Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

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

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

Two sets a day?

Currently all the prep sets are full and there are 194 verified hooks, which is enough to last 24 days at the present rate of one set of eight hooks a day. With hooks being nominated at the rate of about eight each day, they will wait on average nearly a month before appearing on the main page.

Is it time to return to two sets a day for a while? This could be two sets of seven hooks if required but we would need to maintain balance in the length of columns on the main page. Can we increase the rate without reducing the quality? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Two sets a day always leads to more errors and more crap being on the front page, as there's less time to scrutinise. I remember last time we went to two sets a day, I said exactly this, and was proved to be correct very quickly. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Not yet, I think come January or sometime after Christmas then this should certainly be considered, especially with the WikiCup starting again. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Not if the WikiCup causes a drop in quality, with the mad rush for points, shoddy QPQs, fumbled set prep etc. As we have seen every year. The main page is not a sandbox for such navel-gazing competitions. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should switch over to two sets a day until at least during the WikiCup. The last time we did this, reviewing quality took a noticeable dip. I'd only be comfortable supporting this if we had more people reviewing, and/or we could be more consistent in being able to resolve hook issues. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a false premise here, folks. Even if the quality of the average review stays exactly the same, doubling the number of hooks on the main page will double the number of errors. That's just basic math. If review quality actually declines, that should cause the error rate (errors per hook) to go up. There's no evidence for that. I don't think this is the time to switch to two sets because I don't think we have enough admins with time on their hands to handle that at the moment. But let's at least get our reasoning right. Vanamonde (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand why waiting for the WikiCup to start up is a good thing. It just means that the rate of nomination gets higher. If we were to fill up all of the queues and preps, and give the nominations extra scrutiny as this was done, then we'd have six full days at two sets a day ready to go. We could designate a six- or seven-day period only to run at two sets a day, which would reduce the backlog by 48 or 56 nominations, while having better control over the quality, since the sets would have been built with the time frame in mind. It's better if this starts before the holiday season, but a 24-day backlog could be reduced to 18 or 17 if we try this. If we don't, it will just keep growing. What happens when we're behind by a month? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Just migrate all the unused hooks to a DYK portal where everyone who's interested can enjoy them without fear of disrupting the quality of the main page. Or increase the entry requirements so it's not so easy to just nominate and pass a load of boring nonsense? Couple of thoughts. In the meantime, double the rate, double the number of issues heading to the main page. Currently that's around 3-4 issues per day which will naturally become (at least) 6-8 issues per day, and worse once we get into the back-scratching navel-gaze-fest that is WikiCup. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I like BlueMoonset's suggestion. It would cut the backlog and would give us plenty of time to scrutinise the hooks and articles while they were in queues and preps. (The WikiCup is quite irrelevant to this discussion) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't double the number of errors going to the main page. Instead we should wait until credible and demonstrable evidence is produced that the number of errors can and will be reduced. Then the rate of offerings can double, no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I prefer the idea of calling for a vote on contentious hooks or ones where the nom has basically given up - so we can fail more. Szzuk (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  There's some good thinking. About time we started exercising the right to fail simply unremarkable hooks, for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Good article candidates and featured articles candidates can be failed so why not dyk articles? So long as there is a due process and no one person has to do the failing this would improve quality. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it will improve quality, but it will certainly weed out the dross. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Leaving a veto up to the subjective opinions of the regulars? No thank you! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

There is already an implicit veto - delaying the nomination. This discourages the nominator, it would be better just to have a formal vote and then it is a case of 'fix or fail' without waiting months on end. Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• There are now 212 approved hooks, enough for 26 sets. As there is clearly not a consensus at this time to increase the rate to two sets a day, I would propose increasing the number of hooks in each set to nine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  Then you'll need to discuss the over-heavy left-hand side of the main page with the other projects (ITN and OTD) to ensure they will match up the elongated DYK section. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  Well, on my screen today, the DYK section is too short and could do with an extra hook to balance the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  Well that happens from time to time, but mostly it's the other way round. You need to stick with the mediocre output right now, maybe even slow it down, until such a time that the project can demonstrate a concerted effort to reducing the number of errors getting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• If all the prep sets are full perhaps some of the more boring hooks could be removed. If the rate of DYKs being approved is exceeding the number that can be displayed then the solution is to increase the quality control, not keep that the same and double the number of hooks, this will result in more errors and poor content on the main page; I assume the number of people checking hooks and the number of people dealing with main page errors will not double commensurately. Fish+Karate 13:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Today's main page is so unbalanced on my screen that it could accommodate two extra hooks. If shorter sets could be expanded to nine or even ten hooks, that would be a modest way to reduce the backlog of approved hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Concern about a 8 November hook

I noticed this hook in the prep area here: Template:Did you know/Queue/4.

• ...that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was known as Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews?

I have two concerns: (1) weasel phrasing -- known to whom? Historians? The public? Outside of the Commonwealth? Etc. (2) The link tells us that this is a proverb; "The author of the epigram is unknown, though it has been suggested it was created by a Catholic townsman, perhaps a priest, jealous of more privileged position of the nobility and the Jewry."

It's a point of view that may not be historically accurate, and the article says as much. But the hook almost reads as if it were presented in Wiki voice; it comes across as off. I may be overthinking this, but I believe that a second opinion is warranted. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a anti-Semitic phantasm better known as "Paradisus Iudaerum" per this academic paper. Rather shocking we are presenting an antisemitic trope in this fashion.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In recent times POLIN musuem's (criticized) decision to title an exhibit with just the paradise bit led to recent coverage of this trope, however the POLIN curator herself had this to say Similarly, the Wall of Words in the Paradisus Iudaeorum gallery (1569–1648) is a kind of chorus, sometimes in harmony, sometimes cacophonous. The quota-tions here play on the ambiguity of “Paradisus Iudaeorum,” a formulation from a pasquinade critical of everything in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—for-eigners, immigrants, “heretics,” peasants, burgers, and servants, and also Jews. To characterize the Commonwealth as a Jewish paradise is a way of saying that Jews had it “too good.” The Wall of Words, by assembling different perspectives, invites the visitor to consider to what extent and in what ways the Commonwealth was good for the Jews or bad for the Jews, worse for the Jews or better—and above all introduces the idea of a spectrum of relations, rather than a binary of good or bad. Our multivoiced approach and authored voices are critical to the openness of the narration and therefore to the openness of the historical narrative. in The Polish Review - hardly, to say the least, an endorsement of this description.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• K.e.coffman makes a valid point. This it is inappropriate to be promoting a medieval antisemitic slander at DYK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Given the concerns raised above, this should be pulled back to the noms and re-worked, or simply failed as inappropriate subject matter for the joke section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It would not be a good advert for the project to put incredibly mildly. Who the hell is responsible for this potential P.R clusterfuck? The media would love it. Simon Adler (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thoughts, well, while some minor rewording may be in order, some people are being overly sensitive. The phrase is not associated with modern anti-semitism; some scholars do argue that it might have been an anti-semitic slur in the past, but that hardly makes it inappropriate. Personally I always thought it was mostly a way to showcase the inequality between the nobility and enserfed peasants. I guess for now we should put it on hold why we work out what, if any, rewordings are needed on the article's talk. When this is done, hopefully in few days, we can reconsider the hook, but TBH, I think it is pretty neutral: PLC has been refereed, by many works, to by this saying (proverb); what's offensive about that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

    Similar phrases ("down with the landlords and Jews!") were used in 20th century pogroms.[1] Saying that the "Paradisus Iudaerum" lampoon at best or at worst an anti-Semitic phantasm was the "known" state of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth - is decidedly non-neutral. It was perhaps "known" as such by anti-Semites or called such by Poles who thought Jews had it "too good" in Poland. This is not a factual statement - the grain of truth behind this lampoon is that Jews were persecuted less in the commonwealth than the rest of Europe during these years (until the pogroms of 1648) - they still led a fairly wretched existence.[2] Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

    • It is your OR that it is an anti-semitic slogan. It is just a historical saying, that yes, exaggerates the role of Jews, and that's about it. It's not controversial, and it is mostly accurate (again, except that exaggeration). A few scholars have written about that exaggeration, but that doesn't make the statement anti-semitic. (It's not like there's a consensus on this, and it's not like most scholars refer to this statement as anti-semitic). But this can be easily fixed, in the article (where I've expanded on this critique) and in the hook, which could read like this: "..that the description of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews exaggerated the situation of the Polish Jews? I think this ALT1 should address all the issues raised here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

      Not my OR. It referred to, unequivocally, as an antisemitic phantasm' (including antisemitic use of it in the Second Republic) by this source (English translation) , and oanna Tokarska-Bakir (Rzeczy mgliste: eseje i studia. Fundacja Pogranicze. - in Polish - [3]) treats this as part of a corpus of antisemitic proverbs (together with kidnapping children for using their blood for Passover and stabbing the host). It isn't merely "exaggerated" - it is an antisemtic slogan that has a "grain of truth" (specifically - not that Jews were particularly privileged in the period - but that they were not persecuted during these years in Poland as they were in the rest of Europe). Any reference to this slogan should clearly label and attribute it. There are also COMMONNAME issues here - "Paradisus Iudaeorum"/"Paradisus Iudaerum"/"paradisus judaeorum" (and other forms of Jew(s) and Hebrew in Latin) is the term mainly used in the literature.Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

