Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Did you know?
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}}
	v; t; e;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:00, 15 October 2016

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

Shortcut

WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

DYK queue status

There is currently 1 filled queue. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested.

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 00:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 21 minutes ago(

)

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

Sourcing and Automated Review

I like the new recommendation that nominators directly include sources supporting hook claims. However, doing so using the recommended format confuses the automated review bot: it read the hook "... that Gadis Arivia (pictured) established "Indonesia’s first journal of feminist theory"?" as being 476 characters in length (actual length: 92) owing to its inability to differentiate between the sources and hook, and left notification that the nomination had issues. Can we either a) use a different format, which won't confuse the bot? or b) teach the bot to ignore text prefaced by "small"? I'm worried that this discrepancy will confuse new editors. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Intelligentsium (the bot operator). Ppp ery 00:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issues with this and this and I also found an unrelated issue with this (the {{EngvarB}} bit). - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can find a way to keep the source quote on the same line as the hook, since I think having the two hard together is essential to making sure they are consistent. It would be a cringeworthy hack (DYK machinery is already rife with such) but having the bot ignore everything starting with < small> would do the trick. E Eng 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree EEng, I think the source should be on a different line, indeed each cited source should be on a new line, to make them easier to read. Gatoclass (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, < p> could be used to break the line between the hook and its sources, and between multiple source for the same hook, while still keeping it all in one parameter of the nom template. E Eng 08:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, why on earth would you want to keep it all in the one parameter? It seems to me that's just a recipe for having people forget to include it. The source should have its own field. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't occur to me that we'd change the template for something that's still in the experimental stage. But if people are for it I sure am as well. E Eng 14:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have the technical skill to add a new field? I'm not really that good with templates, and I'd rather let someone who knows what they're doing handle this rather than crash DYK. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can have the bot ignore small text for now, but over the long term I do think it would be better to have a dedicated field (especially as many hooks do incorporate information from multiple sources). Intelligentsium 06:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you do exactly what you're saying: the quick hack now, and if the source-quote experiment becomes permanent, then create appropriate parms to accommodate. E Eng 06:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should I be topic banned from DYK?

Over at the TRM workshop page Fram has made certain proposals in relation to me.

Cwmhiraeth is topic banned from DYK.
As an alternative, allowing him to nominate his own articles, but banning him from nominating and reviewing, and from discussing all but his own articles at WT:DYK may also be workable.
Cwmhiraeth is admonished for the use of personal attacks.

Comments:

I think if Fram were to analyse my misdemeanors he would find very few of my nominations have hook errors. In the most recent 100 DYKs for example, I think only one was "pulled" by Fram, Notiomys, where we disagreed over whether owls or humans were best at catching mice.
I am inclined to AGF not-easily ascertainable facts when reviewing hooks whereas Fram is dedicated to finding errors in them, so a few of my reviews are later proved to be incorrect. Most of the hooks that Fram has pulled with which I am associated are ones I have promoted to Prep. I believe Fram has an unrealistic view of what a promoter should do before promoting a hook.
I would not object to being admonished for making personal attacks if Fram, having initiated the attacks, were also admonished.

Would others think these sanctions are appropriate? (Sanction 2 is pretty stupid anyway as it would enable me to continue building prep sets.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction 2 should read "banning him from promoting or reviewing, thanks for catching that. The fact that you still don't understand what the problem with the Notiomys hook was, is very telling though. As for the personal attacks, feel free to provide your own evidence at the arbcom request. Simply accusing people without evidence is in itself another personal attack though. Fram (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe Fram has an unrealistic view of what a promoter should do before promoting a hook." Really? Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook has (among many other requirements) "4) Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated)." This clearly is not a thing only the reviewer must do, but the promotor as well. That you still don't get this (despite this having been explained here before) is yet another reason why you should withdraw from reviewing and promoting. Fram (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last time the two of you banged heads here, I said go to ANI. Anyway, I dug around to see if you'd been there before and found Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. Rather than piggybacking on the back of TRM's ~~witch hunt~~ case, may it be worth reviving that thread on ANI instead? Neither of you are parties to the case, and Arbcom tend to toss out anyone who isn't a named party who hasn't been to ANI first. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Arbcom made a case with a rather unclear scope, asking for DYK (and other) issues related to TRM to be addressed as well. Cwmhiraeth launched personal attacks at TRM and me, seemingly because he is often on the receiving end of hooks being pulled. Instead of removing one of the people maintaining standards on the main page, the more logical solution to prevent part of the problems the Arbcom case was about was to remove one of the people fighting the removal of hooks (and the people getting rid of the errors) and promoting incorrect hooks (as nom, reviewer and promotor). ArbCom recently admonished someone else in a case where they weren't a named party (IIRC), so I see no reason why this can't happen here as well. Cwmhiraeth's personal attacks were added in the evidence phase, and despite a claim that that bit of the evidence should be disregarded, no clerk or arb seemed to have any problem with it remaining. It is a bit useless to allow evidence but then to disallow FoF and remedies based on it. Fram (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically thinking of this (note I make no comment as to the appropriateness of that finding of fact, apart from "desysopped" normally has two Ps) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to Arbcom as a formal separate case, where after all evidence is presented, it can be dealt with fairly. To bog this talk page down with this issue makes it look like a personal spat that one or both of you are trying drag others into. And since most people here already have experience with both of you, pro or con, their views are subject to personal interactions with same. The appropriate place for this is Arbcom. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the scope of the Arbcom current case does and should include examination of certain users on both ITN and DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then take this to ANI. — Maile (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps you missed the point, it's already at Arbcom. ANI is no longer necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this kind of post could be considered canvassing. I should know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TRM is correct, this sort of proposal was always going to be possible in the ArbCom case framed as it is (and notwithstanding the name it has been given); it was nearly inevitable that some regular DYK contributors would be targeted. Also, to be fair, Fram and TRM are correct that there are problems with standards and referencing, and part of that is the failure of DYK to agree to an approach to erroneous reviews and promotions and examples of poor judgement - and that failure opens the door to ArbCom-style approaches where topic bans are a default "solution". Cwmhiraeth, ArbCom are not the type to be much influenced so showing them concerns here would likely have little effect on how they view Fram's proposal, and TRM is also correct that this could be taken as canvassing, which would be viewed unfavourably. My advice is if you want to argue against Fram's case, do so on the case pages with diffs and as dispassionately as you can manage. EdChem (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for your advice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's involved in a QPQ check?

I am seeking input on what is / should be standard practice in checking the QPQ requirement when doing a review. As an example, I have just done this review of Tom King (footballer) where the nominator (EchetusXe) had this review of Moise Poida as their review satisfying their QPQ requirement. In my review, I noted that the Poida QPQ review does not saying anything about a copyvio check, and the hook it describes as interesting is of the format "... that SOCCER PLAYER 1 has played against SOCCER PLAYER 2?" I know the 'interesting' requirement is an unsettled area, but my question is what I should be doing as a reviewer in checking on QPQ. Am I supposed to be just (as the bot does) whether a review has been done? Am I supposed to evaluate its quality / completeness? If I have concerns, do I comment at the Poida review as well as in my review of the King nomination? I also raised concerns about the proposed King hook, and would welcome other perspectives. Am I just overthinking? Thoughts / Opinion / Advice / etc. welcomed. EdChem (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think the QPQ review was complete enough, you should say so at the Tom King nomination and not pass it until a QPQ has been completed to your satisfaction. I would not take hook interest into account when determining whether somebody has satisfactorily completed a QPQ though, because hook interest is a matter of opinion and somebody may legitimately have a different view. Rather, if I thought the hook was uninteresting I would leave a note at that review, but I don't think I would be suspending the King nomination for QPQ non-compliance on that basis alone as that would essentially be imposing your opinion about hook interest on the other party. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem, a QPQ review is supposed to check all of the various DYK criteria, which are helpfully shown above the edit window when updating the nomination page with, say, the QPQ review. If a review fails to mention any significant checks, like copyvio/close paraphrasing, neutrality, or image checks if an image is submitted, then it needs to be revisited so those criteria can be examined. I just found a copyvio in a DYK nomination that hadn't mentioned doing that check, and in addition to pointing out the issue there, I also disallowed the QPQ credit claimed by the reviewer, superseding that nomination's approval as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, thanks for that advice (and Gatoclass too). What is unclear to me, though, is whether in verifying a QPQ credit I am checking whether the other reviewer has addressed the criteria, or wether the review is correct by re-checking all the criteria myself. In my above example, I am concerned as the QPQ review mentions nothing about a copyvio check but I have not checked myself for a copyvio. Should I just mark the QPQ nomination with an "aspects missing" note so it is not promoted in the meantime? Also, BlueMoonset mentions disallowing a QPQ-credit - will you please tell me more about that? I think QPQs should be disallowed for cases of poor reviews (though not in the case TRM is complaining about below, which is why I am not asking about this in that thread). EdChem (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I'd appreciate your thoughts here when you have a moment. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to recheck someone else's QPQ (no need to re-review it yourself), just note whether it was complete—did it cover all the DYK criteria or not. If not, then the QPQ needs to be expanded upon, and assuming the reviewed nomination was given a tick, that tick needs to be superseded by another icon to prevent the nomination's promotion. By disallowing the QPQ credit, I meant that the inadequate review did not qualify as a QPQ, though if it was later supplemented to cover all the DYK criteria, it would then qualify. (Or another QPQ could be submitted in place of the inadequate one.) I'm not sure what we can do if the QPQ problem isn't discovered until after the article has been approved, promoted, and run. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pyst

MPJ-DK, Coin945, The C of E, just a heads-up, the Pyst DYK has been removed from the main page by David Levy after some complaints at WT:MAIN. I assume this renders the associated QPQ null and void, please ensure the appropriate arcane bureaucracy is completed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer did not chose hook, hook was not incorrect so I am not seeing why QPQ is "null and void"? it was performed correctly and in good faith - I chose the "Pissed" version. And by "arcane bureaucracy" are you actually referring to your modern day use of the talk page as the stocks or your misguided attempt to get a QPQ taken away for not making a mistake? MPJ-DK 21:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm simply reporting that yet another DYK has been removed from the main page as a result of poor decision-making along the way. What you do with that is up to you lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No you're not, I assume this renders the associated QPQ null and void is not "reporting". MPJ-DK 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the QPQ matter, I'm curious as to why usage of the word "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice (as opposed to a quotation) was deemed appropriate. Does that strike you as formal prose, suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia?

