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
→‎Admin needed: hil-ar-i-arse
Line 439: Line 439:
:::::And we have a winner! [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 21:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::And we have a winner! [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 21:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::We can't all be [[The Goalkeeper's Fear of the Penalty|Gareth Bale]], can we, dear. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 21:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::We can't all be [[The Goalkeeper's Fear of the Penalty|Gareth Bale]], can we, dear. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 21:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Impressive that you found such an appropriate yet shit article. You must have shares. Usual "belittling" caveat applies, although in your case, I couldn't give one, two or three fucks! Just kidding, obv!!!!!!!!! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


== [[Va tacito e nascosto]] ==
== [[Va tacito e nascosto]] ==

Revision as of 21:46, 15 December 2016

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.

Transclusions on nomination page, suggested solution

background discussion from WT Village Pump (technical)

This problem has existed for a few months on Template talk:Did you know. Once you get down to the newest subsection dates, the templates don't transclude very well. We were told back in September that the problem was that page is exceeding Template limits Post expand include size. At that time, we had a large special occasion holding area for various special events. The holding area has very little in it now, and the number of nominations we have are otherwise a lot less. The problem is worse than ever. Regardless of what is causing this, can it be fixed? As the internet expands, so does the size of everything programmed into it, and DYK won't be the only ones this happens to. How do we fix it for the future? — Maile (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoning Template limits would be a decision that would need to be taken at WMF level, and they're vanishingly unlikely to authorise it since it's not a bug, it's an intentional feature to prevent DDOS attacks. The way around it is to use fewer transclusions; remember that each DYK nomination includes {{DYK conditions}}, {{DYK nompage links}}, {{main page image}}, {{DYKsubpage}} and {{DYKmake}} plus whatever else the reviewing bot adds, so each transcluded nomination counts as six or more transcluded templates. ‑ Iridescent 22:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The standard fix for template size problems is to substitute templates and to remove any nested transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how would DYK go about that? — Maile (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick skim, the {{DYK conditions}} template doesn't appear to have any great use and has three nested templates of its own, so getting rid of that would save four templates-per-nomination immediately (with the current 53 nominations, that's an instant saving of over 200 templates, which will probably solve the problem on its own). Basically, go through the five templates I list above, and anything that's not actually both essential to your process, and essential that it remains unsubstituted, think about whether it would be possible to do without it or enforce substitution of it. You could also probably shave quite a bit off by ruthlessly enforcing a "no untranscluded templates in discussions" rule, and clamping down on anyone who uses {{od}}, {{tq}}, {{done}} etc in discussions. ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither {{DYKmake}} nor {{DYKnom}} should be of concern, since they're commented out. I imagine that increased use of the {{DYK checklist}} for reviews is also contributing to the problem. Does the use of the {{*}} template contribute to the problem or not? It's currently being used by the DYKReviewBot. One template that we absolutely need to retain is the {{DYKsubpage}} template, since it is the final substitution of that template that closes the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every time this happens I hope it will finally be the motivating factor to do the seemingly obvious and move the reviewed/approved nominations to a different page. DYK that nobody can read that thing on a phone? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the answer is yes, templates that are actually transcluded all count, so if there's a bunch of templated bullets then that's definitely contributing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then calling Intelligentsium, to see whether the templated bullets can come out of the reviews done by the DYKReviewBot, and any other avoidable templates. Also pinging John Cline, who created {{DYK conditions}}, to see whether there is some way to get the job done more efficiently templatewise, assuming that the job still needs to be done. I have no idea whether the 2015 conversion of {{NewDYKnomination}} to invoke a Module with the same name rather than do the work in a template would have affected the need for DYK conditions or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you BlueMoonset for your kindness and astute manner; inviting me to join this discussion. I was not aware of it until now, nor did I know anything of the circumstances forbearing it. I am therefore disadvantaged from giving an answer; ore the research I've yet to do.
When I catch up with the topic, however, I am confident that the answers being sought will be found.
If I wasn't so Spock-like, I can imagine myself getting all butt-hurt about not being notified of questions being asked of these templates, perhaps others as well. I was told in the past, things about my style in writing; and before that, of many ill effects that style was cursed to engender. Here, it seems that enduring months of template malfeasance was preferable to enduring discussion where I would invariably be. Being all Spock-like; and all: I feel terrible that this may in fact be. I really do.--John Cline (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have to do something soon. The nominations page is quickly dissolving into nothing but wikilinks with no transclusions. Yes, I know the Prep/Queue page has always been used as the holding area. We cannot control how other people edit nomination templates - i.e. large amounts of text, template comments, additional image suggestions. The way it has always been is not the way that will work for the future.

Below is my suggestion. — Maile (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solution

  • The nomination page stays but only includes those which have received no approval whatsoever.
    • Reviewers who only are only interested in non-problem hooks have less to scroll through to find something of interest.
    • This would make a cleaner page for first-time reviewers who get confused by the glut we now have.
  • The Prep/Queue page stays exactly like it is, nothing changes about how it works.
  • A new subpage is created where any nomination that receives an approval is moved there by a bot (or human).
    • Special occasion holding areas, including April Fools' Day, appears at the bottom of this page. It stays consistently as is, in the fact that hooks are only moved here after approved on the main nominations page.
    • Prep promoters draw from this page.
    • Reviewers who like to check for problem areas on approved nominations look here.
    • Any disputed approval and any post-approval ALT hooks added are worked out on this subpage
    • Any hooks pulled from Prep, Queue, or the main page are put back here.

