Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 139) (bot
DYK is almost late
Line 296: Line 296:
::It would be safer to change it to "more than twenty years". [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 09:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
::It would be safer to change it to "more than twenty years". [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 09:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
:::I had been going by the source which rounded down to two decades, but yes, 24 years would be more precise. I see Cwmhiraeth has changed it to "more than twenty years" which I think is fine. [[User:97198|97198]] ([[User talk:97198|talk]]) 12:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
:::I had been going by the source which rounded down to two decades, but yes, 24 years would be more precise. I see Cwmhiraeth has changed it to "more than twenty years" which I think is fine. [[User:97198|97198]] ([[User talk:97198|talk]]) 12:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

== DYK is almost overdue ==
<!-- 2017-05-09T04:31:00Z -->
In less than two hours [[Template:Did you know|Did you know]] will need to be updated, however the '''[[Template:Did you know/Queue/6|next queue]]''' either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
# Check the '''[[Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6|prep areas]]'''; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the '''[[Template talk:Did you know|suggestions page]]''' and add them and the credits as required.
# Once completed edit '''[[Template:Did you know/Queue/6|queue #6]]''' and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
# Add <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:DYKbotdo|DYKbotdo]]<nowiki>|~~~}}</nowiki> to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template.
Thanks and have a good day, [[User:DYKUpdateBot|DYKUpdateBot]] ([[User talk:DYKUpdateBot|talk]]) 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:34, 8 May 2017

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

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

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

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

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there haven't been many reviews of nominations on this list, I'm going to add a timestamp to prevent its archiving this evening. I hope there will be more action on these over the next week. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 - stating the bleeding obvious