Coin945 explicitly labeled the hook a "joke", and The C of E predicted that "it wouldn't be looked on too kindly outside of April Fools Day", but it was placed on the main page without even soliciting broader feedback (with the understanding that a non-joke hook could be substituted "if the no-fun police [came] knocking"). The main page isn't a playground, let alone one existing for the benefit of a tiny handful of people dismissively mocking the rest of the community. —David Levy 00:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm not riding that tude' train. MPJ-DK 00:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? —David Levy 00:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in any discussions that is served with such a negative attitude that puts motives on people without knowing anything. So yeah I put it in the prep queue, you can ascribe whatever "motives" you want on me, it is a free country. MPJ-DK 00:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to my "dismissively mocking the rest of the community" comment? I was referring to The C of E's "if the no-fun police come knocking" remark. —David Levy 01:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to my reference to the hook as a "joke"? That's its author's description, not mine.

I've merely asked you to explain why usage of the word "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice was deemed appropriate. —David Levy 01:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good God Levy, what is the point of drawing this out further? Wikidrama? Someone tried to lively up a hook in a forum where that's demanded- DYK, as formatted now, invites trivia to draw in clicks. Instead of bashing other users for poor judgement, why didn't you review the hook before it went to the Main Page? If you didn't, time to drop the stick and move on. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I review the hook before it went to the main page? Is that a serious question? Are you suggesting that I should personally check everything scheduled to appear on the main page, that it's unreasonable for an editor to express concerns regarding material prepared in their absence, or something else?

I'm participating in this discussion in the hope of gaining a better understanding of (and then addressing) the underlying problem that led to this incident. If you disagree that such a problem exists, you can express your opinion without attempting to invalidate mine and telling me to go away – a reaction indicative of the type of dismissiveness noted above. —David Levy 03:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another stupid pull of a perfectly good hook because some spinster schoolmarm, or grumpy old man, complained. This isn't the first time that this particular original complainant has fussed about something perfectly fine and even amusing (something desperately needed throughout WP) [1]. E Eng 02:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can answer my questions. Why should usage of the word "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice (as opposed to a quotation) be considered appropriate? How does that constitute formal prose, suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia?

Also, please explain how it was "stupid" to replace a hook with an alternative version proposed by the same editor and explicitly deemed "the fall-back option" (to be used in the event of controversy) by the reviewer. —David Levy 03:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main page isn't an article, and not everything in/on it needs to be formal prose. The purpose of a hook is to draw the reader in -- create "buzz", even -- and the hook under discussion did that (or would have, had the schoolmarms and grumpy old men been taking their naps pr taking their Geritol at that moment). The reviewer wisely provided a fall-back option because there's been a history of said schoolmarms and grumpy old men imposing their hidebound sensibilities on everyone else. E Eng 03:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main page is a gateway to the encyclopedia, intended to present material representative of the better content thereof. On what do you base the assertion that its tone is held to a looser standard?

Had the website in question (or a reliable source describing its article) used the word "pissed" in the relevant context, that would be one thing. For Wikipedia to say it is another matter entirely.

The hook's author described it as a "joke". That isn't how the encyclopedia is supposed to be written.

What I find most troubling, though, is that hook was run despite the reviewer foreseeing that "it wouldn't be looked on too kindly outside of April Fools Day". Irrespective of the hook's appropriateness or lack thereof, that's absolutely unacceptable. Persons compiling the main page's content have a responsibility to do so in accordance with a sincere understanding of community consensus. When reasonable doubt (or something exceeding it, as in this instance) arises, wider consultation is needed. Dismissive name-calling (a penchant for which the reviewer and you apparently share) is unhelpful.

As an aside, why do you regard the alternative hook as inferior? It avoided the issue cited above, despite containing essentially the same wordplay (better wordplay, actually, as it made sense in more varieties of English). —David Levy 05:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the main page is held to different (not "looser") standards than articles, because it has a different function. Hooks shouldn't be swapped out once they're on the main page because someone thinks one of the ALTs would have been better. There's has to be something wrong. E Eng 05:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I referred specifically to the main page's tone. If I understand correctly, you assert that material appearing on the main page needn't maintain the formal tone expected of Wikipedia's articles. On what do you base this claim?

In my view and that of several other users, there was something wrong with the hook. We don't use descriptions like "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice. That simply isn't encyclopedic in tone. The hook was purposely written as a "joke" and accepted despite the the reviewer's knowledge that it was inconsistent with established consensus within the Wikipedia community. —David Levy 05:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base the claim that the main page is supposed to maintain the formal tone of articles? Where do you see the "established consensus" that intriguing or amusing items cannot appear there? E Eng 06:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base the claim that the main page is supposed to maintain the formal tone of articles?

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view + ~11 years' experience editing the main page's content in accordance with consensus

Where do you see the "established consensus" that intriguing or amusing items cannot appear there?

Where do you see such an assertion on my part? —David Levy 07:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV begins, "Articles must not take sides..." The main page isn't an article. And no one cares about your mighty experience.
You wrote, "The hook was purposely written as a 'joke'...", as if there's something wrong with that. (I love your use of quote marks, as if humor is something you've heard of, but is still strange and exotic to your experience. See the green box at User:EEng#get the joke.)

I tire of this nonsense, as I'm sure do many others. Toodle-oo! E Eng 08:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV begins, "Articles must not take sides..." The main page isn't an article.

Try looking past the nutshell tag and reading the first four words of the actual policy. Then proceed to the rest.

And no one cares about your mighty experience.

I'm not boasting. I'm answering your question.

You wrote, "The hook was purposely written as a 'joke'...", as if there's something wrong with that.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a hook provoking laughter. There's something wrong with a hook provoking laughter via a Wikipedia-manufactured claim absent from the sources cited. Nowhere in the website's article is the word "pissed" used. That's a vague, English-variety-specific slang description of the author's attitude, inserted at the expense of clarity.

I love your use of quote marks, as if humor is something you've heard of, but is still strange and exotic to your experience.

The quotation marks denote that I'm quoting someone else (not writing a description of my own). —David Levy 11:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have long been aware that some users object to informal English being employed in hooks, the term "pissed" for "irritated" has become so ubiquitous and so broadly accepted that I am quite surprised to find there are still people who find it sufficiently objectionable that they want it removed from the main page. In normal circumstances of course slang terms should not be used but given this was an obvious play on words I thought it acceptable in context. DYK hooks are supposed to be eye-catching after all, and I thought this one a harmless bit of fun. I might add that the two news websites I most commonly frequent - both of them of the highest journalistic standards - frequently employ such playful headlines for their own stories. We don't need to be relentlessly serious in presentation in order to maintain credibility. Gatoclass (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, journalistic writing styles differ greatly from those of an encyclopedia.

Secondly, did you read the website's article? Its author expressed disappointment. This does fall under the broad meaning of the word "pissed" in American slang, but it wasn't the inference that I (or you, perhaps) drew. The use of slang terminology absent from the sources cited rendered the hook misleadingly vague. —David Levy 11:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

journalistic writing styles differ greatly from those of an encyclopedia. Maybe so, but the main page isn't encyclopedic content per se, it's an invitational portal.

With regard to the review itself, yes I did read it and I felt "pissed" was an accurate enough description of the reviewer's reaction. One additional point I think worth making is that use of the word drew attention to the pun in the game title itself, which otherwise might have been read as Pyst as in rhyming with "sliced". Having said that, I might well have selected the original hook rather than the ALT myself, I just happen to think that use of the word "pissed" in the given context was pretty innocuous. Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but the main page isn't encyclopedic content per se, it's an invitational portal.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. The main page functions as a portal, but it's very much a part of the encyclopedia. Its formatting differs from Wikipedia's articles in various respects, but we aspire to maintain a consistent tone. "Pissed" is not an appropriate description written in Wikipedia's voice. (I don't object to quoting a reliable source's use of the word, given a suitable context.)

With regard to the review itself, yes I did read it and I felt "pissed" was an accurate enough description of the reviewer's reaction.

I inquired because you mentioned the interpretation "irritated". That was mine as well, but I didn't sense such a reaction in the website's article (not that our personal assessments constitute valid sourcing).

One additional point I think worth making is that use of the word drew attention to the pun in the game title itself, which otherwise might have been read as Pyst as in rhyming with "sliced". Having said that, I might well have selected the original hook rather than the ALT myself,

Indeed, the original hook emphasized the pun through the mention of "Myst". It also made sense in multiple English varieties, with the "get Pyst" wordplay evoking one of two concepts (irritation or intoxication).

I just happen to think that use of the word "pissed" in the given context was pretty innocuous.

I respectfully disagree.

But as noted above, I'm more troubled by the acceptance of a hook that the reviewer anticipated "wouldn't be looked on too kindly" by many within the community (flippantly labeled "the no-fun police"), despite the availability of a hook recognized as more consistent with Wikipedia consensus.

Like the rest of the main page's dynamic content sections, DYK part of a larger collaboration, wherein insularity is not acceptable. We all need to work together. —David Levy 15:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Pissed" certainly isn't used in British English (it's "pissed off"), in fact I would go so far as to say it's unique in that sense to USEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unsubstantiated assertion, but regardless, I'd be very surprised if Brits weren't fully cognizant of the meaning of "pissed" even if it isn't the most commonly employed variation of the expression in that country. Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard "pissed" used in that context in British English (and I consume a great deal of UK media). On its own, "pissed" means "intoxicated". —David Levy 15:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I already stated, Brits say "pissed off". David is spot on, "pissed" means drunk. You know what they say about when you assume something, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is isn't an "unsubstantiated assertion", it's a fact. In my 44 years I have never, ever, heard someone here in the UK use "pissed" to mean anything else but "drunk". Whilst I'm not bothered about formal tone, we do need to consider ENGVAR on the main page, like we do at ITN. Running something that doesn't make a lot of sense to a large section of the English-speaking world is not really a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, being British myself I was fully aware that "pissed" in the American dialect of English meant angry or annoyed which is why I agreed to it (Of course I would prefer the Queen's English being used universally but; when in Rome). But I did make it very clear, after my own Flag of the United States of the Ionian Islands DYK was run as an AFD hook on a non-AFD day (my non-consent for it to be run outside of AFD notwithstanding), that I knew that there would be PC or no-fun viewers who might not have liked it. That is why I had said that the fall-back hook would be good if there was contention. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main point here is that it is unsafe to assume that English-language readers will understand such "quirky" hooks. Do not "assume" that just because Americans understand such a turn of phrase, that the rest of the English-speaking world (e.g. India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc etc etc) will do too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equally you could have a hook that mentions bollocks and I'm sure most Yanks wouldn't get that. But the main page does state there is no preference with regard to WP:ENGVAR so therefore it stands to reason that while there may be some quirky hooks that the Americans specifically may understand, there will equally be quirky hooks later run, that the British clearly understand. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point remains, and your own post qualifies it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the main page does state there is no preference with regard to WP:ENGVAR so therefore it stands to reason that while there may be some quirky hooks that the Americans specifically may understand, there will equally be quirky hooks later run, that the British clearly understand.