      It's referred to as anti-semitic by a single scholar (Elżbieta Janicka), and she is hardly high profile (just a minor Polish historian, does not appear encyclopedic). I don't know if you are proficient in Polish, but I am, and I read Bakir article (which does not appear peer reviewed) and she does not say the proverb is anti-semitic, at best, xenophobic. She discusses anti-semitic myths like ones you mention, but the proverb is not discussed together with them in the same context (if you want to prove me wrong, please quote her saying it is anti-semitic). Anyway, I've added a reference to the proverb as anti-semitic, through it's not a common view (scholars agree that it exaggerates Jewish situation, but only Janicka calls it anti-semitic, and to repeat myself, Bakir does not). Anyway, do let me know what you think about the proposed hook. As for COMMONNAME, it's something we can discuss on talk, the article name is of little relevance to the DYK. And while the "Jewish paradise" part is most controversial and hence most often discussed in literature, it is only part of a wider saying, and the rest of that saying is important as well. For example, Kot in his monograph on this did not focus on the Jewish part. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

      Disregard of academic sources while citing in the article 19th and 18th century sources duly noted. Tokarska-Bakir was used in the article prior to me getting involved - and clearly treats this as part of a corpus of anti-Semitic sayings recorded by anthropologists - this is the subject of the chapter. You want a more explicit one? per Piotr Wróbel (who would generally be presumed to be pro-Polish AFAICT) - On the one hand, most Poles firmly believe that Poland has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world and that antiSemitism has existed only on the margins of Polish society. As far as they are concerned, there has been no such phenomenon as Polish anti-Semitism, for Poland has always been a true paradisus Judeorum. On the other hand, most Jews, especially those on the American continent and in Western Europe, claim that Poland is one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the world. Jews have often shared the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's belief that virtually all Poles received their anti-Semitism "with their mothers' milk."[4] And here is Tokarska-Bakir in English (in 2016 - intrestingly she notes she recently found a 14th century Austrian use of this trope) - Another sign of disregarding the language spoken by Jews was calling a fragment of the main exhibition Paradisus Judaeorum – “the Jewish paradise.” The expression constituted a 17th-century polemic concept condemning the rampant prevalence of infidels. Framing this satirical expression as the title of a part of the exhibition implicitly puts it into the mouths of contented Jews (Kot 1937, 1957).8Polin: „Ultimate Lost Object” Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

      I've cited T-B first, thank you very much. And what are you trying to prove? Neither of the other sources you cite/quote calls this term anti-semitic. That it is used in the context of discussions of anti-semitism does not make it anti-semitic; it is just an exaggeration, but an exaggeration is far cry from "hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination" (which is what anti-Jewism racism is). Still, why is this an issue here? I've added a reliable source to the article, citing the one author who called this phrase anti-semitic in her peer reviewed work. Isn't that enough? Anyway, I've asked you now twice if you have any issues with the revised ALT, which now clearly states the saying is an exaggeration? Do you still consider it non-neutral? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Once again, this should be replaced in the queue immediately. Clearly the current hook is unsatisfactory, this debate will never result in consensus, take it back to noms and come up with something less controversial, or just fail it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• It absolutely needs to be pulled, and the ALT1 suggestion is no better. Fish+Karate 13:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have pulled it, as that was the most urgent action. I have not added another hook, not have I reopened the DYK discussion for this hook. Fram (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I reopened the nomination at WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Pulled another one as well

While I was busy, I pulled another one as well, coincidentally also about antisemitism (in this case, holocaust denial).

Template:Did you know nominations/Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen photograph, 1942 @Catriona, Piotrus, and Cwmhiraeth:

• ... that German conservatives claimed that an iconic Holocaust photograph (pictured) depicting the murder of Jews in Ukraine was a Communist forgery?

"Conservatives" does not appear in the article, nor in this context in the source[5]. The claim came from a newspaper (aimed at soldiers) which was "known for its willingness to defend Germany's Nazi past". German conservatives were in general anti-nazi, not the kind of holocaust deniers or minimizers this hook portrays.

The queue now has only 6 hooks and no picture hook. Fram (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

So much for trying to double the hook rate... There was another which failed the basic criteria too but which has been tweaked about three times in the queue to finally get there. So that's 37.5% of the hooks shouldn't have made it to the queue in this one set. And then various minor issues affecting two or three of the others. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I reopened the nomination at WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Marcy Tigner - Prep 5

I think the hook for Marcy Tigner should be modified to clarify that interest was re-kindled later in the 1990s, otherwise the hook doesn't make sense. i.e. ... "that although Christian ventriloquist Marcy Tigner had ceased performing by 1990, interest in her recordings was later that decade rekindled by record collectors?" Pinging @Cwmhiraeth:, @Narutolovehinata5:. Without the clarification it reads "she retired, and then she was rediscovered" which isn't very unusual. My intent when creating the hook was to contrast the near timing of her retirement and the regenerated interest. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It has been promoted to Queue 5, so administrator action is needed. I suggest putting "later that decade" at the end of the hook for grammar's sake. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I could do it, but doing that unilaterally without involving the reviewers (or other eyes) would be bad form, since that's not precisely the hook that was approved. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I don't mind what wording is used, as long as the grammar and flow are okay. With that said, in my opinion, I don't actually find "retired and then rediscovered" to be uninteresting, though maybe it could just be me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please pull the hook and return it the noms page so a better hook can be worked out? It could be replaced with something from the preps and we'll fill it in there. Pinging @Maile66: @Casliber: @Vanamonde93:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I just saw this discussion. I'm happy to pull it if necessary, but is there a problem with 78.26's suggested modification? Vanamonde (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I'd rather it just ran as is if the modification is in any way controversial. I'm afraid I've already wasted far more volunteer time than I intended. Apologies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I don't know, I can't follow the years being given in the article. There's no clear date on which she retired. Her last album was in 1982. And you can't say she was rediscovered "later that decade", because she was rediscovered in the 1990s. If you move it back to the noms page, I can work with the nominator on both hookier and verifiable wording. Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I looked up the AllMusic bio, which says she was making "annual appearances" at a store. So I'm sorry, 78.26, but I'm going to pull this at the moment, at least until we have a source explicitly putting her retirement at or before 1990. Vanamonde (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, as I prefer the other hook I could be silent, but it would be wrong of me to not mention that the Allmusic biography merely states that she made personal appearances after her last album (1982), and that the Worlds Worst Records source says she retired 1988/1989, so therefore there's no conflict between the sources, and the hook is still supported. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• There's also another option here: the nomination had two approved hooks, so if people find the promoted hook problematic, we could always try the other one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  (Added post-EC): That would be fine with me too, let me take a look at it. Vanamonde (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  FTR, I pulled this, and have returned it to the nominations page. Vanamonde (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: you didn't pull the hook from Queue 5, which is going live in 15 minutes! Calling on immediate administrative action. Also pinging @Alex Shih: @Casliber: @Maile66:. Yoninah (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Nope, because since 78.26 was online I hoped to resolve the issues and replace it quickly, which I've now done. Vanamonde (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: whew! Thanks. But in the meantime, I came by to help out and promoted it to Prep 5, which I see you've reverted. Thanks x 2. Yoninah (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yoninah Queue 4 just went live an hour ago. Marcy Tigner in Queue 5 goes live tomorrow. We're OK on the timeline.. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4 Prep 4

I moved Alfred George Pither from the first slot in Prep 4, to fill the first slot in Queue 4. — Maile (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Great, just a small error in the blurb to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, Statue of Liberty (Seattle) has been moved from Prep 1 to Queue 4 to fill the remaining vacant slot. — Maile (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Cheers, just a tweak to the blurb now needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  Both fixed, though it would have been a lot more helpful and less childish to simply describe the errors here. Vanamonde (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  Would have been a lot more helpful if you'd fixed it properly. Without the personal attacks. Never mind. Got your number. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  That's a bit rich coming from you, when you use this sort of language. I'm not interested in your accusations: I was asking you to post here so that errors are addressed faster. If you're not interested, that's your affair, and I cannot compel you. Vanamonde (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  Get over yourself Vanamonde. Your accusations were perfect WP:DICK territory, as you well know. As an "admin" you should know that. You are an embarrassment to the position of admin. Oh, and if you really want to talk about DYK errors, start fixing those yourself too. I'm doing my best to notify people. You? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, you're not. If you were doing your best, you would post errors you spot at the places they are most visible: I watch WP:ERRORS, as you know damn well. Even so, I would watch your errors page if I had the time: at the moment I don't. We're only having this conversation because I responded to your post above. So really you're the one who needs to take a step back and take a look at why you're alienating folks who want the same things as you, but who may disagree with you on occasion. Vanamonde (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  You don't get it, you haven't got a clue about it, you haven't even tried to get it, I understand. I don't care what you think, your judgement is so flawed that I hope that I never see it exercised again, and as for "alienating folks", well that's up to them. I'm up to nearly 700 errors fixed which were overlooked in the past five months. Move along, do something constructive. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting for promotion: A Proposal - Support or Oppose

Proposer withdrawn, and it appears that it's a blizzard here anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

---

The proposal; that hooks should be promoted after a vote.