Please add comments below

Comments

  • Yep, sounds like an excellent idea to me too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot will now used the substed the template {{*}} - it's weird that the page exceeds the transclusion limit so easily though. The previous time involved {{hat}}, {{hab}} which were being used more than once per nomination, and had several transclusions underneath as well, whereas {{*}} seems to be just a Unicode character. However I think it may be a bit of a hassle to move hooks between two pages - if you move them the moment they are seen by a human, you would probably quickly get the same problem on the second page, but moving them back and forth would be a huge hassle. Intelligentsium 00:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you have worked hard on the bot, but we didn't have this problem before it was activated. If the problems with it can't be ironed out soon, I think we are just going to have to retire it. That would surely be a better solution than having two separate nomination pages. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's more trouble, but I think having a place where approved noms are gathered, for further intense scrutiny by the "eagle eyes", will extremely helpful, as well as solving the overflow problem. EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot had been down for a few weeks, and this problem continued even in its absence. — Maile (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and... can we add the provision that nom page stays open until the bot closes it (maybe at the moment the hook moves to the main page, or -- better -- at the moment the hook comes off the main page)? EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And have any dialogue on pulled hooks happen there, so that any nominator, reviewer, or other participant on that nomination would be aware of it as long as they watch-listed the open template. I don't know the mechanics of having a bot close the nomination, but it's worth asking Shubinator if that's possible to do in conjunction with whatever else DYKupdatebot does. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. I'd also like to add a further suggestion that adding the green tick (which is presumably what will trigger the bot moving the nom page to this new "approved area") should always be accompanied by a tentative designation of exactly one of the (possibly several) ALTs as the one to used. Further discussion in the "approved area" might change that, but this way once the nom moves to the "approved area" there's just a single ALT that the "eagle eyes" (our precious editors who focus on quality control) will have to focus on checking. EEng 01:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If closing a nomination just involves subst'ing the DYKsubpage template and marking it as passed (with humans responsible for moving the noms between the various pages, except for queue -> main page), DYKUpdateBot can do this while promoting the set (not while taking it down). As BlueMoonset noted, the bot will not know about comments that should go into the "2" field. With this model, how will folks know which admin promoted the nomination into the queue? Shubinator (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The promoter simply posts on the bottom of the nom page e.g. ALT1 to Prep4 (without image). ~~~~. The bot closes the nom as it swaps the hook set onto Main Page (i.e. at the same time the credit boxes are posted to creator/nominator talk pages) and the 2= could be Swapped onto Main Page 0800 22 Jan 2017 UTC. This way, all concerns prior to the actual main-page appearance can be discussed on the still-open nom page, where it belongs; concerns arising after that time have to go through ERRORS as now.
    I think it would be ideal if, while we're at it, we changed the bot actions of posting credits to editor Talk, and closing the nom pages, to the moment the hook set is swapped off of the main page. Then the nom page really stays open for the entire life of the hook, "cradle to grave". But I recognize this might be more complex to do. EEng 02:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark me as opposing the further suggestion: the reviewer should feel free to check and approve as many interesting hooks as seem appropriate and are properly support in both article and sources, but not all reviewers are the best judges of which is the best, and sometimes the person assembling a prep set will pick one good hook over another good hook because it better balances the prep set. To limit it to exactly one hook of the reviewer's choice also reverses the deference we've given to the nominator regarding proposed hooks.
    As for the promoter, may I suggest that the promoter be required to fill in the 2 field with their promotion message? The bot's closing of the page will cause the time of closure to be added to the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The reviewer can approve as many ALTs as he or she wants, but (my suggestion is) that just one of them will be designated, tentatively, as the one that will appear. Further discussion might change that, selecting a different ALT, but starting at this point there would be only one ALT on the table at a given time for a given nom, so that attention can focus on it for error-checking and so on. To increase quality and reduce errors appearing on Main Page, it's essential that the checking process begin further upstream than it does currently i.e. currently this doesn't start until Prep, and now it can start when the nom is moved to this new "approved area". But it needs to focus on one potential hook at a time; if multiple hooks are in play, the checking just can't be thorough. I don't buy that this constrains prep set assembly enough to outweigh the advantages, and again I say that the designation of a single hook is only tentative, subject to change. EEng 05:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It will make it so much easier to scroll through the set of approved hooks when building prep sets. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is an excellent suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support sounds fine LavaBaron (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, since I have no major objections. I do have a couple of doubts though. First, my understanding of the technicalities is not great, but if this problem is arising from people using too many templates without substituting them, it would seem that this is relatively a small fix: and that unregulated use of templates in the review process is going to create a problem again sooner or later. So, wouldn't it make sense to create some guidelines for folks editing the nomination pages, to help with this? Second, I find that very many of the hooks that need reviewing at any given time, and indeed the ones requiring the most attention, are not "fresh" nominations, but those that have been reviewed already, but require a new reviewer for whatever reason. @Maile66: where would these fit in your scheme? Vanamonde (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanamonde93 Regarding the guidelines, it