exceeded the limit. I have reverted it back to "5". — Maile (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Easily fixed. The Academy Award is for the set designer, not the set design. Yoninah (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Heads up certain people (you know who you are), Linda DeScenna is an American, so in keeping with American style, there is no need to now insert "the" in front of "set designer". — Maile (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Janeway Lambda hook in Prep 4

• "... that Janeway Lambda one was the first holonovel to be featured on the Star Trek franchise?". Holonovel redirects to Holodeck which is a terrible collection of mostly unsourced fancruft and original research (which doesn't even explain very well what a holonovel is). Is there a way of rewriting the hook without linking to it? Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I must say I am totally bewildered by the first and second paragraphs of the Janeway Lambda one article in any case. The intro doesn't adequately distinguish between fictional and real-life events IMO, I can't imagine anyone not familiar with the program would be able to follow the description here and I think it needs a rewrite for clarity. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Aoba47 and Miyagawa: as article creator and GA reviewer. Input please. — Maile (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it could do with an edit to stop referring to itself as a "holonovel" as that's an inuniverse term. Perhaps "plot element" or "subplot" or even "holonovel subplot" would rectify it. Miyagawa (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but then the hook would be meaningless. If this article is going to hit the Main Page I think (a) the hook has to concentrate on something else, and (b) as Gatoclass says the lede needs rewriting completely, because it's very confusing and not everyone who reads it is familiar with the show. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: @Black Kite: Thank you both for your input, but I disagree with your comments. The lead does in fact distinguish between fictional and real-life events as it discusses the production, writing, and filming of the scenes involving this narrative element as well its reception so I have no idea where you are getting that from to be honest. I clearly identify what the "holonovel" means in the context of the show as "a holographic simulation" so I am not entirely sure how it can make it more apparent than that, and how it operates within this specific instance/storyline.

And the first two paragraphs you are referring to discuss how this narrative element is used on the show itself so by that its very nature, it has to be in-universe. All of the subsequent sections (Production, Themes, and Reception) discuss it as a fictional narrative element so again I do not understand your point of criticism regarding that fact either. The criticism that this page does not distinguish between fictional and real-life events is completely invalid IMO.

I have provided two alternative hooks belowf that hopefully can be used:

• ALT1: ... that the set used to shoot the Star Trek: Voyager subplot Janeway Lambda one was nicknamed "the Jane Eyre set" by the filming crew due to its similarity to locations from the novel?
• ALT2: ... that the Star Trek: Voyager subplot Janeway Lambda one was developed as a futuristic adaptation of audiobooks?

If you do not believe that either of these ALTs are appropriate for the main page, then I am open to suggestion (particularly @Miyagawa: since he has the most experience working with DYKs from the Star Trek franchise) or I could just remove this completely. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, if necessary, I can move the "Production" section before the "Appearances" section if that would helpful in defining unfamiliar terms to readers who are not familiar with the franchise. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Either of those hooks sounds absoutely fine to me, the first one is more interesting I think. Anything you can do to make the article more accessible would be great. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I will swap out the current hook for the ALT1 hook. Montanabw^(talk) 20:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead does in fact distinguish between fictional and real-life events as it discusses the production, writing, and filming of the scenes involving this narrative element as well its reception - Aoba47.

I'm sure it does to you, because you have presumably read and understood the source material. What I am telling you, from the POV of somebody who knows nothing about this topic, is that the lede reads like gobbledegook. I have tried to read it half a dozen times now, and I still can't understand what the heck it is trying to say. If you need a few pointers on some of the issues:

Janeway Lambda one is the name of a fictional computer program in the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. So far so good.

Set in the 24th century, the series follows the adventures of the Starfleet and Maquis crew of the starship USS Voyager after they were stranded in the Delta Quadrant far from the rest of the Federation. Uh, wait, I thought the topic here was "Janeway Lamba one", so what are we discussing here, Janeway Lambda one the fictional program series or Star Trek Voyager, the actual television series? And if the latter, what is this sentence doing here when the topic is something else?

It is standard practice in television-related articles to include a brief, one-sentence summary of the show to better familiarize an unfamiliar reader to the subject being discussed. Without this sentence, a reader who has never seen the show would have no idea how this particular subject matter fits within the larger television show itself.

Developed by series creator Jeri Taylor What was developed "by series creator Jeri Taylor", Janeway Lambda one, or are we still talking about Star Trek: Voyager? Is Jeri Taylor a character in the series Star Trek: Voyager who developed the computer program Jane Lambda one, or is she a real person who developed the television series Star Trek: Voyager?

Revised

... the program name was given by Captain Kathryn Janeway (Kate Mulgrew) Wait, are we talking about a fictional event, where the program name was given by a character called Captain Kathryn Janeway, or a real event, where the name of the fictional program called Janeway Lambda one was given by Kate Mulgrew?

Revised

... for her holonovel, a holographic simulation in which she plays the governess Lucille Davenport in a fictional gothic novel. For her holonovel? Whose holonovel, Kate Mulgrew's or Kathryn Janeway's? Is this holonovel Janeway Lambda one itself, or is it a "fictional gothic novel" named after the computer program Janeway Lambda? And who is the "she" referring to in the sentence, the fictional character Kathryn Janeway or the real-life actor Kate Mulgrew?

Revised sentence so this is clear.

Now, all that confusion from just the first three sentences, and the rest is no more transparent. It needs a rewrite. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Having spent some time reading a bit of the rest of the article and the holonovel article, I think I have a better handle on these admittedly complex concepts than I had before, so I might as well suggest some changes myself. I suggest the article open with something like:

Janeway Lambda one is a holonovel, or advanced virtual reality adventure, experienced by one of the characters in the television series Star Trek: Voyager. The character's experiences within the holonovel are presented as sub-plots across several episodes of the Star Trek: Voyager series.

Thank you for the suggestion.

