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
Line 413: Line 413:
::::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. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 14:58, 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. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 14:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
:::::It seems like a way to show that he has "superiority". [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 15:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
:::::It seems like a way to show that he has "superiority". [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 15:01, 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. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 15:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:13, 11 November 2018

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 processes can be discussed.

Prep 2 image: Can't make out the foreground or the background

T24 (foreground) and Z24 under attack
T24 (foreground) and Z24 under attack

@L293D: I have never seen a more fuzzy and indecipherable lead image as this one between two ships. Can a clearer image be found? Yoninah (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there is problem with the lead image, maybe the hook could be removed from the prep until (or if) a clearer image is found. I was also thinking that maybe it could be moved to prep 1 without the image because only two hooks are in that prep at the moment. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: no, a clearer image of the sinking can not be found. However, I could change the image to File:T 35 as DD 935 in US seas August 1945.jpg and change the (pictured) to (sister ship pictured). Or, alternatively (I would prefer this solution), swap the Albatross hook from prep 6 with the T24 one and promote Albatross with the image instead. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this image is unsatisfactory. As there are a number of nominations about German warships at the moment, we will be spreading out the different hooks over a number of sets. We are only likely to run one in the image slot, and might as well choose the best one for this purpose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swapped the two hooks and promoted T24 to q6 without the image and Albatross to q2 with the image. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't know you weren't allowed to move your own hooks around in prep. I agree that the T24 hook image was bad, but why can't it stay in prep 6? Especially if there are several torpedo boat hooks coming in, we should better start early. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted L293D's own reversion of Yoninah's reversion. L293D, requests can be made here if you see a problem or have a suggestion, but as Yoninah says, you should never do anything directly to your hooks once they have been promoted. I'll leave it to Yoninah to decide what should happen next, and make sure that everything is in a safe state in Preps 6 and 2 after the recent edits. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago; here is an updated list with 36 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through October 17. Right now we have a total of 368 nominations, of which 209 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three that remain from September.

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) 04:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion hook for November 10 (Prep 6)

Prep 6 is currently full, but a special occasion hook approved yesterday would need to be placed there if it is to run on November 10. Can someone please take care of it? I'm afraid I don't have time to do a proper promotion today. (Note: it doesn't have to be lead hook even though it has an image, but it does need to be somewhere in that set.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about a 8 November hook

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @Piotrus: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

RfC re: DYK

Regarding DYK in the {{Article history}} template. Discussion can be found here. Ergo Sum 23:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. I don't know how to improve the quality, but this isn't the way. Szzuk (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Queue6: hook fact not in source

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here ya go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
By the time I'd seen the ping, you've all resolved it. Thanks folks. Zakhx150 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If someone else can review it, I'll promote it. Yoninah (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have promoted Leslie Joy Whitehead to Queue 1 and shuffled Prep 2. Alex Shih (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK National Service of Remembrance

Nota bene* 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We could also swap in Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance. Your choice. Yoninah (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks. I will definitely do this before midnight if nobody else does.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Yoninah: I've added a cite for Armide. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Yoninah: could you please tell me what are the inconsistencies, please? I still have ~20 minutes online. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've got the issues for O'Byrne addressed. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, it would replace poor Herman Pines. Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

National Service of Remembrance

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Yep, I'm on it now. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's there in the Queue. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

No queue loaded

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)[reply]

Try checking Prep 2 while you wait. :-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It seems like a way to show that he has "superiority". SL93 (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=868338144"