does begin to be instruction creep. We cannot control what editors really do, no matter how many guidelines we write. As we experience on this talk page, a lot of editors aren't reading the guidelines anyway. So, we can spend a lot of time spinning our wheels and complaining on the talk page about those who do what they want, but we cannot control others. As to your second question, perhaps I wasn't clear. The minute a nomination receives a passing tic, it gets moved to the new page. There it stays, and any further issues or comments happen on that page. That means turn-around ticks on review questions, pulled hooks that were already promoted. Anything. EEng has suggested we keep the template open until when/if the nomination is off the Main page. Keeping it on that page does not close out the nomination, but leaves it there in a way that anyone with a given nom template on their watch-list will be aware it needs attention. New (first time) reviewers will have an easier time with unreviewed templates than figuring out why an already approved nom is in the midst of revision for one thing or another. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mail66 and Gatoclass: I think you're right about the guideline creep, but I didn't necessarily mean another page or another bullet point in the current set. What I mean is that we can do minor things that should still add up to something substantive. For instance, some folks mentioned templates (DYK checklist) that are only used at DYK: we can add a note to the documentation saying that they must be substituted, and also possibly have a bot substitute them every time. We can add to the DYK template edit notice, asking people to minimize their use of templates. And so forth. I imagine that other folks can think of other options. Vanamonde (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per Vanamonde, I think what we need to be doing is working out why this problem is occurring, and take steps to eliminate or minimize it, because it never used to occur even with 350 nominations and now it's occurring with just 150. If the number of nominations builds up again, the problem will recur. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Keeping the nom open up until (and even through) the main page appearance seems reasonable to me, so long as the technical template issues can be addressed. I think it is fine and appropriate for a reviewer to choose a hook, but also to leave the choice open to the promoter, but I would like to see some reasoning posted. I've had a few cases where I've wondered why a hook was chosen (or not chosen), which I find frustrating and yet asking the promoter every time could get awfully intrusive given the relatively small group of set builders. Having another approved hook available is also useful in cases where an issue arises, because sometimes swapping hooks rather than pulling might be reasonable and appropriate. I would also like to see an explicit requirement that all ALTs be reviewed because I've had at least one case of offering several and only the first being reviewed / promoted on the presumption it was my preference (an incorrect assumption on that occasion, but understandable and arising from poor communication on my part). EdChem (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you make a valid point about the ALTs being reviewed. I've noticed the same thing. If all hooks are not reviewed, then the review isn't complete. It does a disservice to both the nominator and the promoter. Also, I have no problem with the promoter leaving a small note on the template about why a given hook among several available was promoted. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Maile66, with my Timothy N. Philpot nomination, only the ALT0 has been reviewed and it was my fall-back option if all the others (which I think are more interesting) are rejected on undue negativity grounds. So, I posted here at WT:DYK requesting input, but the thread attracted no responses. I'm not sure what to do because the rules technically require all ALTs to be reviewed but making an issue of my case will focus on the reviewer, who is behaving as others do and does a lot of DYK work. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good idea. There are currently several structural problems and the proposal looks like a sensible way forward. If there isn't one already, it would be good to have a page to document the process flow so that it's clear how a nomination progresses from page to page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just converted Template:DYK checklist to use Module:DYK checklist, which makes each checklist take up about half the post-expand include size that it did before. This has resulted in 12 more nominations being visible at the bottom of Template talk:Did you know, but we are still quite a bit over the limit. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it worrying that there isn't one bit about why this is happening - I don't mean technically, I mean temporally. The number of new articles continues to decline, there appears to be no (major?) change in the number of noms being posted per day, and I don't see anything about the technical limit being changed. This is the only time I've noticed it - it seems to have happened before but I assume for a short period? So why now, in 2016? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Maury Markowitz: I think the cause of this might be the bot, which adds a bunch to text to every nomination. Pppery 20:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Ahh, so it's based on the total text, not the number of transclusions? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep. (It's actually more complicated than that, but) Pppery 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maury Markowitz We have actually been discussing this a great deal on this talk page. A year or two ago, our individual reviews weren't so complicated, except in the case of drawn-out threads. Most were pretty brief. But graphics, text, little check templates, and a lot of thing have increased the size of the individual nominations transcluded. We also now have the bot that does a preliminary review. However, that bot was down for several weeks, and the problem continued. When we pushed it to the limits, the visual kind of went kaflooey. Think of what happens with your browser if the cache doesn't get cleared for a long time - eventually things aren't working right on a given page. It's kind of like that. Have you read the green hatted text at the top? We've exceeded our Template limits Post expand include size, and only WMF can give us more. And that isn't likely to happen, because WMF has safeguards in place to prevent a Denial of Service attack. Little things help some, like not putting checkmark templates on the nomination. But in the long run, we'll be pushing the limits and need to come up with a solution. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and also visited the link you have here. Neither stated this clearly, nor included any specific numbers or examples. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and implementation?