The rationale; too many weak hooks are reaching the main page. A hook can reach the main page with just 3 participants - 1 creator, 1 reviewer and 1 promoter and this doesn't provide enough oversight.

The mechanism; after a hook is approved there is a week long voting process. During the voting process a hook can be supported (promote) or opposed (fail). Anyone can close the vote. No consensus results are default to promote. If a hook is failed a second hook can be voted upon. If the second hook is failed the article fails and no more hooks are permitted. A failed article can have its close reviewed by an administrator for compliance if requested.

Advantages: better hooks reach the main page, contentious hooks are identified and corrected quicker or failed, DYK regulars are not left to fulfill someone else's nomination, nominations are failed quicker and don't hang around discouraging nominators. Szzuk (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the sentiment of the proposal, in that too many bad hooks make it to the main page, or often times errors fail to be fixed until it is too late. With that said, I have concerns on how this will affect the backlog: even with the current system, the hook promotion backlog can extend to over a month or even longer, and adding an additional step could prolong the process only further. And remember that Wikipedia is built on consensus, not on votes, so even though the default result would be promotion, one objection (and conversely one counter-objection) could make a difference. I would not be willing to support this proposal without other reforms being put into place as well, particularly to make it more friendly for newer contributors/ Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not, we cannot have a situation where we can get us regulars potentially ganging up to block a nomination just because it may personally displease us or we may personally have an opinion that we aren't interested in it. Indeed some of the most controversial hooks we have had, which later sometimes turn out to be some of our best, would probably never have made it if we had people !voting for it as this proposal seeks to introduce. Plus the premise is misleading because we do also have the admin who moves hooks from prep to queues checking too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A good faith way of fixing a genuine problem, but this is the wrong way of doing it, I'm afraid. (1) I suspect the voting would attract very few people, and so one opposition could sink an otherwise decent nomination. (2) Quite often, it needs some investigation to discover a problem with a hook, which most people won't do (3) it's just going to add a layer of confusing bureaucracy to a process that is already complicated. Blatantly unsuitable hooks are already usually removed before they get to the Main Page via ERRORS and ERRORS2 (look a few sections above this). Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per Black Kite. The proposed system cannot cope with the number of nominations we have here. Vanamonde (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - looks like a good idea at first glance but the workload is simply too big for a process like this. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just what we need, the formation of another local cabal and the creation of a tempting target for canvassing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's bad enough as it is ;) - For the average simple article, it would needlessly absorb extra reviewing time which could be used elsewhere (go review GAs and FACs, if you have extra time!), and for the complex ones, we get to discuss here anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Withdrawn. I don't know how to improve the quality, but this isn't the way. Szzuk (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Checklist for promotion: A Proposal - Support or Oppose

The proposal; that every nomination gets a collapsed list of (to be decided) criteria reviewers have to confirm to have checked to get articles more main page ready during the nomination phase

The rationale; too many weak hooks and articles are getting close to/reaching the main page with avoidable errors, not following project rules etc. No accountability whatsoever for reviewers, no mechanism to explain or even notify reviewers of problems and issues with their reviews

The mechanism; every nomination gets a collapsed list of (to be decided) criteria to check the article for(basic DYK rules, bare URL's etc) and a reviewer has to confirm that they have indeed checked the article for said criteria

Advantages: better quality control, more fixes done during the nomination phase due to better reviews, more clarity by knowing exactly what is expected of a review, less excuses for bad reviews, ability to see a pattern in bad reviews, accountability for reviewers, possibility for feedback to reviewers to improve their work

I know this does not have a snowballs chance in hell but... you lot can't say more than no. Also, sorry for stealing the layout for this Szzuk. Keep in mind that copying is the highest form of flattery :P 85.16.161.215 (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Every nomination already has a collapsed checklist. Open any nomination. There is a green shaded bar that is the drop-down list you want. Two different styles of it, in fact. It's optional to use. I think what you are asking, is for its use to be mandatory, and no nomination to be promoted unless the checklist is used. — Maile (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether the checklist works to reduce errors? Do they help ensure that checks are done with the needed care? My impression is that they don't improve review results, but I'd be just as happy to be proven wrong. Without the data, I'd be reluctant to support this proposal. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The checklist template doesn't work well, if it worked properly it would be helpful, I think a coder needs to adapt and fix it, is there any way of requesting someone fix it? Szzuk (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I did NOT suggest using that list. I suggest using something similar but reworked, more accesible and better working mechanically. But whatever, just close this. Was no hope to begin with anyway. How about someone else make some suggestions to improve the pathetic and deeply flawed QPQ process? 91.97.251.97 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I am agreeing with you but there aren't enough details for me to support this, can you provide more details? Or an example? Szzuk (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose as per the earlier thread. Making a less accessible option mandatory is nonsensical. I don't understand how editors can be protecting the main page from prejudicial hooks while condoning disclusionary practises at DYK (i.e.: broad use of symbols and a checklist with no alt text that are literally unreadable). – Reidgreg (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose as it doesn't work well. Best way is to just cover all the points in your QPQ. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue6: hook fact not in source

• ... that in 1976, the Gilling sword was found in a river by a nine-year old boy, and was subsequently awarded its own Blue Peter badge?

Template:Did you know nominations/Gilling sword @Zakhx150, L293D, and Cwmhiraeth:

This is sourced to this, but this only states that the boy got a Blue Peter badge, not the sword... Fram (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Changed to ... that in 1976, the Gilling sword was found in a river by a nine-year old boy, who was subsequently awarded a Blue Peter badge? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Noted a couple of hours ago at WP:TRM. It's a shame because the original hook, if true and verifiable, is much more interesting that just someone getting a Blue Peter badge. I wonder where the original claim came from? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Aha. [6] "This two-edged iron sword with a handle decorated with silver has something no other object in the Treasures From Medieval York exhibition has – a Blue Peter badge. " and "He was later awarded a Blue Peter badge for his efforts and another badge was given to the sword.". Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Here ya go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conficts) @Fram: The source does not talk about the sword's own badge. On searching I found this new source which does explain the event with more detail including the sword's own badge as well as the boy's badge. I think this supports the hook better. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added the N/Echo source to the article, and changed the hook back to its original format. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks (all of you). Too bad that the reviewer and promotor didn't actually check the hooks against the source in the article. In this case it looks as if the result was a hook which was correct (if that lone source can be trusted on this, and they aren't simply confused because the badge for the boy is now displayed with the sword at the Museum), but they had no way of knowing this, which leads to the many errors we currently have (even with one set a day). Fram (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

By the time I'd seen the ping, you've all resolved it. Thanks folks. Zakhx150 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Being a DYK critic is an easy job. Such a critic has no responsibilities, can pick and choose what to criticize and can never be blamed if errors slip through. In this particular instance, the critic apportioned blame to others but did not take the trouble to check whether the hook fact complained about was in fact correct. "Nil points" all round! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If it's such an easy job, then why don't you do it? Check hooks, find errors, and then note, correct, or pull the hooks? Oh wait, right, that's exactly the thing you have problems with, finding errors, like something which is claimed to be referenced by source X but isn't. Being a DYK critic should be a very hard job, as normally very, very few errors should escape the scrutiny of 8 sentences a day by three or more diligent people. But it's careless promotors like you who make this an easy job. Fram (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You miss the point, I am not a critic because I act on the errors I find rather than blaming others for them. Unfortunately I don't find them all. You, on the other hand, just criticize. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I often act on them, by pulling or changing hooks. And I only blame others when the issue is really egregious, like someone promoting a hook where the hook fact is totally missing from the hook source. If I was only criticizing, I would wait for others to find errors, and then come here and start commenting on what a poor job you do. Fram (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1 Nov 11 Special Date queue

I'm putting all these in their own section. We have more than can be accommodated, perhaps. In the US, Nov 11 is Veterans Day holiday, but the same as Remembrance Day elsewhere. I edited one of the nominations, so I shouldn't be involved in which ones go into Nov 11. But a question. Since we often run with less than 8 hooks when one is pulled, and more than 8 hooks on those occasions when an admin feels the need to balance the look of the main page, can't we just post more hooks in the set? If we moved the lancewood tree to another queue, we would have 9 hooks for this date. Somebody else decide this. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Make that 10. We just got another nomination. Please see the bottom subsection below. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, looking through the approved and to-be approved list, if reviewers and admins wanted to, Nov 11 could be made into two 12-hour sets of 8. There are a slew of un-reviewed articles about submarines of the WWI era. And I believe I saw some bio nominations that could fit into that subject, if they were reviewed. Just depends on what this project wants to do. — Maile (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

11th November

I've just noticed that Prep 1 (which would fill Queue 1), which will fall on 11th November (Remembrance Day and 100 years since the end of the First World War) has been filled however we do have 2 hooks in the special holding area for that date. One of which has a fairly appropriate lead image for the day. Could I ask if someone would be able to switch the hooks please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

All the prep sets are full at the moment. When one becomes vacant, we can do some hook shuffling. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Special occasion hooks for November 11 promoted. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Woodvale Park

Re: Prep 1, a potential problem has been discussed here. Could someone (with more time) help decide what to do? Nomination subpage is here. I am also notifying the reviewer. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who built the prep set for November 11. Since it's a special date (the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I), I tried to find other hooks to populate the set, while striking a balance with other non-war hooks. If there is a problem with the hook, we need to discuss it here to see what can be done.