- Something like that would be a much better way IMO to present these otherwise quite complex concepts to somebody totally unfamiliar with the subject matter. With a couple of plain statements of this type at the outset, the likelihood of the reader becoming further confused by what follows ought to be greatly reduced. Gatoclass (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I have made some corrections to the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: So, is ALT1 now approved to appear on the main page? Aoba47 (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Aoba47, but I think that intro still needs work. Perhaps it would be better if we took this discussion to the article talk page from this point. Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Since we are running out of time to discuss this, I decided it would be quicker to just make a few edits myself. I think the intro reads a lot more transparently now and prepares the reader for what follows. The rest of the article appears to be reasonably well written, so I think this is ready for main page exposure now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Thank you for the edits. I am trying to be a better writer so I appreciate your feedback. I just wish you were more respectful and diplomatic with your messages as they come across as rude. Your comments came across as very accusatory and dismissive when this should be a place for collaboration and discussion. While I appreciate constructive feedback and I do want to grow was a writer, I am still disappointed by some of your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Aoba47, I am usually much less forthright when dealing with such issues, however, in this case, your response to my initial post was that my concerns were, quote unquote "completely invalid"! Given that there was a critical time factor in getting this article ready for the Star Trek anniversary set, and the message clearly wasn't getting through, I felt I had to speak plainly in order to get you to recognize that there was a problem. It was either that, or pull your article from the queue and risk not having it ready on time. So I'm sorry that you obviously feel offended by a couple of my comments, but perhaps you might consider that I spoke frankly only for the good of the project and in order to ensure that your article got featured on the day you presumably wanted to have it featured. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I still found your comments quite rude and inappropriate. Prior to my "completely invalid" comment, you still were quite rude so I apologize that my article left you "bewildered" and was not up to your level. I tried my best, and that's all I can say to defend myself. Either way, I am mostly likely going to take a rather long break from adding new content or expanding anything on here as quite honestly, this discussion (as well as some others I had with other users) left disappointed and disillusioned with this site. It's probably the best time for a wikibreak. Aoba47 (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for my rude and disrespectful remarks and responses. Aoba47 (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

World Enough and Time (new nom just promoted)

Just to be aware, I've created another spare article/nomination should it be needed at Template:Did you know nominations/World Enough and Time. Needs a review, but the hooks are really straight forward. I hadn't written it specifically for this, but it's there if needed. Miyagawa (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reviewed World Enough and Time, and it passes. If someone wants, we could make it an 8th hook on one of the two 7-hook sets. @MPJ-DK and Yoninah: ?? — Maile (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll out it as 8th in Prep 4, and that way if we have a hook pulled earlier, there will be time to shuffle around if needed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Galileo (Star Trek) (needs review)

Awesome. Do we want an 8th hook for that third set, because I could certainly rustle something up. Miyagawa (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Then all the ST hook sets will be consistent with the way we've been running everything else. — Maile (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Casliber just promoted the 7-hook set to Queue 3. However, if you come up with this other article, if someone will review it, then I can stick it in that queue. I wouldn't be breaking any rules on that, would I, Casliber?— Maile (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that the admin moving a hook from prep to queue is not Reviewing as such, then it is not hard-and-fast verboten. However one would try to avoid it if possible I suspect to minimise any semblance of impropriety. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Miyagawa Prep 4 is the last ST set. Right now, it only has 7 hooks. If you want to come up with one last article, and can get someone to review it, I can promote it to Prep 4. Casliber I think I confused you, because Miyagawa's comment right above mine had been accidentally deleted by me when I posted. So you really didn't understand what my comment was about. Sorry about that. But if Miyagawa wants to come up with one more article and get it reviewed, I'll promote it to the last slot in Prep 4 for him. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm on it. Miyagawa (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

New nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Galileo (Star Trek). Miyagawa (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If someone will review this nomination, it will complete the hooks for the 50th anniversary for Star Trek. — Maile (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Reviewed and ready to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that this hook be moved to the lead image slot, to alleviate the tedium of this prep having the fourth person image in a row? Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. It's a done deal. The final Star Trek set is now ready. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Timing

• Do we really want three solid days of Star Wars Trek hooks, isn't that a bit excessive? How about reverting to changing sets every 12 hours for the duration? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No we certainly don't want 3 solid days of Star Wars hooks, it's crap compare to Star Trek anyway. If you note the discussion I raised above about "Trouble Ahead", the agreement was to revert to 3x7 for that day only. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

My error, I meant Star Trek. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 121

It has just occured to me that the image currently in Queue 2 is a small snippet of a larger image which is going to appear at the same time on the main page as Today's Featured Picture - File:The Shuttle Enterprise - GPN-2000-001363.jpg. Is this an issue? I could swap out the image in the article for File:Gene roddenberry 1976 cropped.jpg and then the one in Queue 2 could also be switched. It just isn't as good a photo. Another alternative would be if a cropped version of File:MONY Gene Roddenberry.JPG would be created (since the full size image wouldn't work as a thumb for DYK purposes). That perhaps might be the preferred photo since that image actually dates closer to the crash than the current shot. Miyagawa (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not covered by any of the DYK rules/guidelines. I can find no reason not to use the cropped image from the larger image. Anyone else? — Maile (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, just wanted to make sure. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Bradley Cooper

FrB.TG I just saw this in Prep 1:

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is one of the ten actors to receive an Academy Award nomination for acting in three consecutive years?

Seems a little awkward to me. It sounds like he was nominated for being gainfully employed three years in a row. How about wording it exactly as you have it in the article?

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is one of the ten actors to receive an Academy Award nomination in three consecutive years?

It sounds so much more clear worded that way. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure both of them work for me. The above one was tweaked by the reviewer who thought that one might get confused whether it was acting non or..? FrB.TG (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the phrase "for acting" is redundant and should be deleted, it's obvious what he received the nomination for. I would also delete the definite article in the phrase "the ten actors" because it too is unnecessary and sounds a bit peacockish. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, before seeing this discussion, I changed it to:

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is one of only ten actors to be nominated for an Academy Award in three consecutive years? Yoninah (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Better still. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Lose the "only", unnecessary POV. In any case, I'm surprised there are so many people have been nominated three consecutive years. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• The phrase "for acting" is not redundant but is needed to exclude the many non-acting Oscars. For example, Walt Disney won many consecutive Oscars. He was also a sometime actor – he did the voice acting for Mickey Mouse, for example. The phrase is needed to exclude cases like this – where a sometime actor was nominated for consecutive non-acting Oscars. As people in the movie industry move around between the different functions – acting, directing, producing, &c. – there may well be other cases which throw the count off if the exact qualification is changed. Better to stick to the formulation of the source – "the 10th actor in Oscar history to score three (or more) acting nominations in consecutive years." Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What about

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is one of only ten men to be nominated for an Academy Award for acting in three consecutive years?