So it's one thing for there to be a lot of support, but it's another for someone to do it. What next? EEng 01:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • We do need to work the mechanics of this. And we need a bot to help, perhaps Shubinator's bot or something already in existence that just need extra code for this. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Just..." EEng 02:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination page seems to have returned to normal. Has someone actually resolved the problem, or is this as the result of some faulty nomination being promoted and archived? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that interesting? — Maile (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's only a matter of time before the problem comes back, and there were other good reasons for doing this. Thus I hope the extensive paid and pampered staff in charge of doing things like this get right to it. EEng 05:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, the problem did not fade away gradually but came to a sudden conclusion. One moment there were a host of nominations not properly displayed and a few hours later, there were none. This happened, as far as I can tell, late on the 12th November or early on the 13th. I think it was due to a problem nomination which was promoted and archived at that time, and will likely not recur. I suspect, without good evidence, the Moses Bensinger nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a problem in the past and (I repeat) there were other reasons for doing this. (Commenting mostly to keep the thread alive.) EEng 19:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one theory about why this happened, and we don't know for sure. But at this point, it's not happening. This would certainly support the idea that exceeding Template limits Post expand include size was not the problem after all, or this would still be happening. We have recently seen how one background edit can affect DYK like the bottom card being removed from a house of cards. We don't know why this happened, and we don't know why it stopped. What I have proposed here about a separate page for approved nominations would be a large undertaking to implement and maintain, unless there was a bot involved. I think the above Supports are mostly because it would be easier for promoters if we had a separate page for approved nominations. I yield to the majority, however this turns out. But we still need to get it implemented if we go with it. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset, Cwmhiraeth, and EEng: I just noticed right above the special holding area, we are having this transclusion problem again. And it's getting worse. It magically clears up for a few days, and then clogs up again. One of the great mysteries of the universe. — Maile (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maile, the number of active nominations (and therefore templates) has been steadily increasing, so it's natural that we'd run into the transclusion problem. It had been happening with 160 or more active nominations; now it's happening with 250/260 or more. That's quite a difference. If we had four or five prep/queue sets built at any one time, we wouldn't be having transclusion problems at the moment, though if the number of noms continues to build, we would regardless. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going out on a limb

  • ... that the hairy-breasted barbet has been observed to remove wings and legs from insects by bashing them on branches?

(in Queue3, not pulled). Template:Did you know nominations/Hairy-breasted barbet @Gulumeemee, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth:

The source says "we have seen these barbets bash insects on limbs to remove wings and legs before eating them". Why is this read to mean "branches" (one poissible meaning of limbs), and not "appendages" (the limbs of the animals)? Bashing on the limbs may remove them from the body: basking insects on branches will only turn the insect to pulp but not remove the wings, I would think. Perhaps there is a reason why the reading of the source as rendered in the hook certainly is the correct one, so I didn't pull it. But to me it seems the less likely explanation of the two possible meanings. Fram (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that the word "limb" can be used for a branch or a bodily appendage, I think its interpretation here as branch is correct. Look at the picture of the bird - its not going to use its wings for this purpose, and using its legs would involve some gymnastic manipulations and would be pretty pointless when the solid branch is so close at hand (or foot). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why "its limbs", and not "their limbs", i.e. the limbs of the insects? Fram (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean bashing the insect's limbs with something? I think not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "bash insects on limbs", so I interpreted that as meaning the insects were bashed against limbs, and I don't think the insects were bashed against the insects' limbs. Gulumeemee (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC) If the source means bashing the insects' limbs, it would probably have said "bash insects' limbs" or "bash insects on the limbs". Gulumeemee (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the context, I think that "limbs" referring to trees is much less likely than to appendages. Surely the birds don't only catch these insects in trees, and otherwise the needed-limbs would not be available. The source is interpretable in two ways, so perhaps look for another source which is not ambiguous on this point? EdChem (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only other source that I could find that might verify the hook is this, but I do not have subscription and cannot view all of the text. Gulumeemee (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Sorry about my lack of finesse in English, - I simply didn't see the other options. How about stopping the hook after "insects"? The bashing doesn't add too much, at least for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that, as a reader I would wonder even more why the birds were doing this than I did with the distraction at the end of the current wording. So, I suggest adding "before eating them" or something similar to the end of the hook would be wise. EdChem (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a legendary episode in which Nature (or maybe Science) published a paper dispelling the myth of gorillas as gentle herbivores, noting that on the Serengeti they had been observed killing other creatures and eating them "with relish". A subsequent letter to the editor challenged this: "Where", it asked, "would a gorilla on the Serengeti get relish?" This discussion is like that. Are you guys kidding? Obviously what's meant is that the bird bashes the insect against the arm or leg of a passing monkey. EEng 15:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: Why do you assume that the birds are not able to bash prey without pulping them? I read the source as meaning branches not legs, and see no reason to assume otherwise.--Kevmin § 20:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In case my kidding wasn't clear, of course limbs = branches. Sometimes this place is unbelievable. EEng 21:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It eats beetles, so I think it is possible that bashing them against trees does not turn them into pulp. Gulumeemee (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any room for uncertainty, reword the hook. Unless you want to make it the "quirky" one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the hairy-breasted barbet has been observed to remove wings and legs from insects before eating them? This hook seems a little less interesting, but at least it is certain. Gulumeemee (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my God! What are we talking about? There's no other sensible interpretation of bash insects on limbs. It's not bird limbs or monkey limbs or insect limbs or human limbs or lion limbs or the limbic system -- it's tree limbs. Has there been a mass poisoning of LSD at DYK? This is insane. Just run the original hook. EEng 00:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind - run the original hook: Thank you, Gulumeemee, for pointing to an additional source, though I can't read it either. I agree with Cwmhiraeth I meant Fram, oops. that the sentence quoted is ambiguous in isolation and definitely open to interpreting "limb" as something other than "limb of a tree". However, I also recognise that a bird is somewhat lacking in suitable appendages to bash insects against, and if it was against another bird, I suspect bird 2 would try and steal the food. I have been looking online and found a source that I think would be definitive, this book, where I can get "possibly also soft hooting song (Ivory Coast), nearly as in Tricholaema hirsuta; also grating calls, with nasal version, chattering "chchch" calls to 0 5 seconds, and soft "bdaa-aa-" calls, all during encounters. .... Probes into lichens, mosses and bark crevices, hovers at times to seize insect or fruit; often smashes insect against bark to remove limbs." from this Google search. Smashing into bark does not have the ambiguity of "limbs". Further, looking at the original source, I find: "Most foraging takes place at more than 20 m (10 to 35 m) in the canopy ... sometimes hover to grasp a fruit or seize an insect ... more quickly along branches and vines, making frequent short flights ... we have seen these barbets bash insects on limbs to remove wings and legs before eating them ... when feeding, often wipes not only its bill but the sides of its head against a branch" page 173 All of this context around the "limb" comment makes it totally clear we are talking about feeding exclusively in trees, with mentions of branches and vines as well as limbs, so I see the original hook as verified.
    @EEng: may I suggest that pointing out / explaining the context in which "limb" appears would have been a more productive and persuasive response? I understood your view clearly, but declaring there is no other reasonable interpretation is not as helpful as explaining why. Just my 2 c...
    @Fram, The Rambling Man, and Cwmhiraeth: Does this persuade you that the source is actually not ambiguous, and that the original hook is suitable? EdChem (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. One doesn't talk about a bird's limbs but rather its wings and legs. This whole kerfuffle has been a complete waste of time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said before, I wasn't talking about the bird's limbs, but about the insects' limbs. And I wasn't the only one who thought that the sentence was ambiguous and possibly wrong. That's why people have a discussion, to determine whether something is right or not. In this case, it seems as if the hook and article were right, great, but that the original hook remains doesn't mean that this was "a complete waste of time". Now, having to check all your reviews and promotions and having to pull 5 hooks in one day, that is a complete waste of time. But that doesn't seem to concern you as much. Fram (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled from Queue4: A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons

Template:Did you know nominations/A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons @Kingoflettuce, David Eppstein, and Cwmhiraeth:

Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Other supplementary rules for the hook "C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." Fram (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be pulled, and I would cite Template:Did you know nominations/The customer is not a moron as precedent. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus I suspect the articles confuses varieties with species. EEng 15:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I proposed for it to be saved for April 1. The reviewer took note of that too. Tx. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. See Cut Sleeve's DYK: ... that He was gay? Certainly would do the trick for April 1; no need for tinkering, just waiting. Kingoflettuce (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It also addresses Fram's concern, in my opinion, because the character in the story named "He" becomes a pigeon, so the hook is stating a fact about the plot – just like with the Cut Sleeve DYK, where a character named "He" was gay. The consequent problem, though, is that at least the "He becomes a pigeon" aspect of the plot needs to be supported with a citation to a reliable source. This should be a solvable problem, but it does need to be done, IMO. EdChem (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basic uncontroversial plot/story points can be reliably sourced to the work itself as a primary source is reliable for information on itself. This is the same for books, films, tv series etc. Interpretation/abstract concepts need a secondary source to comment on them. 'Becomes a pigeon' (assuming he does indeed become a pigeon) would not. -edit- although from reading the article, the story itself infers that he was always a pigeon in human disguise, so 'transforms into a pigeon' as the article words it would be more accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"was a pigeon" (as originally proposed) in itself is accurate enuf but that can be sorted out in due time. Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... that He was a pigeon.
  • Just don't run it on Christmas Day. Could cause confusion. EEng 22:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that the only known French limerick is:
"Il y avait un jeune homme de Dijon
Qui n’aimait du tout la religon.
Il dit: “Eh ma foi;
Je deteste tous les trois,
Le Pere, et le Fils, et le Pigeon"? source Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typical DYK work there. "The only Limerick I know in French" gets changed to "the only known French limerick" and hey presto, Wikipedia remains a proud member of the posttruth movement! Fram (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typical Fram OR - let's have another one then! To save you looking, there are none at Limerick (poeme), where all examples are in English. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. Let's see, your OR is incorrect, my OR is correct, I can live with that. Fram (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only are there very few Limericks in French, I understand there are very few French in Limerick. EEng 04:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Une dame au bord du Nil S'amuse avec un crocodile, Lui lance des pierres Avec un lance-pierre Et l'animal croque... Odile. [1]

C'était une dame de fer Qui brûlait au fond de l'enfer On fit sur ses cuisses Griller des saucisses Pour le diner de Lucifer[2]