@L293D: as the reviewer, you are not allowed to promote a hook to prep, or switch it around while it's in the prep set. Therefore I reverted your hook promotion.

@Dumelow: can this hook be fixed?

• ... that the war memorial at Woodvale Park is said to be unique in honouring the dead from both sides of the First World War?

If not, or if you prefer a different hook to go up, then I will return this hook to prep and wait for another day to promote it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah. As stated on my talk page the hook is supported by reliable sources, but they could well be misinformed. It is true in the strictest sense as it just states "said to be". I have suggested an alternative WWI hook at my talk page: "... that the First World War memorial at Woodvale Park in Belfast is cut to resemble a stone from Giant's Causeway?" or else just revert to one of the two approved non-WWI hooks. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dumelow: That's nice, thank you. Hook ref verified and cited inline. I'll replace it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Yoninah. I've just today written an article on the last British general to die during the war which might make a good inclusion for the 11th if it can be reviewed in time: Template:Did you know nominations/Edward John Granet - Dumelow (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If someone else can review it, I'll promote it. Yoninah (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1: 100th anniversary of end of World War I

As this is a significant anniversary, The C of E came up with a great lead image that everyone can relate to, the remembrance poppy. I've tried to populate the set with other World War I hooks. However, there was a special occasion request for a World War II hook to go up on this day, and now we have a few of those. I was just wondering if anyone would mind if we stick to World War I hooks only, per the anniversary. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I don't mind at all, a complete WW1 set would be on topic and nice. But could you reallocate my Qiu Bojun hook to a different prep while you are doing this please? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Frayae yes, I'll promote again it when a set becomes open. All the sets are full now. Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

We now have five World War I hooks in Prep 1 for the 100th anniversary. If anyone has other ideas, please let me know. Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I hope the administrators won't promote Prep 1 for a while longer. A nomination about a woman serving in World War I, Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Joy Whitehead, was just proposed. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have promoted Leslie Joy Whitehead to Queue 1 and shuffled Prep 2. Alex Shih (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK National Service of Remembrance

* I've just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance. The nominator requested a November 11 date. Is it too late to make it to the Remembrance Day set? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: What do you think? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: @Frayae: I would certainly support this, if we exchange the lancewood tree one for this one, it would be most appropriate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1 for November 11 Leslie Joy Whitehead

Prep 1 has been promoted to queue, but now we have another special occasion hook for this day. Could an administrator move Stan Griffiths to a later prep set and put Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Joy Whitehead here? BTW, I thought it was a good idea of @Vanamonde93: to promote only one queue at a time so hooks could still be worked on. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah since that is the Veteran's Day set, wouldn't it make more sense to move the lancewood tree hook? That's the only one not tied in to the theme. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, I did some editing on this nomination, so I shouldn't be involved in promoting it. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66: Understandable, what is your thoughts on removing Template:Did you know nominations/Stan Griffiths or the Template:Did you know nominations/Acacia shirleyi and adding Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Joy Whitehead and Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Frayae As I stated above, the Acacia shirleyi-lancewood tree is the one not related to the special date. It could be moved to another queue. As for the rest I favor WP:IAR and let all the veteran hooks have their day on the main page. At this point, it looks like there would be 9 hooks if the Acacia was removed. — Maile (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66: That sounds fine to me. Remove the tree and promote the two themed hooks. Or at least find someone who is an admin to do so now it has entered the queue. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

First World War glass-rubber exchange

I knocked up an article at Template:Did you know nominations/First World War glass-rubber exchange to fill out the WWI theme, but see the queue is already full. Nevermind, if someone could take a look at approving it anyway it might be handy to have as a reserve? - Dumelow (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Last-minute hook for WWI (tomorrow)

Would it be possible for an admin to add Template:Did you know nominations/First World War glass-rubber exchange to tomorrow's queue? Or is too late? L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: the prep set is about to go live on the main page and your hook fact for French submarine Armide does not have an inline cite! Please add one ASAP or this hook will be pulled. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Attention administrators! The World War I hook set for November 11 is currently populated with 7 World War I hooks and one World War II hook. (The Battle of Britain took place in the Second World War.) Immediate action is needed to replace the Herman Pines hook with the above WWI hook, Template:Did you know nominations/First World War glass-rubber exchange. Pinging @Maile66: @Amakuru: @Black Kite: et al. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

We could also swap in Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance. Your choice. Yoninah (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright thanks. I will definitely do this before midnight if nobody else does.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Amakuru Regarding your edit summary of only having 7 hooks because the main page was looking lopsided. I used the tool in the edit window to view the set in tomorrow's main page. Two different browsers - Firefox and Chrome. With Chrome, it looks marginally lopsided (short on DYK side) at 80% and really lopsided at 100%. With Firefox DYK looks too short at both 90% and 100%. So, from my end on both my browsers, it's too short with only 7 hooks. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: and @Maile66: this last-minute business is getting incredibly stressful. Right now, the hook fact for French submarine Armide does not have an inline cite and therefore should be pulled from the set. The Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance nomination has many paragraphs that are uncited, so that won't qualify. The only bright light is that Template:Did you know nominations/First World War glass-rubber exchange looks ready to go. You might as well leave Herman Pines there and if it's not World War I, it's still war. Thanks for finishing this up, Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'll get that one into the set now. You think we need to pull the other two, or can you get the issues fixed in the next two hours?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done First World War glass-rubber exchange is now in the queue. Let me know the situation with the other two and we'll see about replacing them if necessary. On the lopsided issue, it seemed that way at a few widths on Chrome, but not massively so... I only mentioned it to avoid the need to substitute in anotehr hook last minute. But if we have to do that (even non-WW1) then so be it. Thanke  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Thanks for the promotion. L293D apparently added a cite to the French submarine, but another user reverted it, saying it wasn't in the book cited. I don't hold out much hope for this one, or for Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance, whose nominator is not online now. However, L293D has another WWI-themed nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/O'Byrne-class submarine which is just awaiting an inline cite. L293D are you able to add that right now? Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I've added a cite for Armide. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: I'm not sure why you reverted me. The source you're giving contains no mention of the facts mentioned in the text.

Text: Armide was named after Armida, a character in the epic poem Jerusalem Delivered.

Source: ARMIDE class, AMAZONE (Amazon), ANTIGONE (Antigone, both from mythology), ARMIDE, 3 boats - 460/670t, 17/11 knots, 4 or 6-45cm tt/1-4.7cm or 7.5cm, 31 crew, launched 1915-16.

Could you do something about the inline cite for O'Byrne, please? Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the issue for O'Byrne. I would prefer Armide to be promoted tomorrow though. Re your question, the cite I added says this ANTIGONE (Antigone, both from mythology), ARMIDE. Here is a ref that Armida is a character in Jerusalem Delivered: http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/otherbooks/tt_jerusalemdelivered.html. Are we good now? L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: the Jerusalem Delivered cite is fine. But the navypedia cite does not say what you're saying it does. It says: AMAZON and ANTIGONE (both from mythology), ARMIDE (the name of the 3rd submarine; nothing about Armida). Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was confused by this one too. The source seems to be saying that Amazone and Antigone are both from mythology isn't it? The link to from this submarine to Jerusalem Delivered doesn't seem to be proven at the present time. It will be great if we can get this one in, but not at the expense of including questionable hooks.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: @L293D: If O'Byrne is ready to go, and at the present time it looks like it will have to replace the Armida one, please could somebody give it a DYKtick on the nom page and specify which of the proposed hooks is to be promoted? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. The mythological Armida is the only thing in history with this name. All other things (lully's opera, cancer treatments) are named after her. I do understand that this is original research however, so I would understand if you replaced it with the O'Byrne hook. I will have to research more in books to try and find a ref for Armide. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Unfortunately, O'Byrne lacks a cite and there's a discrepancy in wording between the lead and the body. Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: could you please tell me what are the inconsistencies, please? I still have ~20 minutes online. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got the issues for O'Byrne addressed. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: 1. In the lead you say the submarines were confiscated. 2. Under "Construction and specifications" you say they were completed for French Navy (no cite). Under "Service", you say they were confiscated (no cite).