That way, you make it clear that it is about acting nominations only, and you make it clear that "actors" here only applies to male actors, not actresses, and you avoid the duplicate actor / acting. Fram (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the last one the best. The Rambling Man or any admin: could you tweak the hook which is on Queue 1. FrB.TG (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said above: "Lose the "only", unnecessary POV. In any case, I'm surprised there are so many people have been nominated three consecutive years." The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is the tenth man to be nominated for an Academy Award for acting in three consecutive years?

Well, if you want to go down that route, I would suggest "person" rather than "man", because it appears no female actors have ever managed the feat. Gatoclass (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

...apart from Bette Davis, Greer Garson, Thelma Ritter, Jennifer Jones, Elizabeth Taylor, Ingrid Bergman, Deborah Kerr, [[Jane Fonda], Meryl Streep, Glenn Close and Renée Zellweger (strangely, Katharine Hepburn didn't achieve the feat]]. Fram (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Fram, you've managed to top the source![7] Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area glitch

For some reason, two of the headings in the Special Occasion Holding area are not transcluding, Template_talk:Did_you_know#Christmas_season_.28December.29 and the September 12 Paralympics section -- one shows the link to the article, but doesn't transclude; the other (the Christmas one I just created) just links the raw template. Both look normal in preview. There's probably some hidden text or formatting that I can't see that is causing this, so can someone more techie than I am look at these? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see Broken code on WP:DYKN, which is where this started. I also tried several times to make the bottom of the Special Occasion Holding transclude. It started when the bot started to malfunction on that noinclude stuff. I'm pretty sure this is related to what the review bot is doing. According to Another bot problem, the bot did something odd again today. Whatever it's doing on new nomination reviews seems to affect the bottom of the Special Occasion Holding. — Maile (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

On it, DYKUpdateBot Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Understandable error in queue1

• ... that Madison Janssen, a national and world champion as a junior BMX rider, won a world championship on a tandem bicycle with skier and athlete Jessica Gallagher in world record time?

Template:Did you know nominations/Madison Janssen @Hawkeye7, Amgisseman(BYU), and MPJ-DK:

They set a new world record in qualification, and went on to win the world championship, but they didn't win the world championship in world record time.[8] states "Gallagher and Janssen broke the world record in qualification with a time of 11.045 seconds". The same can be read in more detail at e.g. [9]. I have not pulled the hook yet, perhaps some easy fix can help here. Fram (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you change it to:

• ... that Madison Janssen, a national and world champion as a junior BMX rider, set a world record and won a world championship on a tandem bicycle with skier and athlete Jessica Gallagher?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Or further shortening, and simplifying grammatical structure:

• ... that paralympian and world BMX champion Madison Janssen set a world record and won a world championship on a tandem bicycle with skier and athlete Jessica Gallagher?

EdChem (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

She is not really a Paralympian (so far), it would be much more logical to add the "Paralympian" to Jessica Gallagher. Fram (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a Paralympian because she has yet to compete in the Paralympics (which start in 2 days)? She is certainly an athlete on the Australian Paralympic team. However, an improvement which includes Gallagher more appropriately is:

• ... that world BMX champion Madison Janssen set a world record and won a world tandem bicycle championship with fellow-Paralympian Jessica Gallagher?

EdChem (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Er, but you just called her a Paralympian again. Also misleading is calling Maddie a BMX champion, as she was a junior BMX champion. The interesting thing about Jess is that she was a skier in Vancouver and Sochi, but a field athlete in Beijing and London; and now she's a cyclist. So I prefer my ALT hook, which didn't call Maddie a Paralympian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I'm just making suggestions. At what point do you consider this athlete who is in the Australian team for the Paralympics that start in Rio very soon becomes a Paralympian? EdChem (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I spoke to Maddie an hour ago. As far as anyone here in Rio is concerned, she became a Paralympian when she was selected last month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

... that Turkish female goalball player Sevda Altınoluk was named top scorer at several international competitions?

Sevda Altınoluk is one of those articles written in poor English with basic grammar faults. The hook is really not hooky at all, particularly when none of the tournaments at which she was top scorer are notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia article. And the article is still marked as a stub, and assessed as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@CeeGee and Raymie: — Maile (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Aha! I noticed your above claim right now. I was not aware of this as I re-assessed the article. You say "the article is written in poor English". It is possible, I cannot judge it. However, how comes that someone with GA-experience as the reviewer MPJ-DK missed that all. Yor say "none of the tournaments which she was top scorer are not notable enough". This is not true because "IBSA European Goalball Championships" is the top continental competition in this sport. And about the stub-status. Yes, I had missed to re-assess it before ı nominated the article. Unfortunately, no one detected the discrepancy before I noticed it during my routine check. So, I kindly ask you to recheck your claims. CeeGee 05:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I tried to do some copyediting but, admittedly, I was not knowledgeable enough on the topic to give the article a proper once-over. Raymie (t • c) 05:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What I actually said was that these tournaments seem to be insufficiently notable such that they don't even have Wikipedia articles, e.g. if IBSA European Goalball Championships is so significant, why is it a red link? A non-"goalball" reader will look at this and just think "meh" *shrugs shoulders* and "who cares"? As for reviewers missing basic errors of English grammar and punctuation, don't get me started. There's a vast history of such failings with little or no appetite to improve in this regard.... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• The red link comment is a total fallacy, red link is not automatically the same as "not notable" making a claim based only on that is misguided.  MPJ-DK  12:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• So instead of trying to address the problem you go "well MPJ missed it too", not the DYK reviewer but the guy that took the approved hook and put it in prep for another set of eyes? Moving the hooks to prep does not mean I am also reviewing the article in anybdetail. I generally look for the hook in the article, but that is about it - don't put any shortcomings on me, you got to own it. You made a similar "I am not good at English" claim on another hook where I was the actual reviewer, that one is not approved, partially because of the poor language. Now as a hook movet should I be the third set of eyes doing a full assessment? It would naturally help and I try to at times but not always. I do believe that instead of throwing around names you need to own the poor English part yourself - you want articles featured in DYK? Put in the work on the grammar, even if it is not your native language, you made the choice to edit the main Wikipedia, you made the choice to write in English.  MPJ-DK  12:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

.. that singer Syster Sol (pictured) won an award for Best Reggae/Dancehall at the 2014 Kingsizegala?