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

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

That looks valid enough to me; I've certainly seen worse at DYK. It's a little clumsily worded, but I assume that's an artefact of sticking to the precise technical terminology rather than the vernacular—to me it translates as "sometimes applying safety procedures can make the situation more dangerous than if you'd left things well alone". ‑ Iridescent 22:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, perhaps it's because I'm coming at it with some experience in both DYK and hazards. This is just a statement of the obvious, but maybe it's exciting for others. How low we plumb. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What TRM says here may be perfectly valid. The "notability" doesn't seem to be very distinct or particularly "notable"/ interesting? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again. Please stop this stalking, even when you're not making any sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123 Despite the number of people who believe otherwise, "interesting" has never been one of the DYK eligibility criteria. (The first ever DYK set was Did you know that a pencil sharpener "is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil"?", ...that in 1971, Pakistani writer Eqbal Ahmad was indicted on charges of conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger?, ...that jumping plant lice and aphids are considered to be the "primitive" group within the Hemiptera order of true bugs?, ...that the Tokyo Monorail, which travels at speeds of up to 80 kph, was constructed to coincide with the 1964 Summer Olympics?, ...that the Balkan comic opera Ero the Joker was first performed on November 2, 1935?, only one of which could by any possible standard be considered interesting—the meme that there was once a Golden Age when DYK hooks were catchy and exciting, but standards have since lapsed, is a complete myth.) I agree that if we have to have DYK, it's a service to the reader to make the hooks catchy if possible, but the idea that "too boring for the Main Page" is grounds for exclusion has only ever existed in the heads of a couple of vocal individuals. ‑ Iridescent 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shucks yes, I hadn't even thought of that. How well dumb of me. But I think you meant kph, not kph. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A vocal few control the entire DYK process. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There doesn't seem to be any error here but the hook might work better if it were truncated:
ALT2 ... that substitution of a hazardous chemical can backfire?
To avoid "regrettable substitution", we should always consult the author and reviewer. Andrew D. (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to the author here, but it seems from reference sources that the term "regrettable substitution" has a specific technical meaning: "regrettable substitution, in which chemicals with health concerns are replaced by chemicals we know nothing about".[1] It's mentioned in quite a few sources.[2],[3] The point of it clearly is that what TRM calls "hazard B" is not known to be a hazard at the time of its introduction, but is only found to be hazardous later. Given that it appears to be an established technical term, I don't think it would be advisable to change it in a misplaced effort to spice up the hook, which seems perfectly accurate to me. Prioryman (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Honestly, I found the term "regrettable substitution" to be amusingly evocative, and that's why I built the hook around it. And most of the alternate hooks in the articles are even more technical (for example: "... that the substitution of dichloromethane with n-hexane as a brake cleaner was a "regrettable substitution" because the latter was found to be neurotoxic?") In any case, I don't think it's worth holding a hook up over an issue that is not a factual error or a copyvio. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the pain caused by the search for things which are amusing. Perhaps amusement should be banned as a non-encyclopedic activity. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Being amused is already banned, practically. A friend was taken to ANI because he was amused, said "I just have fun", 1 January, not 1 April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the confirmation - I'd suggest we just continue with the original hook since there seems to be little good reason to change it. Prioryman (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ERRORS isn't for hooks that are factually correct so go ahead. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123: TRM may be being brusque, but you are adding absolutely nothing to this conversation. Please cut it out. Vanamonde (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was offering my support to TRM, before he essentially told me to shut up. Iridescent then very cleverly explained why I was wrong. I think a decision has already been made, but I agree with what Prioryman has said. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I asked you to stop following my edits once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Where you go wrong, TRM, is that you use as the yardstick what you find interesting. Personally, I found it interesting enough. Prioryman (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really, I'm a reasonable enough bellwether to determine what would be interesting to a "broad audience" having edited here for over a decade. Although a lot of people dislike me, my style, my comments, I'm certainly operating on more than a 50% success rating for issues raised here and at ERRORS. I'm glad you personally found it interesting enough, I didn't and I don't think others would, which is why I brought it here for discussion. I have no super-vote, no ability to do anything beyond generate debate here, and that's my entitlement as an editor of Wikipedia. If nothing changes after debate, that's fine by me, but people suggesting that "interesting" isn't part of the DYK ruleset, for instance, isn't going to wash. If people don't want "interesting to a broad audience" in there, remove it from the instructions. Anyway, this seems to have concluded, I just wanted to correct the fallacious assertion about "interesting", and that's done (to death) now, so perhaps we won't need to hear people denying its existence in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting this unproductive section. Claiming TRM has no credentials is ludicrous and disruptive. We have better things to argue. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How do you get the feedback from this "broad audience"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, have you created any content in those over 10 years, or just tagged and debated? I'm just wondering since you critique the work of other people a lot. SL93 (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TRM and I are not on good terms right now, but... jesus, this is a really stupid question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. I think it's a perfect question. Someone who has been here for over 10 years and barely (or if at all) created any content is someone who I don't think is the most needed for a critique. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I'm saying anyone claiming he hardly creates any content is an idiot. He's got a contributions tab... maybe click on it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went through it, idiot. How far back must I go? Years? SL93 (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What do you mean by "idiot"? How about checking how many GAs TRM wrote. How does this exchange improve DYK? Last Alf Ramsey, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said idiot merely because I was called an idiot. I was genuinely curious and didn't mean anything bad by it...until I was insulted. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to get the feeling I've misinterpreted you. Based on you indentation, I assumed you're talking about TRM. Are you talking about someone else? If so, I'm sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're very dumb if you don't realize I mean creating and expanding articles. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[4] --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So...mostly redirects and stubs? SL93 (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So... now you're changing the goalposts once you realize you said something dumb? And do GA's count? Or would your criterion suddenly become "so... mostly non-FA's"? Bye bye. Someone sane can hat as desired, I have no idea why I even bothered. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean my original question in a bad way, but you seem to think so since you came in calling me an idiot. I was merely curious since TRM did say once that the didn't have much time for Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck? Perhaps nearly 200 GAs, 16 Featured Articles, 90 Featured Lists, and too many ITN and DYKs that I can care to mention. Is that the kind of information you need SL93? What more? Please, feel free to request additional information. Perhaps you'd like to see the GANs I've reviewed (around 145?) or the Peer Reviews I've conducted? Anything else? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering and I was polite about it until an admin came in and turned it into a long shitfest. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Just a random page with several GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you stated Someone who has been here for over 10 years and barely (or if at all) created any content is someone who I don't think is the most needed for a critique. So get your facts straight. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's my rightful opinion. I was only referring to anyone in general...and I see you're not like that. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a bullshit accusation and you did not refer to anyone in general. At least we know how to treat your edits hereafter. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't state your name in that comment. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't need to, we're not stupid. Your comments are noted, your accusations are noted. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can believe what they want. I can't control that. As long as I know what I meant, I'm fine. SL93 (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 - suicide link