When feasible, the use of commonly understood terminology is preferred. —David Levy 23:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody knows what "pissed" means in the given context. Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the quoted portion of the The C of E's message, not addressing this instance in particular. —David Levy 15:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, being British myself I was fully aware that "pissed" in the American dialect of English meant angry or annoyed which is why I agreed to it

Did you read the website article in question? As discussed above, its writer expressed disappointment, not anger/annoyance. Do you disagree with this assessment?

Dictionaries include disappointment in the broad American slang meaning of "pissed", but I've never known the term (or "pissed off", which is used interchangeably in American English) to refer to disappointment alone. The hook conveyed a misleading description of the website's write-up.

But I did make it very clear, after my own Flag of the United States of the Ionian Islands DYK was run as an AFD hook on a non-AFD day (my non-consent for it to be run outside of AFD notwithstanding), that I knew that there would be PC or no-fun viewers who might not have liked it.

Argumentum ad hominem. You anticipated controversy and preemptively belittled people's concerns through name-calling. Even now, you continue to dismiss actual users' good-faith input by attributing it to political correctness and humorlessness, thereby ignoring the actual criticisms raised.

That is why I had said that the fall-back hook would be good if there was contention.

I remain baffled as to why said hook – which incorporated essentially the same humorous wordplay in a manner that accurately reflected the source material, avoided inserting slang in Wikipedia's voice, and made sense in multiple English varieties – wasn't simply used instead.

This isn't about a quest to suppress naughty words or humor from the main page. In perceiving it as such, you've missed the actual issue and denigrated those who seek to address it. —David Levy 23:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking QPQs

Regarding the invalidated QPQ, the hook was pulled so it's a logical sequitur that the QPQ is invalidated. This is something that's been overlooked I believe, and it might actually help focus the minds of the reviewers if QPQs are revoked and subsequent hooks promoted based on them are pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why should a separate hook be punished for the review of a previous one? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple. If a QPQ is awarded for a review that is subsequently demonstrated to be inadequate, the QPQ should rightly be revoked, and any associated promoted hooks should be removed until a satisfactory QPQ is performed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to invalidate a QPQ here. The C of E completed his review in all respects, validated all the hooks, expressed a preference for one and a fallback hook in the event that somebody further up the pipeline thought the preferred hook unsuitable. It's not his fault that there were several objections after it was promoted, and in any case, the fallback hook which the reviewer also verified was substituted. There might be an argument for invalidating an erroneous or incomplete QPQ, but this was neither. Gatoclass (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think any reason for hook being rejected from the main page or one of the queues should summarily render the associated QPQ invalid. The job wasn't done properly by the reviewer, regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being pulled based on a personal opinion (which is what happened here) rather than a policy based reason is hardly grounds for invalidating QPQs. Last time I checked, invalidating QPQs wasn't even in the DYK rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't agree that users should be deprived of QPQs over subjective issues such as personal preferences. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was pulled, simple as that. Bright line. As for not being in the current rules, of course it's not, that's why the project experiences so many slapdash reviews because there's no responsibility taken for them, the absolute worst case is that from time to time these pulled hooks are listed at the Removed page. Otherwise it's business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Just reporting? Seriously trying to put this on the reviewer? He did nothing wrong, he provided a good review, he did not pick which hook went to the front page, and the other hook he approved was on the main page without a pull. I repeat the comparison to using this talk page as a modern day stocks. BTW you can invalidate one of my QPQs if it makes you feel better, I give you the 3-4 QPQ I had left over from the 70 DYK one that never ran. Feel better now? I know yuou did not get to punish someone who did no wrong. MPJ-DK 12:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And "not taking responsibility" comment is TRM ignoring facts to grind his axe with DYK. I took full responsibility for putting it in the prep, any "punishment" for this should go my way. MPJ-DK 12:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reviewer supposed to have a magic crystal ball to forsee that other users may object to the wording of a hook later on, even after another user promotes the hook? At the nomination, the reviewer even proposed using the first hook in anticipation of a potential disagreement about the wording. The nominator at the discussion also agreed with using ALT1. I don't feel that the The C of E's QPQ should be invalidated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. That they were later rescinded is not the sole criteria. I understand the quest for 'bright lines', but sometimes that doesn't apply. This should not be an exercise in retribution. Rather, we are looking for good faith compliance.

This problem only arises if the approval has bounced in some form. If it successfully ran on the main page then the QPQ is conclusive. It only arises when we have relatively close in time reviews and QPQ use.

In any event, if there is a problem it should be called to the nominator's attention and they should be given a chance to explain, correct the earlier one, or substitute another QPQ. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a generic suggestion. Sure, if reviewers are content to pass a review and then ignore the fact that hooks get substantially changed afterwards, that's one issue. But a much larger issue is that of mediocre or sub-standard reviews going uncorrected. Currently there is no remedy for users who do not fulfil the requirements of QPQ properly, in so far as hooks they review are removed from preps, queues or the main page due to errors, one category being "factual accuracy". I know it's hard to take, but it's one of those things, if we continue to accept mediocre reviews, we'll continually see mediocre results. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidrama!

A hook on the Main Page as reworded, then the day passed and it fell off altogether, but the trauma continues, because life is unfair. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're absolutely wrong. This project needs a lot of help with errors, unexpected results from clicking on hooks, badly phrased hooks, dull hooks etc. David's pull was fine, we need to appreciate that things aren't the same the English-speaking world over, nor should we assume that everyone speaks American English. They don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pull is fine, but this has been drawn out an insane amount (not just by David, don't get me wrong; we have a whole unnecessary and loud QPQ kerfuffle), and in the meantime, no one noticed DYK hadn't been updated for hours. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is updated once per day. What are you talking about please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per day, or per 29 hours, in this case. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big deal. Better to get it right than to rush it through. So your point is? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you under the impression that this was an isolated incident (as opposed to a reflection of an underlying problem that I seek to address)?

Did you bring up my former username for some reason in particular? —David Levy 20:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless a perceived power trip that has backfired monumentally. Old Ribbet has his skeletons, but we're far too polite to bring them up. Best for everyone to close this down. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My DYK activities

Re-closing. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enough already. Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a table illustrating the last three months of my activity at DYK as it relates to Fram's actions. I hope it is self-explanatory and I place it here to set the record straight.

Header text	Articles promoted by me in July	Articles promoted by me in August	Articles promoted by me in September	Total
Prep 1	50	26	10	86
Prep 2	46	30	14	90
Prep 3	58	23	15	96
Prep 4	32	24	17	73
Prep 5	41	20	20	81
Prep 6	27	12	21	60
Total hooks promoted by me	254	135	97	486
Total hooks promoted by me and pulled by Fram	0	4	7	11 (2.3%)
My own hooks appearing on main page *	43	42	18	103
My own hooks pulled by Fram	1	0	0	1 (1%)
Hooks I had reviewed pulled by Fram	0	3	2	5 (4%)
Total hooks appearing on main page*	434	398	240	1072
Total hooks to which I contributed that were pulled by Fram*	1	7	9	17 (2.4%)

Notes

Based on 31x14 hooks in July, 25x14 + 6x8 in August and 30x8 in September. There were probably fewer hooks than this because of occasional delays in loading queues.
Based on my 103 DYKs, I would have done 103 QPQs, but in fact I do a number of voluntary extra reviews and so the total is probably at least 125.
For details of which hooks were pulled by Fram, and how the figures were obtained, see my sandbox1.
The total here is 11 hooks that I have promoted during the months of July, August and September 2016, and which were pulled by Fram, 5 hooks that I have reviewed and approved that were pulled by Fram and one hook (Notiomys) that I have nominated that was pulled by Fram. There have been a few other hooks that I promoted that were returned by other editors to the nominations page, but these editors do not publicise their actions in the same way that Fram does so are harder to track down.

I am really rather angry with Fram. Despite the tiny proportions of poor promotions (2.3%), reviews (1.6%) and nominations (1%), Fram has repeatedly been emphasizing my incompetence on this page, chose to blame me for the problems at DYK and tried to get me topic banned from DYK at the TRM case. Fortunately for me, ArbCom has more sense than to follow Fram's proposal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice you are wagging your e-peen and stroking your ego but all this means nothing when repeated errors occur. You also really should not feel as if you got any sort of blessing just because something between uninvolved users in a case is not reviewed and/or adressed. For me as a simple reader that tried to peek behind the veneer of wikipedia DYK is a shambles and quite frankly, the joke pages. No offense to anyone personaly of course but it is my oppinion. Now surely someone will take massive offense by what i said and probably remove it but watching this page for a few weeks now... its just getting pathetic by ALL involved. Ego battles and little else yet no part of the Wikipedia is about any of you and can go on without any of you. It's about the reader and nothing else. Regards, a disillusioned reader 91.49.71.28 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am perplexed to see this kind of outburst. You're not being dealt anything at Arbcom, so why not just let it slide and instead work on reducing the error rate? After all, that's pretty much all Fram and (formerly) I want. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I hardly edited in July (and not during some periods in August as well). Looking only at August and September, we get 16 of 638 hooks being pulled by me (how many by others?), which is closer to 2.5%. And this doesn't count things like The vulture and the little girl (Template:Did you know nominations/The vulture and the little girl), which you reviewed and approved, after which Yoninah noted that "There is close paraphrasing from several sources.", and after which I removed a hoax part(!) from the article[2]. Fram (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Post-archive edit conflict, important to note that the table above is clearly incorrect) Looking more closely at your table, you are giving "Total hooks to which I contributed
that were pulled by Fram*", but you achieve that number by counting the number of hooks I pulled with which you were involved (17, I haven't checked the numbers), compared to the total number of hooks that appeared on the main page in those the months, no matter if you were involved or not (or do you claim that every hook that appeared on the main page in those three months was either nominated, reviewed or promoted by you?). Basically, you "accidentally" took those numbers that resulted in the absolute lowest error rate for you, instead of presenting reality here. Looking back over the archives, it is obvious that I pulled or corrected hooks where you had no involvement at all, like Template:Did you know nominations/Freda Corbet, Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Burris, Template:Did you know nominations/Moses Bensinger, Template:Did you know nominations/Amafufunyana... So the percentage of errors you were involved with rises again. Next, you only counted hooks I pulled from the Main Page, not hooks pulled from prep or queue? Another inclrease of your error percentage probably... I'll better stop, or my method will give a 100%+ error rate, and that wouldn't be realistic either :-) Fram (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The table above was posted here for the record and archived before I had a chance to respond to anything. I have corrected the sandbox link and altered the percentage figure that was disputed from 1.6% to 2.4%, based on 17 hooks out of a total of 714. The pulled hooks were from the main page, queues and preps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived just under an hour ago, so here's a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through September 6. 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, 58 nominations have been approved, leaving 147 of 205 nominations still needing approval. The last several lists haven't attract many reviewers; I keep hoping we'll do better. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the 14 that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over three months old:

June 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier

Over six weeks old:

~~August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/List of athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics with a prior doping offence~~
August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Tmetuchl
~~August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ağın Bridge~~
August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia
~~August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/XHLUV-FM~~
~~August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Zwölf Stücke, Op. 65~~
August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Luscombe Castle
~~August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Chapo Trap House~~
~~August 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Lupe Fiasco versus Daigo Umehara~~
August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Dafo Temple, Zhangye
August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Yale Institute of International Studies
~~August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/TEDES (traffic enforcement system)~~
~~August 23: Template:Did you know nominations/John Hazelwood~~

Over a month old:

~~August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Bound (video game)~~
~~August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Tharsis (video game)~~
August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Bilberg
August 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Foyles Building
August 27: Template:Did you know nominations/2016 Baku GP2 Series round
~~August 27: Template:Did you know nominations/The Word for World Is Forest~~
~~August 27: Template:Did you know nominations/IWRG La Hora de la Verdad~~
August 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Numayrid dynasty
~~September 1: Template:Did you know nominations/The Mutants (musical collaboration)~~
September 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily
September 2: Template:Did you know nominations/My Kind of Girl
~~September 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Gösta Peterson~~

Other old nominations:

~~September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Honors (horse)~~
September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Big Sur Folk Festival
September 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Thoman Curtis
~~September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Sambor Ghetto~~
~~September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Humphrey Stafford (died 1442)~~
~~September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Seattle Times Building~~
September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Breakaway (video game)
~~September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/De laude Cestrie~~
September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Tank steering systems
September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/New London Union Station
September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford Blue (cheese)
~~September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Capital Combat~~
September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Min Yaza of Wun Zin

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ought to close Élizabeth Teissier's DYK as being past its sell by date. I'd do it myself but I've already pulled the nom once. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew she'd never appear. It was just in the stars. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I unstruck it from the list earlier, noting that no conclusion had been reached and more eyes were needed. It was restruck without addressing either point. The article is ready and has been for a long time, the issue being the hook. Many seem to think "unduly negative" means anything negative, which is incorrect. We seemed close to consensus on a hook which directed the criticism towards te university, but ran into a sourcing issue, so I've offered an alternative which should not have the same issues:

(ALT2b): ... that Paris Descartes University was criticised by the French Association for Scientific Information for its decision to award Élizabeth Teissier a doctorate for a thesis defending astrology?

Is this really unduly negative for an astrologer that was awarded a PhD contending that astrology is unfairly persecuted by science, to say that her work was critiqued and the awarding university criticised? Am I really so wrong about what is truly undue negativity about a living person ? EdChem (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a fact, isn't it? Or does it allow en.wiki to laugh along at those silly French Associations awarding PhDs about pseudoscience? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kalanemi (Ramayana)

I've resolved Template:Did you know nominations/Kalanemi (Ramayana) from July 25. Is this sufficient for a QPQ credit? EdChem (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would expect somebody to check all aspects of a nom in order to qualify for a QPQ, but given that you resolved the remaining issues on a long-delayed nom and it has already been promoted, I personally would be prepared to make an exception in this instance, though others may differ. Gatoclass (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Gatoclass. I'm not looking to push the envelope but it seems to me that some of the oldest noms will be addressed more readily if there is some recognition where it is appropriate. I looked at the top of the list and (as you are probably aware) have tried to push forward Adam Cuerden's nomination for the controversial PhD, I'm still trying to get a suitable hook for the Russian gay propaganda law (and I think we are close), and I've resolved the Kalanemi one and the Severn railway bridge one. Where suitable credit is available (like QPQ from Kalanemi and DYKmake for the gay propaganda), I'm in favour of it - but only within the consensus of the project, obviously. Hence my posting, looking for views. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem, I suggest you just claim it as a QPQ and if it gets queried, refer back to this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2: Heaven and Hell?

Just noticed in Prep 2 we have the Church of England as the lead hook, yet right at the bottom we have reference to a satanic prayer. Is this an intentional contrast between good at the top and evil at the bottom or an unfortunately risky coincidence? Personally, I'm not too sure we should really be mixing a Christian hook and a satanic hook in the same set. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? E Eng 10:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Even if it was unintentional, it's an interesting pairing (both mix religion and legislatures, which is a rare coincidence) which I think we should retain. GRAPPLE ^X 10:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hell hook may be another good candidate for use on MainPage on Halloween. --PFHLai (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point PFHLai, but we don't seem to have a Halloween section on the nominations page, is it being maintained somewhere else? Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, adding special occasion dates like Halloween usually aren't done until there are hooks that should be saved for them, though sometimes someone opens the date in the expectation that hooks will follow. Please feel free to add an October 31 header in that section (it shouldn't go or be anywhere else); I think, however, that nominators should be allowed to decide whether their hooks are saved for Halloween, and be able to request that they be returned to prep right away if that's their preference. Pinging Borsoka for the Dan III of Wallachia hook, and Dustinlull and Sgerbic for this Sohor hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Suhor's page really needs to be listed on the Halloween themed DYK, I don't see it as a Satanic issue, but a Church/State issue. I do like the idea of themed DYK's, just don't think the Suhor page belongs there. BTW I don't think Satanists really believe in Hell, Suhor is an Atheist, so no belief in a God or Gods either. But whatever is decided, I'm fine with.Sgerbic (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to WP:DYKN. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added Halloween section to the Special Occasions holding area. I see other hooks for that date waiting to be approved. Yoninah (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gato, I really don't think we should be pulling hooks because someone suggested it may work another time without asking the nominator. If someone thinks a hook may work better elsewhere, then the courteous thing to do would be to ask the nominator directly on their talk page and ping them. Only if they agree should it be moved and even if they do not reply, we should not imply that there is consent. Indeed I once proposed a supplemental rule to that effect for courtesy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Sgerbic said above: This is not a Halloween topic, but rather a church/state issue.Dustinlull (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. I think listing of Dan III of Wallachia on the Halloween themed DYK is a good idea. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, I've just moved Dan III of Wallachia to the Halloween DYK holding area. Thanks for your quick response. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, please repromote the Suhor hook to prep per the nominator and creator. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of that. Now on Prep 5. --PFHLai (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sgerbic, you are correct of course that your article concerns a Church/State issue, but when selecting hooks for a "theme" day, it is considered sufficient if the hook merely contains an element relating to the theme, regardless of the subject of the hook or the article. It would in other words be perfectly in keeping with usual practice to run a hook mentioning "Satanic prayer" on Halloween, so I would still like to run it on that day if you have no objection. Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, both Dustinlull (nominator) and Sgerbic (creator) have already expressed a preference that it not be run on Halloween. If both agree to change their minds, that's fine, but until and unless both do, it should remain in prep where it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from prep once again

This time from prep6 (it was already in prep 2 and prep5, I believe). I don't know whether the hook was correct or not, but the promotion clearly wasn't done correctly.

Template:Did you know nominations/David Suhor @Sgerbic, Dustinlull, Gronk Oz, SojoQ, Cwmhiraeth, Gatoclass, and PFHLai:

Problems:

Cwmhiraeth reviewed and promoted Alt1
A source quote for Alt1 is provided in the DYK nomination: "Source:"On July 14, 2016 Suhor (now recognized as the co-founder of the local chapter of the Satanic Temple) sang a Satanic invocation before the City Council.[1]" The problem is that this quote is taken from the Wikipedia article, not from any separate source.
The source given for the alt in the article, nor the additional source in the DYK template[3][4] mention anything being sung. There is a "prayer", an "invocation" being "delivered" or "given".

Now, there may well be other sources indicating that this was sung, but this can't be determined from the article nor the DYK nomination, so this should not have been promoted, and certainly not by the same person reviewing the hook.

I'm also not convinced that having a 400 word quote and a 200-word quote isn't serious overkill and more a copyright violation than true fair use, certainly considering that the two quotes are not the subject of much controversy or discussion (unlike the satanic invocation which is not quoted in the article). Fram (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, it isn't prohibited to promote a hook you reviewed, it just isn't considered best practice, that's all. Regarding the singing - I think you are wrong about this because I checked that out myself only the other day and I'm sure there is at least one source that says he sang it (in a "mock Gregorian chant" if I recall correctly) and there is also video of the event which I didn't look at but which presumably also confirms it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source which confirms it.[5] Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gatoclass, you're wrong, it is prohibited. "Nominations may only be promoted by uninvolved parties who were neither the article creator, nor the nominator or reviewer." And please explain to me: "Regarding the singing - I think you are wrong about this": what was it I said that was wrong? Fram (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been @Gatoclass: of course... Fram (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, you said it "couldn't be determined from the article", but the article contains at least two sources that say he sang it. And if that isn't good enough for you, here's a video of him singing it.