If the "2014 Kingsizegala" is lacking in notability such that an article doesn't even exist, why is this hook even remotely interesting? I would have preferred to see a hook perhaps relating to her performance with an Afghanistani refugee to Sweden. And if the hook stays, it ought to be "the award" rather than "an award". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This is getting closer to the main page, so needs to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Article creator and nomination BabbaQ has not been active since August 30. At least link the template Syster Sol. — Maile (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What good is linking the template? And we don't need the nominator explicitly in order to decide if this hook is actually worthy on mainpage inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's an idea, given the stunning regularity with which promoted hooks are discussed for minor tweaks, error corrections or to be pulled, perhaps someone here could create a template that not only links to the article and the nomination but pings the nominator, promoting reviewer and promoting admin? That would save a lot of hassle, especially since it seems like it would be used perhaps once or twice a day at the moment, and that's with just one set of eight hooks per day... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I have created an article about the awards. Will continue to improve the article in the next coming hours and days. BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

.. that Kunwar Singh Negi translated over 300 books in various Indian languages into braille, and even some from Russian?

This is badly worded, I had to read it three times to fully parse it. I would suggest that slightly peacock "and even some from Russian" clause is removed altogether. Better still, an alt hook like:

.. that Kunwar Singh Negi, winner of both the Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan, has translated over 300 books in various Indian languages into braille?

Just a thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - done. Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

In the next due update:

• ... that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (current pavilion pictured) because of a reported comment by a Kent official claiming women only made teas in there?

- This hook has been bothering me for a while, because while I understand more or less what it is trying to say, it's not getting the point across very clearly IMO. I would suggest something along the lines of:

• ... that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (current pavilion pictured) because of a Kent official's reported suggestion that women there were only good for tea-making? Gatoclass (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Or more simply:

• ... that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (current pavilion pictured) because of a sexist remark reportedly made by a Kent official? Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, the original is fine. The others are misleading as he didn't say women were "only good for tea making". Also, this was the 1910s and was common language and attitude at the time so can hardly be considered sexist in context. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well if you want to be pernickety about it, he didn't claim women "only" made the teas there either. And my suggested alts were only rough drafts. But I see somebody has deftly modified the hook in any case, in which case this discussion is now redundant. Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For completeness, this was pulled from the main page and discussed at WP:ERRORS before being re-posted in yet another form. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

Lisa Martin (equestrian) is sitting in this prep area, but approximately one-third of it is quotation which could (and should) be paraphrased as the precise verbiage adds precisely nothing. In actual fact, the quotes help push the article above the 1,500 character requirement. I would suggest reviewers are more judicial when it comes to allowing such quotefarms to be counted as characters for one of the main DYK criteria. Suggest this article has its quotes re-mastered and if it stays above the minimum, fine, but a lesson to all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there some reason not to ping nominator Hawkeye7, author Aussiesportlibrarian and reviewer Anarchyte? Kind of hard to get it corrected if they don't know about this post. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No reason at all, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, Hawkeye7, and Aussiesportlibrarian: I've paraphrased it, it's still over the required count (albeit by a measly 20 characters). Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC

Thanks for that! I thought that her reluctance to be classed as a para-athlete was very interesting. I used her words so as not to misrepresent her position. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Mexican politicians

Here's a comment regarding the currently trend of posting one Mexican politician per set, from an uninvolved editor. Some feedback the project should listen to I suspect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• So basically the question is if there is a bias in what someone choose to write about, which there is a natural bias/preference of course - we only write about what we personally want to write about since it is voluntary. That is the same bias anyone has as a voluntary editor, not sure that is a unique DYK challenge, nor if there is actually anything that range done short of topic bans (I am not advocating this, that would be to punish someone because no one else covers a specific topic). Now if an individual user has a POV they were pushing that would be different.  MPJ-DK  22:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. Everyone writes about their area of expertise and, as in this case, keeps writing on the same subject in abundance. I think that TRM has identified a way to avoid this overexposure, though, and that is by not running same-subject articles in every set, or even in every other set. Yoninah (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Having a long spate of hooks (Mexican politicians, wrestlers, whatever) on a subject for which there is no current event or anniversary can be seen as undermining the credibility of DYK, the main page or even Wikipedia itself. All new content should be welcomed, subject to notability criteria of course; we just need to find a way of reducing the frequency of hooks on any one such subject. Yoninah is right. Perhaps this is best addressed by an expansion of the rules. Edwardx (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Having a "filter" adds to the credibility of DYK? Interesting take on such a restriction. DYK isba subset of what people are adding each day. The subsection consists of layers of "unwritten" filters already 1) those that even know that anyone can submit a DYK 2) those that then care to even try 3) those that can navigate the rules without quitting, 4) those who are willing to.do DYK and finally 5) Those willing to put up with bad attitudes and flaming hoops to jump through in certain cases. That is keeping the variety down, those who have "cracked the code " on DYK are repeat custokets, those that don't do not come in at all. MPJ-DK  19:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have to confess that I don't understand some of what you've written there. My original post was simply to highlight the fact that someone outside of the project, and by the looks of things, a normal reader, was dissatisfied with the endless Mexican politician parade that has beset DYK for some weeks now. The articles are sadly dull, the hooks similarly, this is a "by the numbers" exercise which really isn't going to be enjoyed by our readers. If DYK wants to draw in new editors or encourage the development of new articles, it needs to vary what it posts, and not just in a set. Let's put a moratorium on Mexican politicians, perhaps allow one every four days, and work around it that way. With the Star Trek three-dayer coming up, that gives the project plenty of time to get some hooks ready that aren't just run-of-the-mill minor Mexican politicians. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• That's okay, neither do I (rimshot). And actually, the question was "why only living Mexican Politicians?" not "why so many?". There was no outside concern about the volume as such, only why they were all on living politicians, which is a matter of selection bias - not topic bias.  MPJ-DK  20:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Easy solution then, as embellished by my point below, stop selecting them! Or at least slow down the rate so it's not becoming "dull Mexican politician bio ticker". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• So build a new rule based on a misapplication of one question by one person? Seems like an over-reaction and again not appropriate to the actual question that was asked.  MPJ-DK  20:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, I'm not interested in continually crafting more and more arcane rules into this already creaking machine. Just use some common sense and stop promoting endless hooks about dull-as-dishwater Mexican politicians. And while it may not be 100% aligned with the original question, we've evolved the discussion since then so I guess it's time to catch up with the "other" problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• As opposed to United States politics? India's buildings, religion and culture? Classical music? Food? Military? Insects? If you look at Wikipedians by number of DYKs you'll probably find most of them concentrated on their specific area of interest. — Maile (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