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

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

  • Oh I don't like this either, not at all. Thank you TRM. If I knew how to do it I'd pull it, but I trust that someone who knows what they're doing will do it, at least pending consensus. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely, that needs to be pulled. Roy Shire is dead (he died in 1996) but that is in no way an appropriate hook for the Main Page. Not only that, but the sources "showing" that Shire humiliated him are rubbish, pulled from other sources. There's no reliable sourcing there at all. I am, again, astonished that this made it all the way to a Prep. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) As it's in prep, you can simply remove it Drmies, delete the line. There are other related tasks that the project want to mandate (e.g. you could find the nomination template and "undo" the promotion, you could add it to the [mainly deprecated] "removed" section of the project, etc etc). I've pinged the main individuals, and we have a day or so before this gross nonsense hits the main page, but in short order, just deleting the line from the prep template would be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently it is a special nomination for Anti-Bullying day (May 4) - much as I'm on board with that, we do need actual reliable sources instead of poor links and insinuation. There's enough time for the pinged editors to have a look at it - but it clearly can't go forward as is. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a few Google searches on this subject. The Biographical Dictionary of Professional Wrestling briefly says he committed suicide after losing a match. Only wrestling websites and message boards speak of the "dressing down" he received in front of other wrestlers backstage. The book cited in Further Reading, One of the Boys by Jack Laskin, apparently goes into detail about his death, but I have no access to that book.
In addition to being distasteful to members of the community, I might also say that the connection between his suicide and the "dressing down" is not firmly established, as he left a suicide note (quoted on the Wikipedia page) stating, "I'm tired of the farce of life. I wish to explore the beyond". Maybe he killed himself for another reason. I suggest returning this to the noms page for further work and forgetting about Anti-Bullying Day. I have pinged the page creator, who is an IP, and who has not edited since posting this on April 9. Also pinging @MPJ-DK: our in-house professional wrestling expert. Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. He's a fairly interesting character in wrestling, there's got to be a decent hook there somewhere - just not this. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at my sources and books and stuff and I'm not really seeing anything that correlates the two - yes there was a dressing down, yes there was a suicide based on what I have read, but they stop short of blaming the sucide on Shire, noting that London had been depressed in the weeks leading up to it. I only see message boards and semi-garbage sources (like Online World of Wrestling which is good for results and title history, less so on anything else). It is an extraordinary claim, but I am no finding a source to match it.  MPJ-DK  23:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha TRM--I don't even know how to find the "line" in "prep2". The last time I looked through preps and queues and stuff I got hopelessly lost--but I trust that someone who knows what they're doing has taken care of it? Black Kite? Yoninah? Drmies (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Returning to noms area. Yoninah (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in retrospect, the sourcing was not as good as it should have been here, and so taking it back to prep was the right call. (Redacted) Also Yoninah; when I saw your comment on the nomination, I did assume that you were, in a sense, signing off on it. Was I wrong about this? Vanamonde (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: No. I was trying to do a favor for an IP, and didn't look closely enough at the sourcing of the hook. I'll think twice before being so helpful next time. Yoninah (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: Well, I should have caught it too, so I suppose that's okay...Vanamonde (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Attributing someone's death to a particular individual on the main page is not a good practice, period. It's not neutral. ~ Rob13Talk 04:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seriously expect an answer to the recent events question, I assume. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
YGBSM!. This is a BLP issue, and in bad taste to boot. Causation is speculative at best. Make it go away. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the speculation out of the article. The hook is back in the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drug lord

Template:Did you know nominations/Antonio Oseguera Cervantes

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

See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 138#Prep 6 - (suspected) drug lord who has been released which was only here around three weeks ago, and to which you contributed. An alternative hook was derived that didn't need to focus on the possibility of him being a "drug lord". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I remember that, which was why I brought the matter up here, hoping that you, or others, would read the article and suggest a suitable hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even something simple like:
... that former leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, Antonio Oseguera Cervantes's nickname is Tony Montana, after the character in Scarface?
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't see mention of "Scarface" in the article, I am not sure he was "the" leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, and does use of the word "former" imply that he is dead? This is a BLP you know, and we have to be careful what we say. (Only kidding!) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should unlink Tony Montana in the article as promoted because it links to Scarface, i.e. makes that leap without referencing. The article explicitly states "former high-ranking leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG)" so "former" yes and "leader" yes. Perhaps you missed those three points in the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't his nickname Tony Montana be a reference to Scarface? Though it doesn't explicitly say this in the source, I think it is a no-brainer that his nickanme is a reference to the fictional character. I can agree with taking of "suspected drug lord" from this and future hooks, but I don't really see the point behind unlinking Tony Montana. I still tried to do some digging and see if there was any reference of Scarface but didn't find anything. BTW, he's "former" because he is not at large anymore. And "the" leader of the CJNG is El Mencho. Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ALT hook suggested by ComputerJA is acceptable and has an inline citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this discussion to the nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 - Clifford Kinvig