Please make this consistent. Were they confiscated or just completed? Whatever you write in the lead, write in the first paragraph under "Construction and specifications" and give an inline cite there. Then delete it from the Service section. Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Are we proposing to have this one replace the Herman Pines hook, if it is sorted out in the next 20 mins? If not, then there's no point rushing it now because the set is full as it stands. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would replace poor Herman Pines. Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: are you still around? Looks like your 20 minutes mentioned above may have expired . If there's not likely to be further developments then I guess we'll call it a day and go to bed. O'Byrne can get its day in the limelight some other time. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm online again. I should have the issues addressed in the next 5 minutes. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru and Yoninah: sorry for being so late, done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, that's okay. I've addressed the issues but its just too late. The infamous prep 6 has gone on the main page now, and I guess its not the end of the world for O'Byrne to wait a months or two more. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly be better to see an all-WWI set than having the Battle of Britain from WWII in there. And as it is, 6 out of 8 hooks are British. Maile could you swap in the approved hook from Template:Did you know nominations/O'Byrne-class submarine and I'll put Herman Pines somewhere else? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've just put O'Byrne in on the DYK template itself so we have an all WW1 set. Just in the nick of time. Almost. Won't be able to do the admin work associated with promoting the nom page now as I'm on my phone in bed! Will sort that out tomorrow morning if nobody else does first.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The last ping from above just now showed up on my account, so it was delayed. Yoninah and Amakuru thanks to both you for what you have done. I hope I'm understanding correctly that everything is taken care of for what's on the main page right now. Quite frankly, there were so many different hooks and aspects involved - and this long, long, long thread - that I was having a hard time keeping track of what was what for whom and for where. You both are to be applauded for getting this all figured out, on what turns out to have been a last minute dive into double checking that all criteria is met. — Maile (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the main page is all set and all World War I. Thanks to all the editors who submitted hooks and made corrections last-minute. In future, Maile, should I ping you on your talk page to make sure you get the message as soon as possible? Yoninah (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Normally, the pings work instantaneously. Just one of those things. As was this situation. Maybe there won't be a next time like this. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

With all this last-minute hook-changing yesterday, I didn't get my credit template. Could anyone do that? L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66, Amakuru, Black Kite, and Yoninah: Could anyone give me my credit template for O'Byrne-class submarine, please? L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I hope I just did it correctly. It's been a long time since I've manually added credits. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

National Service of Remembrance

• I have fixed Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance. Please make it part of the set. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah Amakuru The requested citations have been added to this one. I green ticked it now. Can we still get this in the queue? — Maile (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance has been passed now. Could you promote it before midnight? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I'm on it now. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It's there in the Queue. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What makes something new?

We already have Odyssey House, but it's mis-named and not what one would expect to find at that title. I'm working on a new version of Odyssey House, which will be about the original entity by that name and will have very little in common with the existing article (which will be moved to Odyssey House, Texas). How does this work vis-a-vis eligibility for DYK? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: To clarify. You are not replacing the existing article which will still exist at a different title. This will be a completely new article but at the same title? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. A new article at the existing title. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to be more explicit, the steps would be: 1) Write new article at User:RoySmith/Odyssey House, 2) Move Odyssey House to Odyssey House, Texas, 3) Move User:RoySmith/Odyssey House to Odyssey House, 4) Submit to DYK, 4) Profit! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't foresee any problem. It is the newness of the new article which matters and the older article on a different topic which will be moved away will not affect DYK eligibility. As The C of E says below you can have a new article created from an existing redirect, so you don't have to delete the title first, although you could if you wanted to. I say go for it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That would count as created from a redirect as you would have moved the original article (which results in a redirect) and then replaced it with the new article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Nov 17 Special Holding Area Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States

Yoninah - Since October 7, Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States has been in the special holding area for November 17 date, a commemorative date in Hawaiian history. Am I correct that Prep 1 would be that set? It's been completely filled with other hooks. Yoninah approved the nomination, so it needs to be someone else to move it to Prep. It was intended to be a special occasion lead hook. Of course, there is no guarantee on a lead, but the hook doesn't really make much sense without the image. And the Prince of Wales hook that is there now, is not date specific. — Maile (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW. Editathon at the Hawaii Library Association Conference is also being conducted on November 17. — Maile (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset or Gerda Arendt, the lead hook in Prep 1 is now available. Would one of you be available to promote this nomination to that lead hook for me? — Maile (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, Maile, I don't have the time needed to properly check a nomination prior to promotion to prep. Perhaps Cwmhiraeth might be able to in a few hours? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No queue loaded

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.

---

Less than 16 hours to go before it goes to the main page, and there's no queue. Tick tock! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Try checking Prep 2 while you wait. :-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No thanks, better things to do to check "work in progress Phase I", and I'd suggest you leave them well alone with your recent track record!! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Queues have been moved, so this has been resolved. TRM, please calm down; instead of talking about DYK users' "track record", just wait and leave neutrally worded messages here or at WP:ERRORS. Someone will see them at some point, and ranting won't make a difference compared to a kind request. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm, thanks. I think it's you who needs to chill out. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You know, this situation is getting ridiculous. The filled prep sets sit for days awaiting any and all who wish to comment on hook accuracy and also fix the errors. The minute the preps are loaded into a queue where only administrators can touch them, TRM comes out with guns blazing. If TRM is unwilling to make changes himself, preferring to rally administrators into action, I for one would like to receive rights to edit the queue, too. Yoninah (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No, preps are changed at the last minute all the time. Just see today's set for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems like a way to show that he has "superiority". SL93 (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Please spend some time reading why I don't get involved at ERRORS and this project specifically. Blame your DYK admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right. Actually, I am so invested in the project that I watch his so-called ERRORS2 page in addition to ERRORS and WT:DYK, and his nitpicking is making me very nervous. I spend hours reviewing and rejecting hooks in order to build a proper prep set, but TRM manages to find fault nevertheless. He goes way beyond checking the standard DYK requirement of verifiable hook facts, pointing out MOS errors like having a numeral and a spelled-out number in the hook. A lot of his complaints about hook interest are simply one man's opinion. I think it's time for me to take a break from building sets and go back to article creation. Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You should watch WP:TRM if you care about the main page, there's no shame in that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, like what has been repeated here many times, a lot of the errors he complains about are easily resolvable not just while in prep but during the nomination page itself. If he cares so much about errors like what he keeps saying, it would probably be much faster and much more productive to fix them himself. And indeed, he actually does fix errors himself quite often (as I have personally observed), so I don't really see why he can't do it more and seems to take issue when requested to do so. TRM, please, for the good of DYK, please participate in the prep building and promotion process yourself, instead of just complaining. It wastes everyone's time and leads to conflict, tension, and bureaucracy. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't care about DYK. I just care about the main page. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking of nominating both WP:TRM and WP:ERRORS2 (as in the redirects, not the page itself) for deletion as their existence gives the impression that said page is an official part of DYK, when in fact it's mainly the activities of one user, thus leading to possible confusion. Thoughts? The page itself might need a wider discussion, perhaps in the village pump or some other non-DYK venue, but that will be a discussion for another time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

We've been through this already. And there are several issues in the queue to be dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. If you don't like what I do, ignore ERRORS2, and ignore my requests here (which are, after all, just like the 'bot requests, only a bit earlier). Then you don't have to get all worked up about it all. Easy, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If the existing process was working, there would be no need for TRM to do this. But it seems that these hooks get passed along with no one paying ANY attention to them. A previous poster here even stated that "He goes way beyond checking the standard DYK requirement of verifiable hook facts, pointing out MOS errors like having a numeral and a spelled-out number in the hook." as if having a hook that follows MOS is not somethng to be desired. Really? Do y'all REALLY not care what kind of crappy writing gets posted? --Khajidha (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