To give another example (@Gerda Arendt:) Max Reger, a notable but not exceptionally so composer (one can easily name 20 contemporaries who are a lot more known than Reger, from Debussy and Ravel to Sibelius and Richard Strauss); (linked part of a DYK hook on 4 May, 6 May, 9 May, 10 May, 11 May, 12 May (pictured), 13 May, 15 May, 17 May, 18 May (pictured); then a gap, and then; 16 July (pictured!), 21 July, 22 July, 26 July, 27 July, 1 August, 7 August (pictured!), 16 August, and then today (plus 1 in the nominations, again with picture!!)

Nothing here was against the rules, and yet this seems excessive. Getting the same composer on the Main Page 18 times in 4 months, three times with his picture added, is unbalancing DYK. Some rules to restrict the numbers of DYKS per topic and per period would be useful. Fram (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Per topic? Unless topic is defined as narrowly as "related to Reger" then putting the kibosh on another composer seems counter productive to me. A "Topic limit" would first have to define what a topic is, too wide and it is too restrictive, too narrow and it is pointless. And I agree with Gerda, balance is an inherent challenge when dealing with people writing out of desire and not because they "have to". If we were talking about guidelines for how to space topics out so specialized subjects don't generally run back-to-back that is a different matter.  MPJ-DK  16:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Rules Creep coming to an IMAX theatre near you! See for yourself as Wikipedians get lost in a maze more diabolical than any horror film ever made. The screams! The head banging rages! The bugged-out eyes and gasping for breath! — Maile (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 is Reger year, see [10]. We had a lot of Britten in 2013 and Sibelius in 2015. The Wikipedia Main page has not been balanced since I observe it, just look at the percentage of hurricanes and mushrooms among the TFAs, and sadly more battles than peace treaties. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if featured articles were spread evenly across the range of subjects, but they aren't. We have to work with what we have, and we schedule TFAs as far as possible in accordance with the proportions of each subject within the available pool of featured articles. This has been explained about a thousand times before, but the same old complaint still gets trotted out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Brian, I think we agree, I didn't complain, just observe that due to the personal interests of us editors it will not be "balanced". I tried at least to "promote" a composer who is celebrated worldwide this year, not my brother ;) - I was ashamed when I saw how few of his compositions were covered in an article. Any help with the biography is still welcome. Cassianto, may I remind you of what you said on the talk? - If you want to listen, a YouTube link is on top of my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 is not only Reger year (according to whom?), but also Satie-year, Dutillieux-year, Menuhin-year... And a hook like "... that Max Reger's Zwölf Stücke, Op. 80, for organ contains nine pieces composed in 1904 and three from 1902?" fails the "interesting" aspect rather badly.

Actually, and in all seriousness, WP:TFA is often criticised for featuring "too many video games!!!!" or "too many mushrooms!!!!". I could be wrong but I believe that a regular there (Brianboulton) keeps tabs on the overall numbers of FAs in rough categories and also overall numbers of featured FAs, to check that, proportionally, they are approximately equivalent. In other words, that the TFA selection reflects approximately the number of FAs that are within that broad category. DYK could use that kind of approach, rather than just saying, well hey, we have three hundred hooks about dull Mexican politicos, let's feature one per set, our English-speaking audience are bound to be interested in minor and inconsequential Mexican political bios once (or twice!) a day for a year or so... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I keep a table here, updated each month, showing how we're doing in terms of proportional representation at TFA. The theoretical aim is that at the end the year the right-hand column will contain all zeroes, which is unlikely to happen, although we'll try to get near. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't we just use the "interesting to a broad audience" provision to keep some of these hooks off the main page? Some arguably fail the "interesting" criterion to start with, and a law of diminishing returns suggests that each successive hook in a relatively short time frame will be even less interesting. Edwardx (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• There are a couple of Mexican politician hooks that are sitting and approved - if someone wants to give them an "is this interesting" assessment it'd be appreciated.  MPJ-DK  21:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  Sadly, the "this is interesting" brigade died a death when people like EEng stopped contributing here. Regardless of methodology, at least he and other like-minded editors were mindful of the fact that DYK should never be "DYK that A is a footballer who played for B during the C-D season?" (or, in this case "DYK Pablo Dominguez was a politician for the ABC party who won a seat for the DEF party"). Yes, hookiness is subjective but nine times out of ten, reviews are not bothered by that. Hence we have a backlog of Mexican politicians to come.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"When Mexico sends its hooks, they're not sending their best. They’re not sending Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators. They’re not sending the corporate CEO grilled on the witness stand. They're sending hooks that have lots of problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good hooks."– EEng
The preceeding Fence will naturally be paid for by those pesty Ostriches. ;-)  MPJ-DK 