Regarding the quote about promotion, I don't know where you got that from but it isn't correct and is contradicted elsewhere in the rules. This would seem to be another case of elements of the rules not being up-to-date with actual practice. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "from the sources following the hook sentence in the article", not the article as a whole. I thought that was clear in the context of the full sentence, but apparently not. Please indicate where in the rules "reviewing and promoting by same person" is allowed, and how you determined that that was the right rule and my quote was a wrong one. Just saying that my quote "isn't correct and is contradicted elsewhere" is just a bit too easy. Fram (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, WP:DYK/G states: Avoid selecting your own suggestions. When possible, it is also best to avoid selecting the same article that you reviewed. Also, Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas states: When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So our rules are once again inconsistent. No matter, combining reviewing and promoting is something that should at least be "avoided" and at most is prohibited, so a good idea it certainly wasnt'. And this hook is an example in case, as the hook was not supported by the sources that supposedly should support it, and no one even noticed that the quote given in the nomination (which is a new and in theory good idea) didn't came from a source but from our own Wikipedia article. Two separate people making that same mistake of not noticing either of these problems would have been at least a lot less likely than one person taking on the two roles. Fram (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I honestly don't know when it is not possible to avoid promoting a hook that one has reviewed. It shouldn't ever be necessary—maybe if we're down to half a dozen approved hooks, but I can't imagine a situation when another hook would not be available. In actual practice, we've treated it as tantamount to a prohibition here for years, even if not specifically written down as such, and we've reverted approval/promotions in the past. From my earliest days here, it's been considered desirable to have a new set of eyes at every stage in the DYK process. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be "possible" to avoid it, but that doesn't mean it's desirable - if a hook is the best fit for a set, then that's the hook that should be promoted. It's a nice idea in theory to have different users for every stage of the process, because that should theoretically lead to better quality control, but the reality is that there's little evidence of it doing so. The bottom line is that there's no substitute for a thorough review at some stage of the process, and set builders are in the worst possible position to provide that. I think the current wording has got it about right - promoting articles you personally have reviewed should be avoided if you can reasonably manage to do so, but I think outright prohibiting it is just going to add more red tape and more work to the tiny number of already overburdened contributors who keep DYK running. Gatoclass (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day when there weren't that many approved hooks in reserve, it was harder to avoid hooks that you'd approved. Nowadays, with 30 to 80 hooks awaiting promotion, it's doesn't take much extra effort to find one you haven't reviewed. Get down into the teens or below, and it does become a problem, but not otherwise. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: I did not review this nomination. It may have escaped your attention that the original hook was reviewed and approved by Gronk Oz. I then queried the second half of the hook and ALT1 was merely the first half of an already approved hook, the part I had queried having been removed. On that basis I replaced the tick and later promoted the nomination (it had already been hanging around for two months). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't actually review the nomination. Why you then gave it a green tick and promoted it is beyond me, as both reviewers and promotors have to check the hook. Whether the hook was a day, a week or a month old is of course totally irrelevant, we shouldn't lower the standards of review because a nomination is older than most. You are the most active promotor, so if you don't know what you should do (or know what you should do but can't be bothered) this means that the two-level check we normally have is now effectively reduced to a one-level check. Oh, and the original hook was not approved or reviewed by Gronk Oz... Fram (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the original reviewer was SojoQ and not Gronk Oz. I would have thought you might congratulate me rather than condemn me for my actions in connection with this nomination. ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

48-hour cycle?

I'm thinking we may soon have to go to a 48-hour cycle. It's unprecedented, but since going to a 24-hour cycle several weeks ago to allow the number of nominations to increase, the number has actually declined with currently only 187 on the nominations page and nothing in prep. Gatoclass (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ick, that would throw off some of the calculations based on the time between updates I added on Wikipedia:Did you know/Lore. Ppp ery 13:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 45 approved hooks, that's five whole prep area that can be filled. Personally I've stepped away from prep building a bit due to the toxic environment where blame in instead of constructive cooperation seems to be the way to go. MPJ-DK 14:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you leave it at a 24-hourly cycle for the time being, and I guarantee there will be 200 on the nomination page in 10 days time !! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also leave it at 24 hours right now. As for prep-building, as I've said many times, unless people are prepared to spend perhaps up to an hour per hook re-reviewing the article and the veracity of the claim and searching for corroborating evidence, it's best not to engage in building preps as that way errors are less likely to be perpetuated to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Up to an hour? That is downright absurd, set builders don't have the time to spend an hour verifying individual hooks and you don't need an hour to verify an individual hook in any case. I do agree however, that if you are promoting a hook that you yourself reviewed, you need to thoroughly review it a second time to make sure you haven't missed anything.

With regard to the cycle length, I agree it can be left where it is for now, for a few more days at least, but it doesn't hurt to draw attention to a potential problem in advance. Gatoclass (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree; we can't expect anyone to spend up to eight hours working on an eight-hook prep. No-one, no-one, has that amount of time to spend on Wikipedia. We would never have any preps filled if that was the norm. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule or reason that a prep set should be made by one person only. We can have people promoting thoroughly checked hooks and articles one by one, and people shuffling hooks to other prep sets where necessary. And not all hooks and people require as much time for promotion, although they often require more time than is invested in them now. Fram (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True but unfortunately it is often only one user building a prep set. And yes, judging by the posts on this page, more time per hook is required but an hour is excessive. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the set-building mentality needs to change. No-one needs to build a whole set, in fact I often see individuals cherry-picking the "image" hook, so it's obvious that sets can be completed by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry if I came across wrong because I defiantly agree that the attitudes need to be changed. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, don't think there's reason to hit the panic button just yet: if the numbers drop further, then we can consider switching to 48 (or perhaps 36 is an option?) Vanamonde (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2

" that Jingdezhen, though a remote mountain town, has been the largest producer of Chinese porcelain (example pictured) for over 600 years?"

Minor point: the reference used to cite this claim is from an offline 1991 source, so 24 years out of date. It would seem, if the intent of the hook is to establish that it is still the largest producer, that a more up-to-date reference should be sought. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point, Fram has removed the hook for another reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any China tourism site, which most editors in this area seem to prefer as sources, will tell you it is still "the world capital of porcelain". Vainker's book is still a standard introduction. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't doubting the claim, I was simply noting the age of the reference. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "remote mountain town" with 1.5 million inhabitants

... that Jingdezhen, though a remote mountain town, has been the largest producer of Chinese porcelain (example pictured) for over 600 years?

Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware @Johnbod, Casliber, and Yoninah:

Jingdezhen is a city with 1.5 million inhabitants, easily accessible along river plains, with an elevation of 35m. Jingdezhen ware was first produced in remote mountain towns like Yaoli, Jiangxi [6], which is some 50km from Jingdezhen. "Jingdezhen" is either the big cuty itself, or (as in the name of the porcelain) a larger region surrounding the city, but it isn't nor ever was a "remote mountain town". Pulled. Fram (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I didn't look at that part of it - just checked the porcelain bit. Well, my vote would be to remove the "though a remote mountain town" and restore. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The hook remains interesting even with the clause between commas removed, so I would support Cas' suggestion. Vanamonde (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever they tell the tourists, after poking around the sources, I can't see that anything produced at Yaoli, Jiangxi counts as Jingdezhen ware, which was produced in or very close to the town. The tourist site source for that article is completely non-RS. The altitude may not be high, but it would be lower still without the pottery sherds which apparently underlie the whole place. The pages following this, by an expert give much information, though their archaeologist hosts didn't think it worth stopping at Yaoli, and just drove them through. The source I used included, re the town "From its apparently remote situation...". Using "town" rather than "city" reflected the historical size, but I can see the hook needs altering. Please hold the thing while I find a better alt. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy this to the nom for the record. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now added to the nom: ALT1 ".... that in Imperial China, a concubine of the first rank was allowed 121 pieces of Jingdezhen ware, that were yellow with a white interior? Source: pp. 211, Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705

1.5 million is a backwaters town by Chinese standard. "Remote" is relative distance. (I was a resident of Jilin City, a "3rd-rate city" of 2 million inhabitants.) But since we're having a petty dispute of what is a "remote town" compared to a "big city", I approve the simplest solution which is to remove "though a remote mountain town" and restore, as Casliber suggested. Deryck C. 13:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the alt, particularly in relation to the age of the Vainker source and the concern I have over the promoted hook that I noted in the section above. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I prefer the Alt as well, given several issues with orignal hook. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor, empress and empress dowager yellow inside and out; first rank concubines yellow with white insides, and then it's dragons of various colours all the way down (Kerr, p 26). The yellow's a deep yellow, classed by Kerr (p 91) as a low-fired enamel containing lead and antimony, "very slightly poisonous", hence the white insides- except on the emperor's bowls! The potters appear to be aware of the risks, because bright lime green and brilliant lemon glazes were discontinued because they "were dangerous to both potters and patrons alike". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted the hook with the "remote mountain town" in good faith, as it was sourced to an offline source. However, I like Johnbod's alt1 better. It is also offline and therefore is AGF and cited inline. @Johnbod: Would you like to use this image for the lead slot? (Is this yellow cup in fact Jingdezhen ware?) Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Jingdezhen ware (seems to be modelled on an archaic bronze form). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is illegally using the imperial yellow, it is. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that this is exactly why I've been urging nominators to quote the source in the nomination, thus helping to ensure that interpretations like "remote mountain town" don't creep in unsourced. E Eng 20:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support this attitude!! Yay! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the source, which uses the word "remote" would not have helped, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What exactly did the source say? E Eng 04:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, you dismiss Yaoli rather out of hand, using e.g. the Gotheborg source. Looking at that source[7], I notice that the Porcelain Exhibition Hall in Jingdezhen, described as "an exhibition of what has been produced in Jingdezhen through the ages", has Yaoli porcelain in showcase 1 (1279-1436 CE), and nothing but Yaoli porcelain in showcase 2 (1436-1464) ("One cannot say that it was exactly at Yaoli they made the best porcelain, but Yaoli was the largest, so then quite a few should have been good." Emphasis mine) It seems clear that Yaoli was the first important site producing Jiangdezhen ware, and then faded as a pottery producer and just became one of the main clay providers. Fram (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, life is peaceful there, in the open air, where the skies are blue, that's what we gonna do. Try this link instead. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This site has photos of a couple of dragon kilns at Yaoli. According to Kerr (p 39) the climbing or dragon kiln was "sufficient for the needs of the smaller potteries". Larger concerns used the Jingdezhen egg-shaped kiln, developed from an earlier gourd type, containing a very large number of pieces at high temperatures in a reducing atmosphere (e.g. carbon monoxide) which enabled them to produce pieces with "high-fired" glazes. The yellow enamel was fired in a muffle kiln at lower temperatures on already-fired pots. I'm guessing from the photos of the area that there's no room at Yaoli to build large kilns. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all clear to me! Note, at the top of the linked page "All exhibited pottery here is called Minyao, meaning the People's Wares, in the sense of that this porcelain have been made at private kilns and for the use by ordinary people." All the pieces in the case 2, as described, come from well after Jiangdezhen was producing wares for the court, and look very popular in quality. None of the sources I have, including eg Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705, with over 40 pages on Jingdezhen ware, mentions Yaoli, either for kilns or clay deposits, though other places are mentioned. The museum just shows Blue & White, with no Qingbai, Jingdezhen's earliest high-quality ware, from some 400 years before the Ming onwards. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "All exhibited pottery here ..." appears to be a translation from the exhibit caption. The British Museum (link here) refers to Ming-period kilns at Yaoli, nothing earlier, producing min yao. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the only hit for "Yaoli" in the over 2 million items in the BM database, and shows a popular Ming bowl just like those in the museum case. Note "Where the rim is ground down a dark red-brown body is revealed contrasting starkly with the pure white porcelain clays used contemporaneously at the imperial factory.". But they do call it "Made in: Jingdezhen (probably Yaoli.)". I think we're done here; I'll copy this to the article talk, as it has thrown up some relevant issues. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LavaBaron's editing restrictions - review

Introduction

On 8 July, the following DYK participation restrictions were given to LavaBaron as a result of a previous AN thread:

A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
(rescinded on 16 August)
These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

It has been 3 months so I'm starting this discussion to review the editing restrictions. The options would be rescind restrictions, continue existing restrictions (for another specified duration), or enact alternative restrictions. Since I'm not a regular DYK participant, I'm neutral on this matter.