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

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

I take the point, it was The Times that made the connection. I think the hook could be more explicit about why it is relevant. I will try to think of an alt. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, at least it did actually get me to learn something today, my knowledge of Vikings is limited to Vikings, and only the first season of that.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alt ... that the family of military historian Clifford Kinvig, whose surname is an anagram of Viking, originated in the Isle of Man where the Vikings had settled in the tenth century? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if it's possible to approve this hook again, but I think this helps clarify TRM's concerns. I wouldn't want this one to go back to the nomination page again unless you guys think it should... Cheers. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone resolve this please, preps are being rapidly promoted to queues right now, with problems, so let's at least fix this one before it has to go to ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manx

The correct adjective pertaining to the Isle of Man is "Manx". He "...came from a Manx family". If he came from an English family, we wouldn't say he "came from an England family". Ewen (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the main page (and ERRORS)

Well, due to the recalcitrance of the project members who could have done something about this, it's now on the main page in its original unhelpful form, including the error. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

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

@Maile66, Casliber, and Mifter:: DYK is almost overdue, please see above. HaEr48 (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prep areas are all empty. I'll try to build a prep, but I've never done that before so if someone could check it out when I'm done.... ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I did that right. It seems right. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to me! My only comment is that you added each nominated hook in two separate edits, one for the hook and one for the credits. It is simpler to edit the whole preparation area page, adding the hook and credits for each nomination in one transaction. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66, Casliber, and Mifter: Nothing in the next queue, I guess another admin intervention is needed? HaEr48 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

  • " Dura-Europos synagogue" or " Dura Europos synagogue"? The article doesn't have the hyphen, the caption for the image doesn't have the hyphen, the hook has the hyphen. Please be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "be a negative look at the police" hardly encyclopedic prose. The article puts it much better: "as a chance to do in the pigs." so let's stick with that rather than make a bowlderized version of what he actually said. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An administrator is needed to take care of these corrections, as the hooks are already in queue. TRM, will you be bold and do it? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, ANYTHING but notify the actual editors of the articles! Actually the articles Dura-Europos synagogue and Dura-Europos do have the hyphen, and the original nom did not. Usage is so inconsistent, also with "-os" and "-as" etc, that there is probably no right answer, but I'll adjust the article to inclde the hyphen. So an admin needs to add to the caption. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, these issues don't really need the nominator's input at all, just edits from someone who knows how to construct error-free and consistent hooks and articles. There is no "expertise" required here, and no-one "owns" these articles. But once again, thanks for you help. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixes made. Yoninah (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

  • Is it " Pickett-Hamilton fort" or " Pickett-Hamilton Fort"? Be consistent. Plus "pop up at any time" isn't directly referenced in the article, moreover it's much more suited for a quirky placement rather than the first hook of the set, given its hilarious nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe not using it as the lead hook means missing out on displaying that awesome gif. HaEr48 (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garza Jr. "first showed his true face on a television dating show?" this reads curiously to me, is it not simply his "real" face? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done He always wore a mask. I changed it to "showed his face for the first time". Yoninah (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "get blown away by the wind" - the article is more encyclopedic, "are carried away by [the] wind". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The preps usually sit for a day or two before being promoted to queue so that all eyes can look at them. In this case, however, Queues 4 and 5 were promoted far before their time. Could an administrator move them back to the prep area so we can take care of these fixes? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Incidentally, I came here with the intention of raising the two issues cited by the Rambling Man. "Fort" and "fort" are used interchangeably, and the "pop up at any time" statement is informally worded and conveys a claim not made in the article (which isn't particularly meaningful, regardless). —David Levy 06:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David Levy. I made a few fixes in the prep set, but more work is needed for the Pickett-Hamilton fort hook and caption. I made it a lowercase "fort" in the article to reflect the fact that it is a type, not a specific installation. However, there's one paragraph that I tagged as needing a citation. Regarding the hook, we could say "could rise/emerge from the ground at any time", but it lacks that hooky quality of "pop up". For the caption, we could say: "A Pickett-Hamilton fort being raised and lowered". Yoninah (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Yoninah. Setting aside the specific wording used, the article appears to contain no mention of temporal flexibility/unpredictability. This information might be accurate, but is it noteworthy and verifiable? —David Levy 15:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coon hunting

The following hook is presently in Prep 1:

  • ... that coon hunting dogs can emit as many as 150 barks per minute?