With the recent string of Mexican politicians, and to a lesser extent the Mexican wrestlers, never since the (still ongoing?) drumbeat of Pennsylvania creeks and streams have we had such an extensive run of hooks, day after day, calculated to make readers say, "Jesus! I'm so tired of reading about [fill in blank]!" I'll say again we should be taking only 1/3 to 1/2 of submissions, based on a straight gut-feeling vote on "interestingness". EEng 21:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• A-Hem, Mexican wrestling shows thank you very much, I have not done a lot of wrestler bios recently ;-) If I am being held up as an example I would like it to be for what I actually did ;-) Re: "We should only be taking 1/2 of submission" - I do want to repeat a statement I have made weeks ago It is okay to fail a DYK - GAs and FAs fail every single day, but very few DYKs outright fail - they either get abandoned or someone retires, very few end up with a "thanks, but no thanks" fail.  MPJ-DK  22:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• So based on comments by Mr. Rambler hisself catching up with the "other" problem, what is the actual suggestion here? I see some go "topic restrictions" and some go "space them out" and others say "Be less boring"? So to some as long as they're interesting they can go every day, others are okay with mundane as long as they're not a daily thing. Is that where we're at? the cross-roads of "Boring" and "regular"?  MPJ-DK  22:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• To start with, I've just sent back Marco Antonio García Ayala. No one could reasonably claim that that hook is interesting. Edwardx (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: I think the problem with the Mexican-politician-in-every-prep-set started when we didn't have enough hooks to fill two daily prep sets of 7 hooks each. That problem has been solved with our new cycle of 8 hooks every 24 hours. The slower burn rate has also led to an increased in reviewed hooks, now over 50 (from just over 30, as I remember it was before). As a promoter, however, you are the last line of approval for a hook. If you think it's dull, don't promote it, and write something to that effect on the nomination template. So many reviewers just pass things automatically to get their QPQ. We have to make DYK hooky again! Yoninah (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think a 1-in-3 for Mexican politicians when we actually have several approved Mex-Pol hooks would probably be okay for frequency - just like that one time there were like.... oh I don't know 70 IWRG wrestling show hooks we had the same challenge, fortunately, sanity has prevailed and there are not as may IWRG show hooks to choose from so the regulation of how often they appear on the main seems to have self-regulated (Well that and if I build six preps fully then they will not have any of my hooks in them).  MPJ-DK  01:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• When Donald Trump is president, he's going to build a wall to keep uninteresting hooks out. And In The News is going to pay for it! Uninteresting hooks will be sent back to their nom pages, and will have to reapply! There will be no automatic path to the Main Page! EEng 01:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• While @MPJ-DK: is quite right that it should be okay to fail a DYK, even on the "interesting hook" criterion, I also think some awareness of this on part of the nominators is in order. Many editors here, myself included, work on strings of closely related articles. In these circumstances, we need to remember that not all of them are DYK material. For instance, I have created a number of articles about snakes in the genus Lycodon, but I nominated only one of them here: because only one of them had material in it that was more than pure routine. This is not to say that those articles are worthless: of course not. Boring Run-of-the-mill short articles on obscure topics are absolutely necessary: they just may not be suitable for the main page. Vanamonde (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately DYK has long been the Special Olympics of Wikipedia: everyone's a winner! No one can bear to pass judgment or hurt anyone's feelings. EEng 06:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem really is, who decides what is interesting and what is not? Perhaps one person would find 10% of hooks uninteresting, while another, 50%. There's a lot of subjectivity with regards to this criterion, not only because people differ in what they find interesting, but because "interesting" is hard to define in concrete terms. Probably the easiest standard to apply is to ask oneself whether the hook highlights something unusual. Common, everyday or mundane events obviously fail that test, so that is one thing at least reviewers should be on the lookout for. Gatoclass (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Who decides? Editors who want to participate decide. It's subjective? Editors make lots of subjective decisions. But unlike almost everything else we do at Wikipedia, it's not a question of getting something "right" -- it's just a question of gut appeal. I've said this a million times: just vote on the hooks, and the top X vote-getters are the ones that appear on Main Page. EEng 07:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

EEng, we barely have enough reviewers to keep up with the backlog. Where are we going to get a committee to !vote on each and every hook? This is just not practical IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the "hookiness" vote is the first step, which would effectively reduce the backlog by rejecting DYKs that aren't actually interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How to quickly and easily decide which hooks are interesting, and cut review workload in half at the same time

That's right, TRM. Gatoclass, I don't get it. You and I had this exact discussion not even a month ago. Don't you remember? I'm pasting this description in from that discussion:

"Interesting" hooks are selected with no discussion, no consensus -- just raw vote counts based on gut reaction, like this:

• Every day, 21 hooks are randomly chosen to be gathered in a set to be voted on.
• Everyone gets to vote for up to 7 of these. When the day's votes are in...
• The bottom 7 are struck permanently -- too unpopular.
• The middle 7 are marginal -- unclear if they're interesting enough. These are returned to the main pool so that sooner or later they end up in a new set of 21 to be voted on. (These 7 don't move as a block, they just all go back into the pool to swim around again until one by one each ends up in a new voting-set-of-21 selected from the whole pool.) This might happen to a given hook two or three times, but every hook eventually ends up either in the top 7 or the bottom 7, deciding its final fate.
• The top 7 hooks are "interesting", and pass on to the usual stages of review etc.

This produces 7 interesting hooks per day to go on to the review stage. Assuming about 1 in 7 doesn't actually pass review, that gives us 6 per day to go on the main page. (Yes, 6. We're only going to run 6 DYKs per day.) The beauty of this is that we eliminate 1/2 of the noms right at the door, before any significant brainpower at all is spent on them -- nothing more than the gut, "Wow! That's interesting!"

Obviously the specific numbers are adjusted according to the rate at which noms are coming in and the actual # we want to run each day.

EEng 21:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly this is a sea change for DYK who have traditionally pretty much guaranteed to run every single nomination, regardless of whether it's of any interest. I am certainly in favour of the principle of jettisoning dull hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• My response to this proposal is the same as it was last time EEng, which I will now repeat for your benefit: while I sympathize with your vision of more interesting hook sets, I don't believe a process like this would significantly improve them. If you look through the DYK archives, you will occasionally see a standout hook but most are pretty run of the mill no matter how you cut it. A very small number of hooks are genuine dogs, but far less than a third, so under a process like this, you would be penalizing a third of nominators quite arbitrarily in order to get rid of the occasional dog. Not a very fair or efficient process IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a third, it's half, and your worry about 'penalizing nominators' is at the heart of what's wrong with DYK. This shouldn't be about rewarding people or being fair, it's should be about getting good content onto the main page. If someone doesn't want the heartbreak of their nomination being rejected, they shouldn't nominate dull hooks or zillions of hooks on the same subject. This process isn't inefficient, but rather highly efficient since it kills half the nominations right at the door (of course, that proportion can be adjusted) thus releasing brainpower to do actually effective reviews on those left. The point isn't to eliminate 'dogs' but to select the best -- honestly, I'd kill 2/3 of moms, but I'll settle for 1/2. EEng 08:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

EEng, arithmetic is not my strong point but last time I checked, 7 was a third of 21, not a half.