This thread is cross-posted to both WP:AN and WT:DYK by transclusion. Deryck C. 14:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

LavaBaron has retired, so I think this discussion is moot. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we still have the question of "what do we want to do if he comes back". Deryck C. 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deryck, indeed Wikipedia has a long history of editors who "retire" and then return. One thing I would suggest is to not return to the well-intentioned retriction that any review done by him needs to be checked again by another editor. Let's not go down that road again for any individual. It punishes good-faith nominators who had nothing to do with the situation. Our system is clogged enough now. What happens if he chooses to go the route of Clean start? — Maile (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While he was still editing, LavaBaron obeyed the restrictions with some dignity. I would suggest that the restrictions are lifted entirely in the hope that he may return. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let bygones be bygones. We have had too much anger on this talk page already. Let's just focus more on collaborative editing with whoever willing and ready to work. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly moot. In past times, when people have left while restrictions were still in force, they remained in force on their return, which prevented some problems. There were about five weeks remaining in the three-month restriction when LavaBaron retired; I think the remaining five weeks should run if/when he returns. There were some problems with his reviews while he was still under restriction, and I'd like to see that problems have become a thing of the past before they are ended. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I must agree with BlueMoonset. The remaining five weeks of restrictions will act as a test of whether LB understands the problems that led to their being put in place. E Eng 18:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the time is up and LavaBaron has caused no more problems, I suggest lifting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2

File:Sunderland 2777w.jpg

Hook's pulled, and you know it is
Hook's pulled, and you know it is....

"... that the tune of the Christian song "Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart" was adopted by Arsenal fans for the football chant "One-Nil to the Arsenal"? No it wasn't. The tune adopted by the Arsenal fans was "Go West" by the Village People. The article points out that ""Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart" has been noted as sharing a similar tune to the 1979 pop song "Go West" by Village People." but the tunes are only similar, not identical (after the first two lines they diverge), and the "One-Nil to the Arsenal" song follows "Go West", not the original.

Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled. Template:Did you know nominations/Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart @The C of E, EricEnfermero, and Cwmhiraeth: See e.g. [8], which explicitly notes "One Nil" / "Go West" as an exception to the many chants derived from hymns. Also [9]. Fram (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe how seriously you are taking this footy banter but I believe the better known version by Arsenal fans is the quaintly-titled retort, "You're shit, and you know you are" (same tune) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"... step up, arm up, you're offside!! Dud-duddle-duh-duh, duh duh!" The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you support the team I do, "We're shit, and we know we are". Black Kite (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You all have missed the point that Give Thanks was before Go West. The reason why that source says that is because Go West may be more well known in England but Give Thanks was first. If needs be we can change it to ... that a version of the tune of the Christian song "Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart" was adopted by Arsenal fans for the football chant "One-Nil to the Arsenal"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Fram if you're going to pull then at least go back onto the review page and put it back to pre-pass state. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) But that wouldn't be true; other than the first couple of bars, the songs aren't the same. '... that "Go West", which has been noted as having a similar opening to the Christian song "Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart" was adopted by Arsenal fans for the football chant "One-Nil to the Arsenal"?' would be accurate, but that's stretching well into "did you care?" territory. (Which came first is irrelevant, since the relevant section of both songs—and the football chant—is lifted from Pachalbel's Canon.) ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that proposed hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That clearly wasn't a proposed hook... It's DYK, not DYC. Fram (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The Arsenal fans adapted "Go West". Whether Go West was based on the older song or not is a different discussion, but it would be incorrect to post a hook as if the Arsenal fans were actively using the Christian song as the inspiration for their chant. By the way, your source for the hook says "They head off back inside the compound to a rousing rendition of “Give Thanks with a Grateful Heart” (which is, spookily, sung to the tune of “one-nil to the Arsenal”)." So the author notes, in a passing remark, that some people are singing the text of the Christian song but with the tune of the Arsenal chant. This is definitely not evidence that the tune of the Arsenal song is the tune of the Christian song, only that, because of the similarities, one can sing the text of one to the tune of the other. As far as I am concerned, the nomination can stay closed and remain that way. If you want it reopened to give yourself another chance at getting it right, that's your choice. Fram (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THat's not in keeping with the spirit of collaboration. The fact is that Give Thanks came first and was then used by GW and then used by Arsenal. I may be third hand passage but it still comes from it. If you like I can include video sources showing both showing the similarities. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pachalbel's Canon came centuries before either, and (as is already noted on the Go West article, and implicitly by its inclusion in Category:Works based on Pachelbel's Canon) was the source for 'Go West'. You have no evidence that the Arsenal fans were basing their chant on 'Give Thanks', nor will you find any, since from the timings of when the chant appeared, it's obvious that it was prompted by the Pet Shop Boys' cover of 'Go West' which had been in the charts shortly before the chant appeared. It has nothing to do with "the spirit of collaboration"—you're asking us to feature your own original research on the Main Page, which is something we just don't do. ‑ Iridescent 09:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, agree with Iridescent) "The fact is"? There is no evidence that Give Thanks was even known to the writers of Go West, it seems from your article as if Give Thanks only became widely known after 1986, and GW was published in 1979. What you need for a start is good sources (not someone without any known music expertise claiming that the Don Moen version and the Pet Shop Boys version are somewhat similar, without apparently realising that both are covers, like you do now in the article). I have provided such good sources contradicting your hook. For some reason you seem intent on keeping the Arsenal link in the article. So much for the spirit of collaboration? Fram (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, Fram, lighten up a bit, but yes, you're right. A cursory knowledge of British football behaviour, let alone any reliable sources would lead you to conclude the "One-nil" / "You're shit" chant would be based on a pop song, not something that is unlikely for your stereotypical fan to have ever heard of. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I need to "lighten up a bit". Unlike the C of E (and others) I take accuracy on the main page serious. Whether it is about a serious subject or a football chant is not important. When people are only interested in getting their shit (to keep in the same spirit) on the main page, they should be told to leave. Instead, you again decide that the other side needs to lighten up (as if saying such a thing ever helps in any situation). Please do something useful like closing the "Give Thanks" nomination once and for all, if only because now that all nonsense has been removed, it is far below the 1500 character limit. Fram (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you having a go at me for agreeing with you? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, for your useless paternalism ("I can't believe how seriously you are taking this footy banter", "Jeez, Fram, lighten up a bit"). What do you actually think to achieve by adding such comments? I don't even take "footy banter" seriously, no idea where you got that from, I take, like I said, the accuracy of the main page seriously. You should be aware by now that the hooks I pull are about the most diverse subjects, and that I don't pull because of the subject. Fram (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, I'm going to make you an honorary Arbcom drop-out, is that ok? The number of times you've told people the way it is and upset them may not be on the same scale as me, but it's getting there.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be "honorary" for much longer, if "AGF" Cwmhiraeth gets his way[10]. Fram (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a violation of WP:POLEMIC so it ought to be taken to ANI unless an appropriate timescale for its use is provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, let it be for the time being, it's brand new and in some aspects quite amusing. My "policy violation" in delisting a GA 1.5 hour after it had incorrectly been promoted (where according to Cwmhiraeth I should have "restore[d] it back to its former good article quality" instead, even though it obviously never had the required quality) is just one of the many chuckles I got out of it. Fram (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you take DYK too seriously Fram. There's a valid argument that DYK should not be on the main page as a feature, but it is intended as a bit of fun. I don't think many people take the hooks and the feature deadly seriously. You're right though that the main page of the encyclopedia should be taken seriously though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I for one take it deadly seriously. E Eng 13:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

"... that Tony Award-winning Broadway actress and singer Lillian Hayman played Sadie Gray on the American soap opera One Life to Live for 17 years?". Sadie Gray says that she played the part from July 1968 to December 1986, which is a bit over 18 years. The article also says "continually for more than 17 years" so I presume this is simply an arithmetic issue? Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times says 17 years. The apparent discrepancy is explained by the fact that somebody else played the role in 1971. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the article is wrong, so I've removed "continually" from the sentence there. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

"... that al-Baqi cemetery, the oldest and historically most important Islamic graveyard in Medina, was leveled to the ground by Wahhabis in 1806 and again in 1926?"