We do care a lot about errors and the like. There just has to be a better way to do this (i.e. raising problems, preferably in a neutrally-worded or positive manner, as opposed to merely complaining and criticizing users). With that said, I do agree that more effort needs to be done to ensure errors don't make it to the main page. It's that the environment that exists now has become toxic or at the very least unfriendly, which can scare away both new and experienced contributors. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your DYK admins are to blame. I have my own user space where I record the huge number of issues this project (and others) create in the belief they are ready for the main page. Other people volunteer to fix them. There's no obligation either way. Fix the cause, not the symptoms. And thanks for the ANI, as well as all the errors we have to put with from DYK, you've created another tragic waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that the "toxic" environment was created here and at the MP errors report with people refusing to acknowledge and correct the errors pointed out. That state of affairs led to TRM's page being created. --Khajidha (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Do not be misled by TRM's spurious explanation of why he waits to find errors until the hooks are in the queue. It is really because of his conflict of interest; he has to delay because anything found and dealt with in prep would not appear in his marvellous statistics! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, are you accusing me of lying? I really hope not, that's not a good look. I delay until items are in the queue because I was driven away by your DYK admins, and because so much of what goes on here is in flux until it's locked into a queue. How many times have I told you? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The obvious solution would be to make The Rambling Man an administrator again so he can edit the queue himself and people don't need to concern themselves with reading his reports. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it seems Cwmhiraeth is accusing me of lying. My description is not based on anything TRM has said here, but on the observations I made to how people reacted to his reports here and at the MP BEFORE he started his own list. Numerous problems were reported and ignored even when several others agreed with him. --Khajidha (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth can you clarify who you are making personal attacks against please? Is it both me and Khajidha, just me, or just Khajidha? Because it has to be one of those, and we'll need to look into how to resolve this once you've clarified your statement. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are so many of y'all upset? Several of you admit that the errors TRM finds are errors and say that they could have been fixed at some earlier point, BUT none of you (nor anyone else who supposedly looked over those hooks) found them, much less fixed them. I would think you would be GLAD that somebody, somewhere, at some time notices these things and would just FIX them. If the DYK process actually worked there would be nothing for TRM to find. My personal view is that you are all too focused on getting stuff onto the Main Page. The process needs to change to be more along the lines of testing each hook for all reasons it SHOULD NOT be on the Main Page. The default assumption should be "do not post", not "post just any old damn thing". --Khajidha (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Khajidha. Another point which is conveniently overlooked by those here, and those accusing me of being a liar is that I review the other sections of the main page at the same time. OTD has a similar error rate, and although run by just a single editor, it is flawless in its ability to accept the constructive criticism and be fixed, to benefit our readers. This "project" is all about ownership and possessiveness and that's why everyone gets so ass-hurt when I make any reports. It's very instructive, and a great example of what Wikipedia is _not_ about. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

TRM, could it be that the single editor over at OTD is able to fix all your corrections because they're an administrator and can edit the section after it's been page-protected? I have no problem with you pointing out corrections, I'm just wondering why you do it at a time that only administrators can implement your fixes. And it's very disheartening to hear you and the administrators saying repeatedly that you don't care about DYK, just how it looks on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Khajidha: I also appreciate your point, and I wish that DYK would be a lot more strict about promoting uninteresting hooks for poorly written articles. The fact is that once someone nominates an article, the editors will bend over backwards to push it through, even adopting it after the nominator has disappeared. Right now we are being deluged with articles written by students in college courses, many of which are quickly tagged for notability, insufficient sourcing, etc. But if they're nominated for DYK, they'll stay here for weeks until they somehow straggle through. An instant pass/fail mark would be ideal. Yoninah (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I similarly find the double-standard interesting. OTD was not updated until two hours before midnight, and five errors (in last year's entries) identified by TRM were still outstanding at the time. Howcheng's update (at 22:08) removed three of those errors, but added two more (as identified by TRM). So where is the comment at WT:OTD by TRM berating that project for failing to update on time, so as to allow him to scan for errors before it goes live on the Main Page? It doesn't seem to exist. Only the DYK project seems to be treated this way. Modulus12 (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand how each process is governed and delivered to the main page. If you did, then you wouldn't have needed to make any such comment. If you need help with this, perhaps ask around. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, is this conversation still going on? For my part, if I'm being included in "the administrators" mentioned by Yoninah above, it's certainly not that I don't care about DYK. I think it's a very valuable thing - most particularly for new users who get the chance to showcase their material on the main page very early on, but also for the oldies like me... I like to put a hook through here every now and again, and I was very glad to help out on Saturday night with getting the last minute changes in for the WW1 anniversary set. Time is limited though, and sadly I don't have enough of it to devote to being a full time DYKer. I imagine it's the same for TRM. We therefore have to see where we can add value with the time we have where it has the most impact, and logically that is towards the end of the process when the hooks are finalised and errors are on the verge of going live. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Queue 2

For the Barbara P. McCarthy hook in queue 2, is it possible to add a wikilink somehow to the German Wikipedia page within the hook somehow? I just noticed that TRM's error page stated that Rudolf Helm is a non-notable person, which is certainly not true. Not having a Wikipedia article doesn't automatically equal non-notable. SL93 (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No, that's shorthand for "English Wikipedia doesn't currently recognise him as notable enough for an article". Could someone also fix the QPQ failure too? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that. You have been participating on Wikipedia this long and you don't realize that the English Wikipedia is still growing? How strange. SL93 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, since when do you read what I wrote and then tell me what I mean? Get a grip. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say what you mean. I just said that your shorthand response isn't true. SL93 (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Until an article is created. Now stop trying to stir up issues. It's a shame this issue wasn't resolved when the item was in the prep sets, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It is more along the lines of that the English Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article, but the topic is notable. SL93 (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

And how do our readers know that? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Right now the only option short of an admin removing it from the queue is to link to maybe a translated version of the German article. I can find sources, but that doesn't help if I don't trust myself with writing about the subject. I'm just trying to do a second best option if it's not removed from the queue. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, that's clear, but why didn't this get picked up during the normal review process when it could have been dealt with accordingly? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I admit that was partially my mistake. I haven't updated a prep in a long time and I fucked up that part of the prep area. I will say though that the prep was changed multiple times since then and an admin promoted it to the queue. I would personally like it removed from the queue, but I don't have that power. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so the preps are always mangled before the get to the queue? Hmmm..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say so, even when the "experienced" ones do it. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So why would I look at a set until it's stop being mangled? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe to make it less of a mess, but no one really has to do anything. I do feel bad for my "superiority" comment. I edit Wikipedia to help spread knowledge, but it's more of a hobby than that so I really shouldn't have gotten all pissy. I personally don't care for some of how you phrase things, but whatever, I've seen worse from admins. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I have maybe an hour or so per day for Wikipedia, and all I really care about is creating good content, reviewing FLs and GANs, and ensuring what goes to the main page is in order. That includes DYK amongst others. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply only to the first question: I had a similar comment recently (not notable film), and simply created the article for the film, also a translation from the German Wikipedia. Doesn't have to be long, just well sourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well indeed, it needs to meet WP:N but in most cases that's not hard. The point is to think of the reader's interpretation of our linking. e.g. "Oh, not linked? Can't be that important..." They, of course, aren't expected to understand anything about nomination templates, overlinking, driving clicks to increase pageviews etc... Nor should they. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I gave advice to SL93. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I will start something before the queue goes on the main page, but I'm hoping that an admin can link it when it's in article space. I will also work on the bare URLs. SL93 (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The stub article is at Rudolf Helm. It might need a copy edit, but it's there. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is interesting. The three bare URLs were not references, but rather reviews of the posted work. I just removed them until someone decides to start a reception section. SL93 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I looked and edited a bit. It's not stub, and if you want and expand just a bit, he could be a DYK on his birthday, 29 November. Two things you should do next time, immediately after any translation: connect to the article which you translated on Wikidata, and make a note that it's translated on the article talk. I did it for this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Vote: Encouraging oversight of preps - Support or Oppose

The problem; there is too little oversight in the prep area.

Analysis; the prep area isn't fully used to further question hooks. Users are reluctant to pull a hook from a prep because they have been formally 'promoted' with a box around the text confirming this status.

The solution; 1) end 'promotion' and instead add a "to prep checking note" with the template box left open 2) hooks are loaded with and must be given a or by a different user. If the is given the user must return to the template giving a reason and the hook is pulled for further discussion. Szzuk (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The solution is not more rules and bureaucracy. No one looks at the preps because they need to learn nearly a hundred different rules spread across multiple pages. I'm also incredibly suspicious that the way to bring about more discussion on a hook is to move it back to a page watched at best by 3 people (the nom, the reviewer, and the promoter). This is of course a wiki, and the idea that we need to add more rules to an already bloated process, shuffle things around to less visible places, and hope that someone else will fix the problem is antithetical to the idea that anyone can edit anything. I worry this will only encourage the perception of ownership of hooks and articles; if you see a problem in a prep WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. That's how a wiki works. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

Hi all - my hook The Bar-Steward Sons of Val Doonican is currently in Prep 1, which doesn't have a picture hook - either image from that article (the second one is quite funny) would be fine to switch it to the lead hook if you like. Obviously I won't do that myself. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that spot is being saved for a special occasion hook that needs to go up on November 17; the set had apparently been constructed without checking the special occasions section, and the former lead hook moved out to make room for the overlooked request. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah right, no problem then :) Black Kite (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3: uncertainty presented as fact

• ... that the first official baseball game in Germany took place under the Nazi regime at the 1936 Summer Olympics, with the largest attendance in history for any baseball game?