Native de Vic-en-Badoit A la fête comme il se doit S'en va la gentille Charlotte Sous sa robe point de culotte Qui te l'a dit? Mon petit doigt[3]

And please do your "research" a little bit better, there is a French language example listed at [4]. Fram (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth and the role of the promotor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The DYK project has ongoing problems with review quality and promotions. Discussions started with specific examples are easily derailed, as this one has been. Cwmhiraeth has made mistakes but also devoted considerable time and effort to the project and is one of the few editors doing the necessary task of set building. Fram and TRM have located many errors, a valuable contribution towards quality control at DYK and for the encyclopaedia as a whole. There are examples of less-than-ideal communication from numerous editors, though hopefully we all agree on the importance of producing high quality encyclopaedic content. I strongly suggest that a future discussion approach topics of QPQ, review quality, hook choice, promotions, and set building from a general perspective in the hope of a discussion that actually progresses towards addressing ongoing problems. EdChem (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At User talk:Cwmhiraeth#List of Mormon missionary diarists, User:Cwmhiraeth just said about a disputed hook he promoted: "I am just a functionary that collects approved hooks and moves them into sets."

It has been pointed out to Cwmhiraeth in the past that a promotor has a totally different role, as explained in Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook. This doesn't seem to get through to them, so could someone please emphasise this again (and again and again if necessary). The accuracy of hooks and reviews is also the responsability of the promotor, not just of the reviewer and nominator. Too many hooks have to be pulled, and if the main hook promotor doesn't fulfill that position in the way it is supposed to happen, we have at least one part of the explanation of why so many problematic hooks reach preps, queue and main page. Fram (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have taken my comment out of context. In this instance I was explaining to TRM that the function of the promoter did not include a consideration of whether the article's title was the best available. In fact I have followed this up by seeking the article creator's approval for the article name to be changed, but this goes way beyond the basic functions of a promoter. The comment was also a single sentence and in no way completely covers the steps I take before promoting a hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was the fact that the title and and the lead of the article were simply incorrect, not just not the "best available". Factually incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The article needed to be renamed and the lead needed to be rewritten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you still promoted it? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, I did not consider whether the article's title was the best available when I promoted it. Now that you have brought the matter to my attention, I have moved the article to its new title and rewritten the lead, a thing you could perfectly well have done yourself, and certainly not part of the duties of a set promoter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is you promoted an article with a fundamental failing. You didn't need to edit it but you certainly shouldn't have promoted it. I guess you didn't read it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Out of context? It matches your view exactly. You can compare it to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 130#Should I be topic banned from DYK?: "I am inclined to AGF not-easily ascertainable facts when reviewing hooks whereas Fram is dedicated to finding errors in them, so a few of my reviews are later proved to be incorrect. Most of the hooks that Fram has pulled with which I am associated are ones I have promoted to Prep. I believe Fram has an unrealistic view of what a promoter should do before promoting a hook." Fram (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to put this. Template:Did you know nominations/Richard L. Alexander appearing on Queue 4 was reviewed by Cwmhiraeth (hence why I choose here), but it says in the nom that User:GrinandGregBearit was the article creator; they weren't, User:TeriEmbrey was. I assume this mistake was made because of Grin's inexperience but a simple check of the page's history by the reviewer would have picked this up. Could TeriEmbrey be added to receive credit for this DYK too please? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: He's a new editor of Wikipedia and my intern. This article was mostly his work. I do not need the credit on this one. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TeriEmbrey for clarifying that (though you do deserve a co-credit if you wanted it). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Close Thread Cwmhiraeth is obviously an exceptional promoter who has voluntarily self-accepted a heavy workload for the benefit of the project; a spirit of volunteerism for which many of us are appreciative. I'm unclear what this thread is about other than complaints of a general nature involving things that are essentially, within the overall pantheon of his work, minutia that could be better handled by a quick and cheerful, one or two sentence "hey buddy, FYI!" on a Talk page. I'd suggest it be closed. LavaBaron (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can remove Cwmhiraeth's name from the section head but it seems important to keep this thread open to talk about exactly what is the role of the prep builder. As Fram notes, too many mistakes are flowing through to the queues. We cannot rely on the reviewer (many of whom are newbies or just trying to get in their QPQ so they can nominate their own hook) to assure that everything's fine. Yoninah (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do that. And examine the role of the promoter. Right now we have just about one person promoting hooks, and as demonstrated above, making numerous errors in doing so. Or ignoring numerous in doing so. Depending on your expectation of the role of a promoter/set builder. For what it's worth, I read through whole articles and discover fundamental problems with around about one every set or two. So I'd approximate that to a 10% error rate. Now I'm told by Cwmhiraeth that it's not her job to actually react to errors in articles, just to build sets using erroneous articles. I find the whole thing somewhat odd. I will continue to monitor every single DYK that goes through here, but I'm more focused on article quality while Fram (as you can all see above) is doing a fine job of analysing the hooks for veracity. Too many mistakes at the moment, thank goodness we're down to just one set per day.