The first sentence of this article, written poorly, states "have been demolished[1] by forces loyal to Wahhabi-Saudi alliance[2] in 1806 and 1924 (or 1925[2][1])." That doesn't match the hook. Much of the rest of the article needs copyediting too, but that's another story. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the opening sentence of the article to 1926, having already changed the hook on promotion. Permission was granted for levelling the cemetery in 1924 or 1925 but the work was not carried out till 1926. There was an amusing linked typo in the opening sentence too, Median for Medina! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that you have hidden the problem by removing the contradictory sources, but how have you determined that 1926 is the correct year and not 1925? I can find many reliable sources for 1925, e.g. this, this, this, this, this and this, or sources which don't choose between the two years[11]. I can find quite a few sources dating it to 1926, but I don't see how we can choose between the years with any certainty, nor how you could decide that 1926 was the right year after the problem had been pointed out here. Fram (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest since this particular hook is so problematic it's pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pulled. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is controversy over the year the graveyard was levelled, it's probably best to return the hook to the nomination page. In response to Fram, the article stated 1926 and so I checked the source cited. It had just the beginning of an article which mentioned no dates. I was confident that the article creator could read the whole and had the correct year. We call it AGF. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not allowed, per NPA, to call you a liar, so I'm once again stuck with incompetent. The article stated "1924 (or 1925", you changed it to 1926[12]. The DYK nomination said "1924 (or 1925)"Template:Did you know nominations/Demolition of al-Baqi, you changed it to 1926[13] while already in Prep. You have just lost the right to have any AGF extended to you anymore. Fram (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should get your facts right before (nearly) calling me a liar. I altered it in the lead, but it was already 1926 and cited in the body of the text in the section Second demolition. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And so you blindly assumed that both the nomination and the lead were wrong and the body right, even though you couldn't verify the source for the body. The lead had two sources, which you removed when changing it. You still have not indicated why you thought one year to be correct and the other to be incorrect, even after the discrepancy was highlighted here. (By the way, you may want to check this change, it's not really correct, as a trip through the WT:DYK archives may indicate). Fram (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the source in the body gives an exact date for the beginning of the demolition, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have assumed that 1926 is the correct year. However, it would probably have been better to ask the article creator for confirmation. Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...or that it was a typo for 21 april 1925, or... We have an editor claiming "If there is controversy over the year the graveyard was levelled, it's probably best to return the hook to the nomination page. " but acting in reality quite differently. He claimed in this very discussion "I have changed the opening sentence of the article to 1926, having already changed the hook on promotion. Permission was granted for levelling the cemetery in 1924 or 1925 but the work was not carried out till 1926." which seems like a quite certain statement, something that editor actually verified. Now, we see that this was a made-up excuse, a guess to defend his AGF promotion instead of simply stating and doing "I'll pull this pending clarification" or something similar. Fram (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It hardly helps matters to be breaching AGF by accusing people of "made up excuses". At worst this was an error of judgement - we all make them from time to time. I'm sure Cwmhiraeth will be more careful next time. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not normally have citations and should be a summary of the main body of text. It currently is not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"At worst"? I guess you mean "At best". I admire your faith in Cwmhiraeth, I just wonder how many "next times" you'll need to change your opinion. I don't see how a rather certain and definitive "Permission was granted for levelling the cemetery in 1924 or 1925 but the work was not carried out till 1926." as first excuse, but later claiming that he just AGF'ed and couldn't check the source can be reconciled. The latest excuse seems to be that the lead should not have had any sources. Yeah, right... As is usually said about such matters, AGF is not a suicide pact. I don't see a GF explanation which fits everything Cwmhiraeth said and did in this situation, and as it is not the first time things like this happened (like his above "I did not review it" about a hook he approved and promoted) I just take thngs at face value now. Fram (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I meant Fram and don't need you to explain it to me. I see no contradiction in Cwm's initial statements, so yes, I think you are violating AGF by talking about "excuses". Regardless, Cwm does a lot of set building, it's inevitable he is going to slip up from time to time with the volume of work he does. I have promoted most of the sets over the last six weeks and have noticed a great improvement with hardly any problems encountered. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't mean "at best" then you were and are simply wrong. Happens to the best of us. And it's inevitable he slips up from time to time because he doesn't check hooks he promotes (and sometimes even hooks he approves). But that you have no problem with an editor (repeatedly, he did the same with the German source a few weeks ago) declaring with great certainty that a hook was right, only to afterwards fall abck on "well, I don't know if it was right or not, I just AGF'ed) is your responsability. It won't change my level of GF and is not a convincing accusation of "vilating AGF" at all. As for "hardly any problems" over the last six weeks, I must have been in a parallel universe then, as there have been quite a few pulled hooks in that period. The only "great improvement" is that with only 8 hooks a day, there are less pulls than when we had 14 hooks a day; but the percentage of problematic hooks doesn't seem to have decreased at all (I'm talking in general here, not specific about hooks where one or another editor was involved). Fram (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to get surprised seeing myself 'not pinged' in such a debate where, as the article creator who has gone deep in the sources to write the entry, I might have some determining points? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, you should have been pinged by the editor changing your hook and article, and by the one pulling the hook and reopening the nomination. Things at DYK don't always work like they should. Fram (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per sources both 1925 and 1926 can be correct (there's no 1924 among the choices), but note that reliable sources such as entries of 'Encyclopedia of Islam' and 'Encyclopedia Islamica' on Baqi cemetery, both published by Brill, say that the demolition occurred in 1926. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mhhossein. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

An arbitration case regarding The Rambling man has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
George Ho (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:
1. Any process in which the content of the main page is selected, including Did you know?, In the news, On this day, Today's featured article, Today's featured list, and Today's featured picture.
2. Any process in which possible problems with the content of the main page are reported, including WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page.
3. Any discussion about the above processes, regardless of venue.
He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

Going the extra mile

... that both the 5-8 Club and Matt's Bar, two Minneapolis eateries 4.2 miles (6.8 km) apart on the same street, claim to have invented the Juicy Lucy cheeseburger?

Template:Did you know nominations/5-8 Club @Bobamnertiopsis, Storye book, and Cwmhiraeth:

Currently on the Main Page. I haven't pulled or changed, but this seems to be incorrect. One source[14] (used in the article) gives the distance as 4.2 miles. Other sources which discuss this give it as 3 miles.[15][16][17] Doing some OR using trip calculators[18] also gives me 3 miles.

Perhaps simply change it to

... that both the 5-8 Club and Matt's Bar, two Minneapolis eateries on the same street, claim to have invented the Juicy Lucy cheeseburger?

would be the safest solution. Fram (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good call. Vanamonde (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it seems a good solution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Fram (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre, but a good find and sensible solution. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 13:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fram - well spotted! Storye book (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hahvahd Hahvahd Hahvahd

Prep 6 contains: that Harvard University's Newell Boathouse stands on land for which Harvard pays $1 per year under a lease lasting one thousand years—after which Harvard can renew for another thousand years? which uses the word "Harvard" no fewer than three times. This should be reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use "the university" in place of the second "Harvard". Vanamonde (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about "that Harvard's Newell Boathouse stands on land for which the University pays $1 per year under a lease lasting one thousand years, with an option to renew the lease for another thousand years?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not even Fair Harvard mentions Harvard that many times! The Royal C (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Fair Harvard" mentions Harvard exactly once. You learned to count at Yale, I assume? E Eng 13:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the improved hook, everyone.[reply]

Indeed, though the comment was implying that the proposed hook sentence mentions Harvard more times than the official university song. The Royal C (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm duty-bound to add a dig at Yale at every opportunity. Perhaps you will enjoy History and traditions of Harvard commencements. E Eng 16:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could trim the last part a bit further to "that Harvard's Newell Boathouse stands on land for which the University pays $1 per year under a lease lasting one thousand years, with an option to renew for another thousand?" Edwardx (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or:

... that Harvard's Newell Boathouse stands on land for which the University pays $1 per year under a thousand-year lease, with an option to renew for another thousand years? Yoninah (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just my one !vote, but I like it the way it currently stands in Prep. E Eng 17:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom/Akıncı Air Base

How can I prevent a DYK nomination reaching the Main Page. Take it back from the prep area saying it is not "hooky". Everybody starts suggesting ALTs. So many ALts that nobody gets interested to re-review. Bingo! CeeGee 20:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if something hooky or interesting can be derived from the article, it'll be given a hook and then promoted. There's no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So while your post is so passive aggressive I really did not feel like dealing with it I checked into it - Template:Did you know nominations/Akıncı Air Base is not currently listed on the DYK nomination page, so of course no one will come by to review it. What you attribute to a deliberate attempt to keep it off the main page is actually because no one can see that it needs to be reviewed. MPJ-DK 21:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CeeGee and MPJ-DK: Thanks to both of you for mentioning this here. I can only guess why it wasn't on the noms page, perhaps its original date was deleted from that page. I've returned it to July 22, the date of the nomination. Whether or not that's exactly the correct date, it's there. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know what happened to the practice of linking the WTDYK discussion on the template when a nomination is pulled, but here's this one: WT DYK discussion on pulling the Akıncı Air Base hook. It helps if someone is looking at a stalled nomination to be able to click a link and see why it was pulled. — Maile (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is now good to go with ALT2. The source and the wording of the article match the hook. Ready for promotion. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: The source and the wording of the article match each other too well. I removed some close paraphrasing, and also suggested a more grammatical hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. It works. Promote it already. And, Yoninah thank you for your diligence in catching this. But it's somewhat disgraceful how this fell through the cracks. Not the first one to do that, nor the last. It's just a shame. A lot of things over here are...well...fill in the blanks. Echhhh... Let's get this nomination promoted, please. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you all, who did a positive reaction and corrected my thoughts. I apologize for being "passive aggressive", an attitude, which I learned only now it is. Next time, I will be directly asking what happened. Cheers. CeeGee 06:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a nomination

A user has approached me on my talk who is having technical difficulty with their DYK nomination, here, but it's beyond my meager abilities. Could someone help out please?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I am no formatting whiz either, but I can see that the user has made a whole bunch of errors when creating the nomination page. Therefore, I have deleted the nomination page, and have recreated it here with the content that I think the user wanted there, and placeholders where appropriate: they can then fix the hooks at their leisure. Vanamonde (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

prep 6

..."... that Andy Vernon had a Twitter argument with UK Athletics teammate Mo Farah for over an hour?". Is this the most interesting and/or positive thing we can say about Andy Vernon ("Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals ... should be avoided."), given that we've pulled a hook out of a two-sentence "Controversy" section at the end of a substantial well-referenced article? Black Kite (talk)

Even respected and admired US presidential candidates have Twitter feuds with members of their own teams so I don't see what's negative about it. E Eng 11:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps, but we've got an article here about a pretty good and long-serving athlete and we're picking out a hook that he had an argument with someone on Twitter. Just seems a bit petty, really. Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Black Kite. Think I can see the difficulty - the meat of the article is simply a list of events and his placement, which often was somewhere uninteresting (sixth, ninth, 25th, etc). The pressure to have an interesting hook naturally draws the eye to the controversy section of the article, which contains the only non-statistical information in the article. Nevertheless, it does seem unfair.

So, here's a suggestion. It relies on two seperate sentences in the article. I added a source for the first and added both the second sentence and source together.