Template:Did you know nominations/Baseball in Germany @Germanboi87, Narutolovehinata5, and Cwmhiraeth:

Hook fact is sourced, but without the certainty displayed in our article and hook. "Although estimates have varied, a crowd of as many as 125,000 were on hand. That number would make the attendance the largest ever for a baseball game."[7] The estimates of the number of spectators range from 90,000 to 125,000[8][9][10][11], and while the latter would indeed make it the largest crowd, the former would not be the largest crowd ever.[12]. Fram (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have two suggestions here: One would be to change "with the largest..." to "which may have had the largest...", the other suggestion would be to simply drop the attendance part since personally I think the fact that baseball was first played in Germany during the Nazi era is itself interesting. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. I would like to use @Narutolovehinata5:'s second suggestion. I would just remove the last part about the attendance, but honestly I don't know how to do that. I would appreciate it if someone could please show me how. Thank you again! @Dr Aaij, Fram, and Cwmhiraeth: Germanboi87 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The "fact" as presented in the article will also need to be modified to suitably reflect this change. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Rephrased in the article. Germanboi87, it seems to me that Chetwynd means that IF it was 125,000, THAT would have been the largest audience to date. (In other words, Chetwynd may have known of a game with attendance of 100,000 or whatever.) I support Narutolovehinata5's suggestion to tweak the hook, "which may have had the largest...". Fram, User:Cwmhiraeth, does that work for you, and can you tweak accordingly? Thank you all, you too TRM, Dr Aaij (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hook pulled from Queue4, has most basic information wrong

• ... that lifeforms that dominated Earth between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago still exist at Laguna Socompa in Argentina?

Template:Did you know nominations/Laguna Socompa @Jo-Jo Eumerus, SkyGazer 512, and Yoninah:

Really??? Stromatolites are not lifeforms! Stromatolites are rocks. Hook pulled, article needs a rewrite to get this right and a thorough check for other similar gaffes. We really can't afford to put such basic errors on the main page if we have any hopes of being taken serious. Fram (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Fram, this is clearly debatable rather than a "basic error" as you seem to illustrate. "Living stromatolites have a community of a bacteria living in a thin film on the upper surface". A calcareous mound built up of layers of lime-secreting cyanobacteria and trapped sediment, found in Precambrian rocks as the earliest known fossils, and still being formed in lagoons in Australasia.. Can "rocks" be described as "living"? Or is fossil = rock? Jo-Jo Eumerus can provide more insight since I have no knowledge in this topic area; but since anything that ends with -lite should be "a combining form used in the names of minerals or fossils", my instinct is that stromatolites is better described as fossil, but certainly not "rock" based on the sources. You need to create a discussion first in this kind of cases where there is a slight possibility that you may not be 100% correct. Alex Shih (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

References

You may describe it as living rock but that is a misnomer. The rock is not a lifeform and forms not unlike a coral as a rock structure. They still exist in Australia and other places as well. I don't understand why only Argentina is mentioned. Consider the following — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• FRAYAE1 ... that Stromatolites which dominated Earth between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago are still being formed in marine lagoons and hypersaline lakes such as Laguna Socompa?
  • Stromatolites didn't dominate Earth, prokaryotes did, and they created stromatolites. Fram (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Fossils aren't living either. Claiming that fossils "still exist" at lake X would be a bit strange as a DYK hook anyway. Stromatolites are created by living things, and while most stromatolites are no longer being actively formed, some are. But that doesn't mean that a stromatolite is a life form. They are "laminated benthic microbial deposits"[13]. And no, I don't need to create anything, no idea where you get that idea. A hook that isn't undeniably true shouldn't be on the main page. The hook and article aren't correct, no decent scientific work will support lead claims like " stromatoliths were the dominant lifeforms on Earth recorded between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago" Prokaryotes were the lifeform, and they created stromatolites. We wouldn't claim that "oil" was a lifeform either (at least I hope no one here would claim this). Fram (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The original hook was plain wrong. Of course this "dominated Earth" part is needed for the hook to be interesting. And there is limited space for a detailed explanation. And I don't know as much about this as I would like. Perhaps. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• FRAYAE2 ... that Prokaryotes which dominated Earth between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago are still forming Stromatolites at Laguna Socompa?
• Sigh. It looks like I mentally confused "stromatolites" with "organisms which build stromatolites". I've rectified this in the article along with another issue. Perhaps this is a better hook as FRAYAE2 generalizes to "prokaryotes were the dominant lifeform": Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• JOJO3 ... that biological structures growing in Laguna Socompa today were the dominant expression of life between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago?

Fram pulled a hook but didn't replace it with another from the preps. Are we now going with 7 hooks per set? Yoninah (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It depends if Fram thinks any of the apparently better hooks put forward are good enough, otherwise it can't be used as the original hook was inaccurate. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The article (and afterwards the hook) needs a thorough check from someone more knowledgeable in the topics it addresses (things like paleobiology). A lot of the claims in it need correction or clarification (many of the claims may perhaps be true for still growing stromatholites, with living bacteria: but not for stromatolites in general), and looking a bit further, it seems much of the article is plagued with the same kind of errors out of carelessness (e.g. the surface area is 2 square kilometre, not 0.2 square kilometre). Rushing this through now is not a good idea, instead people should take the time to get the article and hook right.

I prefer a set with 7 correct hooks over a set with 8 hooks with a "spot the error" game attached to it. In general, I don't really care how many hooks are put on the main page (if any), quantity is a lot less important than quality. Fram (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(I've remedied the ha-km2 unit error. Not sure what the issue with "stromatoliths" is; our article on them does specify "fossil stromatoliths" when discussing no-longer alive ones) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That said, I've decided to reopen the nomination with a new hook proposal. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3: Fried chicken

• ... that one of Lee Brian Schrager's books "celebrates" more than 50 recipes for fried chicken?

@Fabdoull: @Cwmhiraeth:

The hook fact is not in the article, and why is "celebrates" in quotes? Yoninah (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I added several "citation needed" tags to the article. Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not all fun, being a chicken.... Chickens are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The hook fact I think is in the Books section, the book titled "Fried & True: More than 50 Recipes for America's Best Fried Chicken and Sides". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Sides are not chickens! That's preposterous.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC) p.s. but it does have a Foreword by Whoopi Goldberg.

@Narutolovehinata5: where do you see the word celebrates? Or the word celebrates in quotes? Yoninah (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm alone on this, but it also could come across as just promotion for the author's books. SL93 (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

At the very best, this should be "...that one of Lee Brian Schrager's books contains more than 50 recipes for fried chicken?" and if it doesn't "contain" 50 recipes, this needs to be pulled and re-opened so a non-advert hook can be selected and suitably promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It does at least contain 50 recipes. That hook works. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Are all 50 recipes for fried chicken? The title suggests that some of the recipes are for other dishes. --Khajidha (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I know that what is interesting is subjective, but I fail to see how it would be interesting even if the hook was true. There are so many cookbooks with a ton of recipes, including for fried chicken. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I checked and not all the recipes are for fried chicken. There are 50 recipes related to fried chicken, only some of which are recipes for frying chicken as others are for side dishes. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to find something interesting in the article. I couldn't. Bland and failable. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No relation to Rosemary, then? "His career as a master event planner blossomed when he opened Torpedo, a gay bar in South Beach in 1987. He gave the people what they wanted, and more." ... well more chicken I guess, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Returned hook to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• ... that Lee Brian Schrager, founder of the South Beach Wine and Food Festival founded a gay bar called Torpedo in 1987? nytimes. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well there's no need for "formerly" but this could be misconstrued as a little seedy. I mean, I love it, but others may not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I changed it, dropped the "formerly" and added the date. What do you think? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, those chicken torpedos... just gotta love 'em. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC) I find DYK is such a great unifying force, don't you?

I own very few vinyl singles, but that is one. The B-side is worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Requiem

This concerns Template:Did you know nominations/Requiem (Saint-Saëns) and its promotion to Prep 2, quirky. Problem: ALT2 which was promoted, is not by me, but was inserted as if it was by the reviewer, and then approved by the reviewer. - We can do several things:

• Reopen (and I will strike ALT2). Shorter:
• Use the original or ALT1 in prep, but please not in the quirky slot.

Sorry about the inconvenience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I already moved it out of the quirky slot, as it's not quirky. Should I go ahead and replace with original or ALT1? Yoninah (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Reading the nomination, the other hooks are far less hooky than the one that was promoted. I could just IAR here and leave it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It reads as if he did it only because of the money, and I hate that. This is about death, and perhaps we could get more serious in such a case than "hooky"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll substitute ALT0. Yoninah (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Load more queues

There is a lot of stress on this page stemming from the fact that once something goes in the queue it will be on the main page within a few hours. There is often nothing queued for the main page at all until the last minute. There needs to be a change that would take the pressure off, and allow everything to be perfected days in advance rather than hours or minutes before a deadline.

I propose that the queue is kept full at all times so that any point there are a minimum of 5 queues loaded. Administrators would be notified of a backlog if only 3 queues are loaded. This means that at maximum backlog a queued set would be in the queue for at least 3 days, with the aim for a set to be queued for 5 days.

The prep area would be doubled in size to allow more preps to be worked on at once, making it easier to find a prep which is ready to go on the queue. There will be no obligation to use the entire expanded prep area. It is possible that a larger prep area would speed up the clearance of reviewed hooks from the nominations area and make it easier for people to check hooks before they go to the queue as it would be easier to store ready sets in the prep area while still working on other sets.