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron, many of us are aware that you consider a promotor deliberately ignoring the requirements for promotors and too often promoting erroneous hooks (including errors introduced by you) "things that are minutiae" (if you want to use big words, make sure you get them right). This has gone on for years and clearly isn't solved by a "cheerful" talk page message (this is a talk page, by the way). If the main promotor of hooks here doesn't care enough about having correct hooks, articles where the title matches the content somewhat, BLP policy, and so on; with the result that way too many hooks need pulling (and many others correcting in preps, queues and while on the Main Page from WP:ERRORS, like today). Fram (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a talk page but it sure ain't cheerful! Even the spelling of participants in this discussion is subject to withering scorn from the OP (speaking of which, minutia is correct; minutiae is the plural form). LavaBaron (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this is specifically about one editor who does most promotions here but doesn't follow the requirements coupled with that role, I have reinstated the section header. If you want a general discussion of the role, start another section or a subsection please. Fram (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose finding that promoter in question "doesn't follow the requirements coupled [sic] with that role" LavaBaron (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, but there's no doubt that probably because she's the only one doing it, the pressure is becoming too much and mistakes, many of them, are being made all too often. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The pressure is becoming too much"? Oh goodness! LavaBaron (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Are you ok? I simply suggested that the pressure on Cwmhiraeth to fill these sets is getting too much, hence the increase in errors. I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you don't care about others or have a different view, but your discussion style is inaccessible, at least it is to me. You attempt to use big words and get it wrong, and you seem unable to empathise with others. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM! If you want to discuss my vocabulary I encourage you to use a non-DYK forum to provide diffs about how I "use big words and get it wrong" [sic]. As a topic, that may not be 100-percent relevant to prep building, or DYK generally. Thanks so much! - LavaBaron (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted! Please now desist. Your previous comment: (Oh goodness!) was at best unhelpful. As I mentioned before, your posts aren't doing you any favours, and I imagine if they continue in this manner, it won't be long before you're out of the game again. Thanks so much!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This tête-à-tête is not topical; self-collapsing to keep it from derailing thread. LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, your comment, to which that was in reply - "the pressure is becoming too much" - was also not helpful. Cwmhiraeth is an adult, experienced editor, not a quivering wreck. Your comment about my vocabulary - "you attempt to use big words and get it wrong" - was simply a drive-by insult that has nothing to do with prep building (and was incorrect, as the absence of diffs show) of the exact type for which you were de-sysoped. (And, to clarify, I've never been "out of the game".) Now let's agree to stop here so we can pay attention to topical matters. Cool? In a spirit of cooperation I'm happy to let you hat this sub-discussion from my 22:09 comment on, if you like. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the pressure comment, that's a huge part of why I stopped doing it - I stopped trying to fill the role of "getting a mixture of hooks put in front of the prep reviewers" when it became more about blaming the person who moved an approved hook than the two people who actually made the error in the first place (nominator and reviewer). I would love a clear definition of what is expected of a prep builder because I got different input from different people and frankly just dropped it when I got fed up with being pulled in 7 different directions. Kudos to Cwmhiraeth for sticking with it at least.  MPJ-DK  22:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely second the kudos to Cwmhiraeth. Hope she sticks with it, I really appreciate her work! LavaBaron (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to Fram's original criticism of my prep-building, I routinely do all the things mentioned in Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook, with the possible exception of (2) in the first section. Do I seem to remember when Fram tried to build a hook set and we ended up with an unbalanced mass of country houses, several of which had to be pulled? TRM has yet to have a go at prep-building I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely recall that; didn't know who was responsible, though. Just remember I thought I'd logged-in to Zillow, instead of Wikipedia. Ai-yi-yi! LavaBaron (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, because only one country house was in that set. Yet another unhelpful comment from you, as expected. Fram (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, on numerous occasions I've stated to you that I don't have the long periods of availability you seem to have every morning to dedicate the required time and effort to building a hook. Therefore I'm not going to do a half-arsed job of it. That's why I would recommend to others that if they don't have sufficient time to do it accurately, checking each article and hook, then they shouldn't do it either. Just a quick glance at this page indicates that the prep-building standard, and associated promoted hooks/articles, is still in need of drastic improvement. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to remember incorrectly, none of them had to be pulled: Ritchie333 mistakenly pulled one based on an error on his part (not knowing the difference between portable computers and laptops). Only one hook was about a country house. Getting back to your prep building, if you now routinely do the things required from prep builders, then that's an improvement. Now if you could also reduce the error rate in doing your checks, DYK would really get a lot better, and we wouldn't have days with 5 pulled hooks (all of them with you involved in one of the three main steps, twice as the reviewer and three times as the promotor). Of course, with better nominations and reviews the problem would also be reduced, but if we can't even remove people like LavaBaron (also involved in one of the 5 pulls) from DYK, then there is little hope of that happening. Fram (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been stated above that too many hooks are having to be pulled. Actually, I think hooks are only pulled to any extent when Fram is "on duty". Fram provides a level of hook scrutiny that others don't. In the first half of 2015, Fram was absent from Wikipedia for about six months. I doubt whether the level of DYK ERRORS reported by members of the public rose during that time. If there were errors, nobody noticed them. So, let's survey the present field:
  • Hill-Crest; the source appeared to support the hook until you looked at it more closely. An error.