(1) Vernon's debut at an international athletics competition was at the 2004 IAAF World Cross Country Championships where he competed in the 8,000-metre junior men's race; finishing 64th in a time of 27 minutes and 12 seconds.[3]

(2) He ran his personal best of 27:42 in the 10,000 metres in May 2015, in Palo Alto, USA.[4]

ALT ... that long-distance runner Andy Vernon can now run the 10,000 metres in the time it took him to run 8,000 metres at age 18?

Taknaran (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everyone knew I was kidding. I like this last ALT. E Eng 16:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ALT should not say "now" because his personal best was in May 2015 and that was over a year ago. More generally, such discussions should take place at the relevant nomination to keep the ideas together. Having them here with a generic heading like "Prep 6" is quite confusing and tends to break up the discussions about the specific topics. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: discussions about hooks that have already been promoted to sets ready to head to the main page either need to be discussed here, or at ERRORS. There is absolutely no point whatsoever at all in discussing it at the nomination page once it's been promoted. In any case, I agree with the relevant part of the discussion, that this focuses unnecessarily on a negative aspect of a BLP. That's actually what's more important here. It's clear that what is needed is the hook to be pulled for further discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator and writer here; when I wrote this hook, I must admit, I didn't think about the negative BLP rule. Personally, I don't think it is particularly negative, but if the community decides it is, I am happy if we run the ALT or if it is taken back to the nom page for further work. Sorry for the trouble caused, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite:@EEng:@Andrew Davidson:@The Rambling Man:@Yellow Dingo:@Maile66:@Gatoclass:@Fram:@BlueMoonset: Don't know who has the power, but the questioned hook is still queued up and about to be automatically moved to the home page. Can't it be held until this question is resolved? Taknaran (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled it. Issues clearly not resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing hooks substantially before posting

WP:ERRORS has recently had this discussion. We have been advised to discuss it back here rather than at the errors page. Arbcom have recommended that DYK in particular work harder on improving the quality issues, this is one such example that will form the basis of an RFC where it's made evident that non-English speakers are probably not the best positioned editors to dramatically modify hooks after they've been approved. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid this problem, I would recommend that any proposed change to a hook, be checked by someone else as well. And that goes for last minute fixes by ~~TRM or~~ other admins. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it, this is veering into NOTBURO territory. Over the years I've made scores of changes to hooks in prep (whether minor formatting or wording changes, or outright fixes) and I can recall only once that I introduced an error. TRM, whatever his other failings, has a similar signal-to-noise ratio, though on a much larger scale. To discourage such activity would be penny wise and pound foolish. Ideally the hook would be absolutely, positively final before leaving the nom page, so all discussion and tinkering would take place there, but we don't have the machinery and discipline to make that happen yet. E Eng 04:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too have made changes, mostly on the main page, after a complaint on ERRORS. But any of us could introduce an error that may be obvious to another person. So how are we going to avoid mistakes in hooks getting onto the main page? The promoting admin is really responsible, but if others edit in the queue or when already on the main page, then they have taken on that responsibility. Is any one interested in giving low latency checking to these edits to see if something stupid is about the happen? TRM could still do checking and then ask an admin politely to fix the problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do as much checking as time allows, along with trying to ensure a minimum quality level of each DYK article posted. None of this really relates to the point of a wholesale flip of the hook at the last moment by a non-native English speaker. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a discussion like this it is helpful to have a link to what is being discussed, which in this instance is this nomination. I promoted the hook to Prep 4 on 12 October. Many people were subsequently involved in the slight alterations that were made to the hook.
The approved hook on the nomination page was

... that missionary Thorarinn Thorason's wife threatened to drown herself due to his missionary efforts in Iceland, but instead he drowned later that year?

I then changed it in the prep area to

"... that missionary Thorarinn Thorason's wife threatened to drown herself due to his missionary efforts in Iceland, but was tragically drowned himself later that year?"

TRM then changed it in the prep area to

... that missionary Thorarinn Thorason's wife threatened to drown herself due to his missionary efforts in Iceland, but was drowned himself later that year?

Nikkimaria then changed it in the prep area to

... that missionary Thorarinn Thorason's wife threatened to drown herself due to his missionary efforts in Iceland, but he was drowned himself later that year?

Yoninah then changed it in the prep area to

... that Thorarinn Thorason's wife threatened to drown herself due to his missionary efforts in Iceland, but he was drowned himself later that year?

Gatoclass moved the prep set to Queue4 on 13 October and this was moved to the main page on 14 October. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Personally I don't think that we should be making substantial wholesale changes of hooks without the nominators consent, particularly when they probably don't have the preps and queues watchlisted. I am reminded of the rule that I did try to introduce regarding holding areas here but I think the same principle could apply in this situation too, in that if the hook is changed substantially the nominator should be informed. That way you can have the nominator chiming into the process via this courtesy rather than them being surprised that what they nominated was not what ran. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree that any changes to an approved hook should be discussed here first. I disagree that the issue is about whether or not the editor has English as a primary language. There are a lot of corporate executives in English speaking countries who can't put a written sentence together (that's what they have employees for). Doesn't matter what culture or background of any editor here. All our editors really believe they are doing something good and helpful. Better if hook alterations are discussed here first. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a rule about this, and there's a reason for it: it's completely impractical to discuss every tweak to a hook as it moves to the main page. The vast majority of changes made to a hook on its way through prep are improvements, the tiny number that are not are usually picked up and amended quickly. The last thing we need for this process is more bureaucracy tying the hands of the small number of users working on quality control, that is just a recipe for a steady stream of defective hooks reaching the main page - or none getting there at all. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What this demonstrates is that the original hook was just fine and needed no "tweaking", e.g. to include POV terms such as "tragically" or poor English such as "he was drowned himself".... It's often better to just leave hooks that check out factually if they've been promoted. Trying to tailor it to fit a personal preference just introduces series of issues, as shown. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would describe it more as the exception that proves the rule. 99 times out of a hundred, hooks are improved by later tweaks, this appears to be a rare example where that was not the case, although if you ask me, neither the original hook nor the tweaks were ideal. Gatoclass (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the addition of POV terms should always be avoided. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 (Newell Boathouse) — Currency?

... that Newell Boathouse stands on land for which Harvard pays $1 per year under a lease running one thousand years—after which the university can renew for another thousand years? (Q6)

@EEng: Just a very minor issue here, the hook (and the article), needs to clarify what currency the "$1" is in. I'm guessing US dollars, but it should still be clarified. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I don't think it's necessary. It's an American topic so the reader's innate shrewdness will tell him that payments are in American currency, and whether it's 1¢ or $1, American or Canadian, the point of the hook remains – it's a token rent. If we specify US$1 it will seem almost like a little overprecision joke. E Eng 03:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EEng that a Harvard (very famous American) University lease with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (an American state) over a boathouse in Cambridge MA (in the US) is pretty obviously going to be written in USD. I think a much more appropriate link would to pipe $1 per year to peppercorn rent, which is the idea here. Also, the article does not reference this legal concept and it should. It's not that unusual (the word the lead uses). For example, for New Years Eve in Sydney, the City of Sydney rents the Opera House to the organisers for $1, the peppercorn rent being needed to make for a legal contract (satisfying the requirement for an exchange of valuable consideration), and thus to ensure coverage of the event by public liability insurance. In this case (note, OR / guess here, can't add to article) it's probably a way to ensure that Harvard has the land with unrestricted use without giving it to them, possibly because the government could only transfer ownership for a price in line with a commercial appraisal. EdChem (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I just found this at WP:CURRENCY Use the full abbreviation on first use (US$ for the US dollar and A$ for the Australian dollar), unless the currency is already clear from context. For example, the Government of the United States always spends money in American dollars, and never in Canadian or Australian dollars. which backs up your point EEng. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, WP:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Currency_symbols says In articles entirely on EU-, UK- and/or US-related topics, all occurrences may be shortened. However, a DYK hook isn't an "article", and it's my vague impression that, in general, hooks do specify US$, Can$, etc. Nonetheless, in this case I hope we can agree to just say $ for the reasons already discussed.

EdChem's right that token consideration is a standard legal trick, though of course a thousand years is less frequently seen than a single night. ...possibly because the government could only transfer ownership for a price in line with a commercial appraisal -- translation: it's a sweetheart deal borne of the 19th-century Massachusetts government being even more lousy with Harvard men than it is today. E Eng 04:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng, certainly in Britain and other Commonwealth countries thousand-year leases (or more commonly, 999 years) are absolutely routine—they're used as a legal fiction to avoid transferring the freehold on the land. It's particularly common in apartment buildings, to ensure that the developer selling the individual units remains responsible for maintenance and upkeep to the building; you also see it a lot with sports teams where the local authority leases rather than sells the land for a new stadium to the club for a peppercorn fee, to ensure that the team can't be tempted to remain in their ratty old stadium and sell that nice new land to developers for a fat profit. (See Anfield#Future for a particularly high-profile example.) ‑ Iridescent 14:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC) In fact, I see we have an—awful—article on the topic at 999-year lease. ‑ Iridescent 14:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those charming Brits with their freeholds and writs of replevin and Simplesse Legededermaine and so on. E Eng 16:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 : Egyptian weightlifting

... that in 2016, Sara Ahmed became the first Egyptian woman to receive an Olympic medal?

Abeer Abdelrahman was retrospectively awarded the 2012 silver in late July 2016, so this hook is somewhat (potentially) misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, the article covers that already, but the hook is still correct, Ahmed is the first to receive a medal as Abdelrahman still hadn't received hers at the time. Gatoclass (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it is potentially misleading. That's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot back up

Hi, sorry for the few weeks of relative quiet. Since there seem to have been no issues with the previous bot batch implementing the hardcoded collapsed comments (apart from the <small></small> hook source issue, which has been fixed), I'm bringing the bot back online, though as usual please let me know on my talk page if there are any issues. Intelligentsium 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 670: / Line 670: @@
 :: Yes, I know, the article covers that already, but the hook is still correct, Ahmed is the first to ''receive'' a medal as Abdelrahman still hadn't received hers at the time. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 17:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 :::Ok, so it ''is'' potentially misleading.  That's fine.  [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
+== Bot back up ==
+Hi, sorry for the few weeks of relative quiet. Since there seem to have been no issues with the previous bot batch implementing the hardcoded collapsed comments (apart from the <code><nowiki><small></small></nowiki></code> hook source issue, which has been fixed), I'm bringing the bot back online, though as usual please let me know on my talk page if there are any issues. <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">[[User:Intelligentsium|<span style="color:#013220">Intelligent</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Intelligentsium|<span style="color:Black">sium</span>]]'''</font> 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)