And besides, hook interest is certainly not the only criterion by which nominations are judged. There are contributors to DYK who are able to supply excellent, FA-quality nominations who couldn't write a decent hook to save themselves. One also has to consider the quality of underlying articles, people who spend ten minutes writing a stubby 1500 byte article that happens to have a slightly better than average hook should not be getting preferential treatment over those who are submitting FA-quality content with slightly under-par hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• In the described scenario, out of each set of 21 hooks, 7 are rejected and 7 accepted; thus an equal number are accepted and rejected i.e. 1/2 are rejected, 1/2 accepted. The 7 returned to the pool don't count.
• DYK is for decent articles with interesting hooks, not really good articles with crappy hooks. If your first hook is rejected, you can renominate with a different hook. (Ask a creative friend to craft a new hook.) But sooner or later, to get in the door you have to have a better-than-average hook. I know this may amaze you, but I start and develop articles even though for one reason or another I don't expect them to appear as DYKs; to be perfectly blunt, people who lose their motivation if they can't get a DYK barnstar aren't likely to have any idea how to create quality content anyway, because good writing springs from a love of writing, not from a love of the spotlight. If you only get in the spotlight half the time, that will motivate you to do better. This is Main Page, remember? -- not the Special Olympics.

EEng 12:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

EEng, if 7 hooks go back to the pool, that means only 7 out of 21 hooks have been rejected. You appear to be even worse at arithmetic than me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain this using an analogy not entirely unlike the DYK process itself (stupefying boredom, the feeling that you must have done something awful in a past life to deserve punishment, the degradation of pointless busywork, etc.). Suppose you;re in hell, where you sit on a couch in front of a TV on which every channel shows nothing but Formula 1 racing for eternity. In front of you is a huge jar of jelly beans, and the punishment for your sins (in addition to watching Formula racing for all time) is to eat them.

Now and then an imp comes in to add a bean to the jar, so during the day it tends to fill up. To keep it from overflowing, Satan periodically reaches into the jar with his accursed hand and draws out 21 jelly beans. 7 of these he forces you to eat (i.e. are judged interesting and pass to the next stage of the DYK process); 7 he throws into a fiery pit (i.e. they're rejected); and 7 (for some reason) he puts back in the jar. He does this every day. Now, what proportion of the beans eventually end up in your gullet? Half. What proportion end up in the fiery pit? Half. The 7 that go back into the jar don't count, since their fate has been postponed for a while. Do you see now? EEng 13:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Deary me, what a macabre imagination, I didn't think DYK was quite that bad. But in response to the substance - if you start out with 21 jelly beans, and throw 7 away, you still have 14 jelly beans left, whether you decide to eat them all today or put half of them back in the jar for consumption tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, EEng is right, you eventually will feature about 50% of the hooks and dismiss about 50% of the hooks. Imagine, with easier to handle numbers, that you start with 145 hooks (and that for the sake of the example, no new hooks are added), and each day you feature 5, drop 5, and put 5 back into the holding area. After 10 iterations, you have featured 50, dropped 50, and put 50 back in the holding area. So far, your 33% seems to be right. However, now you again take 15 hooks a day from the holding area, for 3 days: you have featured an additional 15, dropped an additional 15, and put 15 back in the holding area. You can now do one more iteration, and end the series with 70 hooks featured, 70 dropped, and 5 still in the holding area. Eventually, by adding new hooks, the "featured" and "dropped" numbers will get closer and closer to 50% each. (I would also support a system as propsed by EEng or something similar) Fram (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is that the rate of consumption has to equal the rate of production. Historically, we have had a usual rate of 21 "jelly beans" per day, so if you "eat" 7, reject 7 and put 7 back in the jar, then your rate of consumption is only two-thirds of the rate of production and you have a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You can adjust the # accepted, rejected, and returned to pool so that the total matches the rate moms are coming in. EEng 16:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, I still think the idea is a non-starter, for a host of reasons. Gatoclass (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please list them so we can discuss them in detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Raymie could be persuaded to move on to politicians in Guatemala or Costa Rica! Or more seriously, he could nominate some multiple hooks such as "... that A, B and C were among the newly elected deputies in X assembly in 2006?". Had MPJ-DK been allowed to proceed with his 70 article hook, there would have been no complaint on the excessive number of hooks on Mexican wrestlers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been concerned about the quality of some of these recent Spanish politician hooks myself, and have been considered starting to challenge a few on the interest criterion. It seems I am not the only one whose been thinking along these lines, so perhaps it's time to start subjecting these nominations to some closer scrutiny. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Errors on nomination page

I'm only able to read up to "Articles created/expanded on August 31" at WP:DYKNOM. Entries after this are not showing up, including the special occasion holding area. I tried purging, checked through the page, etc., but I haven't been able to find the cause of the error. I was thinking the problem might be due to missing syntax in the hidden comments, but they all seem to be in order. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Any ideas about this one, Maile66? Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it's likely due to some formatting problems in Template:Did you know nominations/WWT Slimbridge. I tweaked it a few times and previewed, but couldn't get it fixed yet. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Intelligentsium, because this may be occurring per the DYKReviewBot script on the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the Bot informed me that there was a problem with the Slimbridge nomination and then quit half way through its review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is, in fact, a DYKReviewBot issue caused by a vertical bar appearing in the summary of a paragraph. Pppery 11:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what you do, a vertical bar out of place. If you see it, can you remove it? — Maile (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Intelligentsium, Northamerica1000, Gatoclass, Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, and Pppery: I have removed the incomplete DYKReviewBot review from Template:Did you know nominations/WWT Slimbridge. That seems to have resolved the issues for now. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Why didn't I think of that? Facepalm. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Up on this page in the section Broken code on WP:DYKN Intelligentsium commented "...the most time-efficient solution is if you see a nomination like this that hasn't yet been human-reviewed, just undo/revert the bot's review and it will replace it with a new review (which is not affected by this issue) on its next run." — Maile (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Pppery is correct, the issue here was because one of the paragraphs the bot grabbed included a pipe character/vertical bar "|". Review pages can't have pipes in the text because they are wrapped in a template, {{DYKsubpage}}, and the pipe breaks the template. On further inspection, the bot should not have grabbed that bit of text as it was an image caption which does not count under the DYK rules. I've made a tweak to the code so this won't happen anymore. This is not related to the previous issue. Intelligentsium 20:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible cock up

I did this one earlier, but not sure if I finished the process properly? Any advice, accusations of hoaxing, or other assistance most welcome  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, but I am very rusty at this as I haven't had a nomination of my own for a long time. In any case, I have added your nomination to the nominations page. Gatoclass (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Whooooah! Thanks very much _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem

At the bottom of the September 6 section heading on WP:DYKN the last few nominations are linked not transcluded even though they are all using the
{{Templates:Did you know nominations/XYZ}} format and are not using square brackets which is the punctuation that is normally used for linking. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Intelligentsium The following nominations are affected by this:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Marlowe Memorial bot review only
• Template:Did you know nominations/Zimbabwe national football team bot review and human review
• Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford Blue (cheese) human review only
• Template:Did you know nominations/In Arcadia Ego bot review and human review
• Template:Did you know nominations/Triathlon at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's bot review and human review
• Template:Did you know nominations/Capital Combat bot review only

Please advise. And by the way, your user page (not talk page) opens to the edit window. I can't edit in it, nor do I want to. Because of big blank white space at the top of the page, I also cannot click on "Talk". It's somewhat of a useless dead end for some, in both Firefox and IE. — Maile (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• The problem is that Template talk:Did you know is exceeding Wikimedia's post-expand include limit. The solution is to close nominations at least as fast as new ones are arriving. --Allen3 ^talk 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Dream on. EEng 13:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the ping. I have looked into the issue and I do not believe this is (directly) related to the bot. The page T:TDYK appears to have reach the post-expand include size limit which means the page is too large, likely due to too many unreviewed or unpromoted nominations. Thus, further template transclusions will simply appear as links. While a contributing factor to this may be the bot's reviews, the bot reviews do not contain any information that a thorough human review would not; this probably is more of a reflection on the fact that nominations are coming in too quickly and turnover is not fast enough. A larger contributing factor to this issue is likely the recent transition from four-times-daily to daily DYK updates, which means hooks spend 4x longer at every stage.

A temporary solution would be to promote some approved hooks and attempt to close out the long discussions at the back of the queue, though it may be worth it to create more preps so we don't have nominations languishing on T:TDYK. Intelligentsium 13:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Intelligentsium, we only currently have 191 nominations on the page, historically that is not a lot, IIRC we have had close to 400 in the past and I don't recall the page breaking the limit before. I am concerned that the bot reviews may be contributing to the overload. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, BlueMoonset, Allen3, Intelligentsium I've been going through the page, one nomination at a time. The moment it threw off was this transclusion before the review bot ever looked at it. There's nothing wrong with that template that I can see. And I've deleted it (without saving) and then previewed, and removing it didn't help We are indeed listed on Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. But, the review bot is adding considerable size to each template. Not sure if that affects the transclusion size or not. Prior to the bot, we didn't necessarily have lengthy postings on each review. But the question is...what do we do about this? That is, if the increased individual size is involved. — Maile (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: you can close this rejected nomination to make a little more space. Yoninah (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering whether the new "hidden" and "hidden end" templates in each bot-reviewed nomination (I believe there are two pairs of these) might be adding to the number of templates needing expansion on the page. If it counts as four extra per nomination, or even two extra, they can add up fast. Does anyone know whether this issue is due to the actual length of the page, or the number of templates that need to be expanded? I think we've had longer pages in the past than what we have now. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a possibility; I looked at the source code of {{hidden begin}} and it's larger than I thought (though not "huge"). I have swapped it out in the bot code with a stripped-down HTML version that should be much smaller. Intelligentsium 19:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• The problem seems to be growing. My De laude Cestrie suggestion was definitely transcluding properly yesterday and is now failing, as are several around it I recall seeing transcluded. Can we (1) transfer approved hooks to a bucket prep for now & (2) turn off bot operation? Otherwise this place is going to collapse in a heap. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Eleonore Büning hook in Prep 1

• ... that Eleonore Büning wrote in the FAZ that the French team staging the Jahrhundertring revolutionised the understanding of Wagner in Germany?

Template:Did you know nominations/Eleonore Büning @Gerda Arendt, Bobamnertiopsis, MPJ-DK, and Cwmhiraeth:

This is discussed at the DYK template, but despite everyone being eventually convinced that the hook is supported by the source[11], I can't find a reference in it for the "French team". Büning discusses Patrice Chéreau, not his team (French or otherwise), and makes no mention of the other members of the supposed "team" (Boulez is mentioned, but only as the one who recommended Chéreau to the organisation: "Pierre Boulez hatte ihn [...] an die Festspielleitung weiterempfohlen"). Note also how the intro to the article, which supports other parts of the hook, is clearly about one person, not about a team or group of people: "Mit seiner unbefangenen „Ring“-Inszenierung aus dem Jahr 1976 revolutionierte er das Wagner-Verständnis der Deutschen." Can any of you please quote the line(s) that discuss the French team and support the hook? Fram (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right, of course, strictly spaking. As it is an obituary for Chéreau, it's no wonder that he is the one mentioned. I thought that many in our general readership might not recognize the name, so tried to say something more general. Rephrasing is fine with me, and I expressed anyway that I'd prefer ALT1 (or that rephrased). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Alt1 was not clearly covered by the source without some poetic license so I picked the one that looked like it had no issues.  MPJ-DK  16:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

According to our article on the French director Patrice Chéreau, he collaborated with the French conductor Pierre Boulez on the staging of Jahrhundertring in the Bayreuth Festival, so wasn't that a French team? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

9/11 anniversary hook

I recently completed Henryk Siwiak homicide, and nominated it for DYK, about the only official homicide in New York City on 9/11. I have requested expedited review so we can get it on the Main Page Sunday ... I see there are still two slots left in Prep Area 6.

I have also thought, if someone really wants to dare me, of another missing-person case that also ties into 9/11, Disappearance of Michele Anne Harris (TL;DR: woman going through acrimonious divorce upstate who still lives in same house as wealthy soon-to-be-ex-husband is last seen leaving her job on the night of 9/11; the ex-husband, who had left a phone message threatening to "make [her] disappear", was tried four times for the murder, at one point doing four years in prison, until he was finally acquitted this spring although many people still think he did it, taking advantage of law enforcement's attention being mostly elsewhere in the state at the time) that I could get a reasonable article ready in time to fill the other slot. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2, Queue 3, and Prep 4 are supposedly all running on Star Trek 50th Anniversary Day, September 8, so the prep set for September 11 will be Prep 1. Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)