Nominator: White Arabian Filly — Reviewer: Coin945 — Promoter to prep: ONUnicorn

This hook strikes me as awkwardly worded, with dogs "emitting" barks. How about:

  • ... that coon hunting dogs can bark as many as 150 times per minute?

I know I could just make the change, but I would prefer to seek the views of those involved with the hook and the wider DYK community. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I'm not sure I have ever heard of anyone referring to a dog as emitting a bark, they simply bark. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. The original wording made me chuckle, no disrespect intended. Vanamonde (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see a problem with "emit" when I promoted it, but I also don't see a problem with the proposed change. The article uses "emit" (twice), but the source says the dogs "get up to as high as" 150 barks per minute. To me "emit" has a connotation of being almost involuntary - when one is hurt one might emit a yelp - and I'm not sure if that's what was meant in the article or not. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • opinion: avoid using "emit" and reword as necessarily. Should say something like - Excessive (more than usual) barking to create attention or scare the racoon. This behavior could be partly based on how they are thought to behave. The main contributor has made good editing and only this word requires change. I mainly helped out with the organization of the literature which was requested. The dog becomes sort of "vociferating" in such context. I am not sure how to help further; English is my fourth language.Continentaleurope (talk)
  • "Vociferating" = barking. I'm changing the hook per EdChem's suggestion. Yoninah (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the change as the nominator. I don't know why I used emit in the first place, except that the last time I worded a hook simply somebody changed it to be much more formal. I'm hoping to get 10,000 views from this one; the most I've had before was over 5,000. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw an accepted nomination?

How? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the promoting admin to remove it from prep/queue, or simply re-open the nom template and close it as "withdrawn". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Per Sockpuppets of BlueSalix, it appears Darjeeling Tea and LavaBaron were both socks. I don't think there have been any contributions as LavaBaron lately. But Darjeeling Tea has been active here fairly recently. One is a review at Muscle Dysmorphia (do we need a new full review for that one?) and another is The Old Axolotl. Under non-DYK situations, contributions by blocked socks get deleted from an article. But DYK is always a bit of a special slant on how things are handled. Comments?— Maile (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a site-banned user, all contributions should be undone, deleted or ignored. The nomination contributions should be closed and removed. We don't encourage banned editors by promoting their nominations reviews. I'm surprised the question needed to be asked, especially by an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will extend the courtesy of information to this body of editors anytime I please, which is what this has been. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians by number of DYKs. Also here. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but it's a direct dereliction of your obligations. A site-banned user is a site-banned user, regardless of whether he used to be helpful (or otherwise) at DYK. You are obligated to do the right thing here, it's not about a DYK community consensus to override WP:BAN. Of course, if you'd prefer to centralise this, we can always start a thread at ANI to discuss your approach to site-banned users and your allowance of their edits despite their ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have a nice day. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, I'm not entirely sure why you've brought this up here, given that for both of those nominations, I put in a request for new, full reviews back on April 30 on each of the nomination pages, shortly after the sock's accounts (including Darjeeling Tea). If you disagree (or anyone else does), then please say so. Otherwise, I think it's pretty clear that a completely new review is needed on both of them. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset I don't disagree with anything on those nominations. I just kind of wanted feedback from a knowledgeable veteran here, and I guess that's you. You always seem to see all the aspects of those nominations. If you're fine with them, then there is no problem as far as I'm concerned. — Maile (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, these were two nominations by people who were unlucky enough to have a sock as their reviewer. The thing to do is to proceed as if the sock had never shown up, which simply requires a new, full review. One of the two was approved within the past 24 hours, and the other will eventually get a reviewer. There had been an active nomination by Darjeeling Tea, Template:Did you know nominations/2017 state visit of the United States to the United Kingdom, which I marked for closure on April 30 after the sock block occurred; it was formally rejected by someone else two days later. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the second, at Template:Did you know nominations/Muscle Dysmorphia. The article is in a good shape, though the blocked editor missed that it is too short (because of use of dot points), the over-long hook (which BlueMoonset caught), and the supporting ref for the hook being wrong. It is close, however, despite the number of minor / giving advice issues for the student editor at his or her first DYK. I would welcome someone looking from a MEDRS perspective, though, as I am not a medical person. EdChem (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 - razed

Template:Did you know nominations/Bouxwiller, Bas-Rhin: AHeneen, ONUnicorn, Cwmhiraeth.