I will put this to an RfC, I am first interested in what people here think. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot to unpack here. When there were more administrators working at DYK, it was fine to have more queues loaded, and it was a common practice whenever there was a backlog for approved hooks. But as the number of these administrators decreased (rather drastically), having more queues loaded did not make sense anymore as the three most active DYK regulars and many others here are not admins. Because technically anyone can edit prep sets and very few admins patrol the queue area, the logic is that the longer a set stays in the prep area, the more eyes and tweaking it can receive, which is the same "perfected days in advance" idea. But the reality is that not so many people other than these regulars look at prep sets as well. In a perfect world, the DYK process would need to be simplified back to something closer to TFA and ITN (to be featured on mobile version as well), as it has grown way too complicated with everything spread across many different pages, but with very limited exposure and difficult to access prior to hitting the Main Page. In a nutshell, what you are proposing has always been done on occasion, but it doesn't really solve anything. If you are interested to organise the thoughts into RfC, I would be glad to expand some of my thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: My second idea was to have a intermediary queue for completed preps. This would be an additional holding area between the unprotected prep area and the fully protected queue. It would be extended confirmed protected to stop newbies accidentally wrecking the sets, I initially considered template protection but that appears unnecessary.

The logic behind this is that the prep area is for preparing a set. Storing completed sets in the prep area does not work well. People that check the completed sets refuse to work in an area where everything is in flux. There is not enough room to work on preparing sets and to have completed sets ready for the Main Page.

There is some merit to doing both, since always having a spare queue does take the pressure off, and having an argument about a hook while it is on the Main Page is not a good idea. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

People that check the completed sets refuse to work in an area where everything is in flux. No, I think that's true of only one person. Once a prep set has had all of its slots filled and the initial flurry of edits is done, it's not in "flux" at all. The top one or two (or three) prep sets are typically very stable, having only minor tweaks made. For example, Prep 5 was completed on Nov. 8 and then sat for six days with only three minor edits in that time. Prep 6 was filled on Nov. 12 and has gone almost three days with just minor tweaks, and should be moved to a queue any moment now. There's actually five complete prep sets right now that can be copy-edited and verified by anyone interested, and that effort certainly isn't going to be negated by future "flux." Modulus12 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is. We have too many "tinkerers" here who are continually modifying things until they get protected in a queue. Please, also, stop talking about me, it's becoming a little concerning. You should know by now that all the sniping will make no difference to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing marking a prep as completed. There may be five completed sets, and correspondingly no space to work on any others, but this fact is invisible to everyone except the people that just built the sets. I am suggesting that the prep area is made larger and split in two so there is a distinction between preps being worked on and finished preps. Interested editors, including but not only The Rambling Man, could then see which sets are coming up and check them before they go on the Main Page.

To be clear, it those preps were finished they could by current rules all be in the queue already. As it is we have a dozen editors fretting about a hook that arguably should never have got onto the Main Page while it is there on the mainpage, and without a backup set to replace it with are having to rewrite it in situ while adding new errors. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy between DYK talkpage date and Recent additions date

Just noticed that checking the talk page of any DYK at Wikipedia:Recent additions updated by DYKUpdateBot or manually gives the DYK date one day earlier than what's at Recent additions. Maybe it's meant that because they are "promoted" at 00:00 they should be the earlier day's nominations. But they are on the next day's set at Recent additions and this does not make sense because the article talk pages give the links like this "Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/November#12 November 2018" - meaning you're not directed to the right day. --Pudeo (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I have never really thought about it, perhaps because my mindset is (if I was doing manual update) that I would put up the "current set" for 14 November (today), and then move the previous set to recent additions as "the set that was archived on 14 November". Personally I don't think this is much of an issue; pinging Shubinator to see if it's something that can or should be adjusted. Alex Shih (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't like it but is has been like that as far I as remember, which is when we changed 4 times a day, which made it "wrong" in only a quarter of cases. It's now "wrong" every day, and I think we have worse problems on Wikipedia. But perhaps we could program the routine giving credit to add a day, because it's misleading? (As long as it's 24 hours, or when the time is 00:00)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah well, in that case it doesn't probably matter since at some point we might move away from 1 set per day anyway. --Pudeo (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2: National Memory Institute

• ... that Peter Bielik was nominated for director of the National Memory Institute, despite having blamed Jewish Holocaust survivors for the 1945 Topoľčany pogrom?

@Catrìona:

The page National Memory Institute (Slovakia) is tagged for lack of sourcing. Are you able to add a cite or two to that article so we can link it from the main page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I've added cites for all information, removed copyvio text, and flagged for revision deletion at WP:copyright problems. It's still a stub though. Catrìona (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5

Casliber Moonraker Cwmhiraeth A citation is needed after the last sentence in the taxonomy section of Hakea corymbosa. The fact might be cited in the 7th reference, but it is an offline source. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Lady Angela Forbes

Need to pull DYK on current home page

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.

---

The first hood says: that the poet Edith Sitwell described Lady Angela Forbes (pictured) as "an elderly gorilla affected with sex appeal"? -- really?? we featuring a man insulting a woman on the front page?? Heard of #MeToo?? There was really nothing else that could have been put in the hook? Like her helping wounded soldiers? WTF??

I am so appalled, I would pull it myself, but it has a photo and I would break all the queues and rules doing so. Can anyone? Renata (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It seems weird to me that the hook was chosen. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"A man insulting a woman on the front page" - ? Edith Sitwell is a woman. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

True, but I guess I don't get why someone's insult of the article's subject was chosen. Forbes has a great history behind her, but maybe I'm just in the wrong. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, still does not change the fact that it's insulting in the sexual way. Renata (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yell at me if I broke something, but I changed it myself to that the British socialite Lady Angela Forbes (pictured) organized soldiers' canteens in France during World War I?. Pinging: Moonraker, Caknuck, Yoninah who were involved in the DYK process. Renata (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Revert to original The hook was the suggestion of the editor who went to the trouble of creating this article and we should defer to the considered judgement of this contributor and the various reviewers, especially as the complainant didn't get the basic facts right and their new hook is comparatively dull. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored and the original hook seems reasonably jocular. Edith Sitwell was a famous character and we should also respect her legacy. Renata should please revert their improper use of admin privilege to edit through protection as they are involved. Andrew D. (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Andrew D.: I am not going to revert to an absolutely nasty hook that was there for no good reason. I am not arguing that the sentence should be removed from the article (thus censoring WP) - it is sourced & put in context, but featuring it on the main page where there is no context? I don't exactly agree on the "dullness" comment (I think the hook is relevant given the 100th anniversary of WWI), but I am not going to argue over it. On WP author's don't get special privileges. But do as you will, I am stepping aside. Renata (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I am not able to revert Renata's action which was done using admin privilege to edit through protection. WP:PROTECT states "Administrators ... must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally." Andrew D. (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This cross-post shouldn't exist. The notice at the top of this page clearly says discussion should take place at WP:ERRORS for content currently on the Main Page. Modulus12 (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with what the hook was, but I don't agree with the change happening without any discussion. It sets a bad precedent. SL93 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A very bad administrative action indeed. Per Andrew D, this is abuse of tools to further a personal preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Plus, if someone's going to modify the hook post-posting, at least do it properly. "ORGANISED" is BritEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reverted. Original hook wasn't wrong, as a bonus the original objection was unfounded, change was imposing personal preference (with the added bonus of editing through protection to impose this). Correcting hooks is a valid use of editing through protection (even without discussion here or at WT:DYK), but no correction was made here. If there is consensus for a change, feel free to implement it of course. Fram (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Discussion continued

See further discussion (now removed) here. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived early this morning; here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through October 29. Right now we have a total of 383 nominations, of which 220 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three that remain from August and September.

Over two months old:

• August 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Seagull (gamer)

Over one month old:

• September 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Ignaz Kirchner
• September 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Ecclesia Athletic Association
• October 2: Template:Did you know nominations/EXAI
• October 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Memoriale della Shoah
• October 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Shahdiz
• October 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Sheng Zhongguo
• October 7: Template:Did you know nominations/John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter
• October 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Karel František Koch
• October 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Hellinger
• October 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Edgecliff (Winnetka, Illinois)
• October 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Tribulation 99: Alien Anomalies Under America (three articles)
• October 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Pachara Chirathivat
• October 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Saphir-class submarine (1928)
• October 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Wolfgang Rennert
• October 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Miluj blížneho svojho
• October 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Fernando Albán Salazar
• October 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India
• October 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Theresienstadt (1944 film)

Other old nominations:

• October 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Rhythm Inside (Loïc Nottet song)
• October 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Rue du Tapis-Vert
• October 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Ethnographic group
• October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Statcheck
• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Juliana (Agra)
• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Ma'adin Ijafen
• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/National Police Memorial (India)
• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Tuttle
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Li Lianda
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer Foerster
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/A Scary Time (for Boys)
• October 25: Template:Did you know nominations/1994 Gambian coup d'état
• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Gert Westphal
• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Gilley
• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Vainisi
• October 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Rosalinda González Valencia
• October 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Temulji Bhicaji Nariman
• October 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Bishop John Carroll (statue)

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) 22:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)