Hook reads "... that the residence (pictured) of the Counts of Hanau-Lichtenberg in Bouxwiller was pillaged during the French Revolution and completely razed soon thereafter?" while article's use of "razed" is "The medieval fortified city's two gates were razed in 1830.[4]", somewhat different. And I'm not sure "soon thereafter" easily translates to the 37 years between the pillage and the razing of the gates. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you quoted is talking about the gates of the city, not the chateau. The sentence before that says "The last remnants of the château were gone by the early 19th century." (after having been pillaged during the revolution in 1793.) So: 1. 1793 - chateau is pillaged during the revolution 2. Sometime between 1793 and the early 1800s the chateau is completely destroyed. 3. 1830 the gates of the town are destroyed. The hook does not contradict the article; although the use of the word "razed" in the hook but not the article to describe the chateau is a little inconsistent and should be fixed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the hook in prep to, " ... that the residence (pictured) of the Counts of Hanau-Lichtenberg in Bouxwiller was pillaged during the French Revolution and completely destroyed soon thereafter?" ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The promoted hook was incorrect and improperly phrased, so this is a suitable improvement. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what was incorrect about it. Could you clarify? Raze and destroy are synonyms. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original hook was off the mark on at least two counts, the overall "razing" and the timeframing. We're somewhat closer to reality now, thanks. It's worth checking these things. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As already noted, the quote in the OP refers to the city, not the chateau. The article states: "During the French Revolution, the château was confiscated by the state and was pillaged in November 1793 by revolutionaries. The last remnants of the château were gone by the early 19th century. The medieval fortified city's two gates were razed in 1830." Merriam-Webster gives this definition for raze: "to destroy to the ground : Demolish" and gives the example "raze an old building". Wiktionary is almost identical: "To demolish; to level to the ground." The three sources quoted in the DYK nomination (the same three used in the article to support the statement) support the use of "razed" per the preceding definition:
  • "The château was destroyed in 1794 and razed in 1805." ("razed" being a translation of "rasé" in the French-language source, also quoted in the DYK nom, which is the past tense of the verb "raser", which Wikitionary translates as "to raze (level to the ground)")
  • "And the structure was pillaged and completely destroyed at the beginning of the 19th century."
  • "The château was slowly plundered; it ended by filling the ditches."
Although not mentioned in the DYK nom or used in the article, here is a translation of what the French Wikipedia article has to say on the subject:

The château and its gardens were devastated and plundered in November 1793 by the revolutionaries after the fighting that followed the Austrian invasion. In the wake, the inhabitants of Bouxwiller helped themselves and took home the furniture and statues. Ten years later, in March 1804, the castle and the surrounding buildings, confiscated by the State, were given to the municipality for 6,000 francs "without which this town will no longer be a miserable village after having been for centuries the residence of one of the richest princes of Germany and one of the most flourishing cities of the second order of the former Alsace." ... The municipality did not have the financial resources to maintain the château and tried to find a landlord. In 1808, Bouxwiller offered it to the Alsatian Marshal François Christophe Kellermann, but he refused the gift. A decade later, there was nothing left of this château, not even the foundations, the stones having been reused by the inhabitants of Bouxwiller. Between 1816 and 1837, the only visible traces were the hole formed by the moat in the middle of the market place. This famous Busswiller Loch, object of mockery, was finally completely filled in 1837.

— fr:Bouxwiller (Bas-Rhin)#Les débuts de la municipalité bouxwilleroise
As far as the "razing", the hook was certainly not off the mark. So only "soon thereafter" is really debatable. It is phrased this way because different sources gave different accounts of when the last remnants were gone. In my view, considering the long history of the chateau, a decade can reasonably be considered "soon thereafter". However, it would be fine to just say "in the early 19th century" and thus change the hook to "... that the residence (pictured) of the Counts of Hanau-Lichtenberg in Bouxwiller was pillaged by revolutionaries during the French Revolution and completely razed in the early 19th century ...?". AHeneen (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 - 20 years

Template:Did you know nominations/Yves Bélanger (cinematographer): 97198, Tachs, Yoninah.

Hook reads " that Yves Bélanger had been working as a cinematographer for 20 years when he made his breakthrough with Dallas Buyers Club?", article notes "Bélanger began working as a cinematographer in 1989 ... work on his upcoming film Dallas Buyers Club (2013).", so that's 24 years, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@97198, The Rambling Man, and Yoninah: Checked it, think we have to tweak the hook to read "24 years". --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be safer to change it to "more than twenty years". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had been going by the source which rounded down to two decades, but yes, 24 years would be more precise. I see Cwmhiraeth has changed it to "more than twenty years" which I think is fine. 97198 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=779291507"