  • Going out on a limb; you chose to interpret the word "limb" in the source as not meaning a bough. You were wrong.
  • Filibus; you will see that guidance 4 for promoters states "Hook [fact] must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated)." It does not state that the promoter should check whether the hook fact is still true, or should look for other sources to disprove it. That is a level of scrutiny provided by you; without your intervention this hook would have passed through the system without objection.
  • Egypt at the 1906 Intercalated Games; this was a pedantic quibble. The first ever opening ceremony at a (quasi)-Olympic Games more than a century ago and you think two Egyptian athletes might choose not to take part, on the basis seemingly that at modern games, some athletes avoid the opening ceremony. Really?
  • A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons; this pull involved a DYK rule that the community has recently been discussing and that several people thought should be abolished, so policy rather than error.
  • Irene Garza; This also involves a policy matter, BLPCRIME, and is not an error.
So how many of these are actually errors? I would say two, Hill-Crest and Filibus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Limb" wasn't pulled, I asked whether it was correct or not, some others agreed that it was ambiguous, but together we concluded that the hook was right after all. So I was right to question it and right not to pull it. Good work all around. This one wasn't counted in the 5 pulled hooks, as it wasn't pulled to begin with.
The others: trusting a 1997 source for a current claim is always a bad idea and should always involve a search for more recnt counterindications. "Egypt" was not "a pedantic quibble", and it is this kind of thing (among others) that makes you ill-suited for your promotor or reviewer role. Egypt was at the games, there was an opening ceremony, so (goes your OR synth which has troubled you in the past on DYK as well) the Egyptian athletes all must have walked in the opening ceremony. The sources say nothing about who walked behind the Egyptian flag though. The hook was also incorrect in its claim about contemporary sources.
But the worst is Irene Garza: so putting a hook that violates our BLP policy rather badly on the main page is not an error on the part of the reviewer and promotor? (The nominator specifically indicated his misgivings about the BLP aspect of that hook in the discussion). As the reviewer on that hook, it was your responsability to ensure that it didn't violate our BLP policy (Wikipedia:Did you know rule 4). You made a serious error in this case.
I do love your argument that if our readers don't notice that our DYK hooks are incorrect, it's not a problem. This of course makes the assumption that every reader who sees an error will run to WP:ERRORS or here, and not simply go to some more reliable website instead and leave with the conviction that Wikipedia is an amateur club. And this of course makes the even worse assumption that it doesn't matter if we get it right or wrong, as long as no one notices it. Fram (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, folks, this is going nowhere. If we want to have a focused discussion about the role of the promoter, then go for it, but this has degenerated into a polite slanging match, and is not productive. I am sorely tempted to close the thread myself, but can you both not recognize each other's utility to the project and move on? Vanamonde (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great point. Not sure there's a positive terminus to this thread, it will probably just accumulate a few additional weeks of back-and-forth and then peter out. No actionable proposal has been advanced and the discussion seems largely to have failed to capture the interest of third parties. LavaBaron (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise that Fram has some utility to the project but I am not sure that Fram realises that I have too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if I thought you had no utility to the project I would have started a topic ban discussion at WP:AN a long time ago. Of course you have some utility here, the question is whether that justifies disregarding the requirements for DYK, not caring whether the readers get correct information or not, or e.g. considering posting BLP violating hooks and articles on the main page "not an error". People can have some or a lot of utility to the project but ultimately cause too much problems to be allowed to continue unchecked. And of course, utility to "the project" (DYK) is always subordinate to the effect you have on Wikipedia and what we present to the readers. Showing incorrect information or BLP violations to millions of people can not be justified by reasons like making DYK run on time or creating balanced sets of hooks. The latter are a bonus, the former are what should be avoided at all costs. Fram (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Irene Garza, I mistakenly thought I had promoted the hook whereas I now see that I was the reviewer. In that case I was indeed in error. I tend to avoid reviewing BLPs as I am not particularly familiar with policy in this area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I recognise that Fram has some utility to the project". Facepalm Facepalm Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Un-be-lievable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A certain degree of utility. We may have more accurate hooks but in the process we have lost so many people who don't like to be humiliated. The people who used to build prep sets and no longer do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stop digging yourself deeper now. This process is flawed, you do a job in promoting flawed articles, flawed hooks, the QPQ process means people are just here sanctioning hooks to self-enable. Humiliation is emotive, I'd prefer that you recognise that Fram points out to people where they make mistakes. In your case it's in double figures for the few months. And that's one set per day. We used to be at 3 sets a day, wow!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth doesn't strike me as being in any kind of hole, deep or shallow. In my opinion she's responded to the concern of another editor in a way that is polite, receptive, compelling, and factually and analytically correct in every way. And, her efforts have been applauded by other editors both in this thread, and in other threads currently open on this page. LavaBaron (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but actually Fram has demonstrated time and again that her responses are not compelling, factual, or correct in "every way". Please read all the threads before making such inappropriate claims. And for what it's worth, I applaud her "efforts" but the results are simply not up to scratch, time and again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion can be an "inappropriate claim." It is possible for two rational beings to look at the same set of facts and form different opinions based on those facts. I appreciate and respect your different opinion in this matter. LavaBaron (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, your opinion is 100% factually incorrect. Let's leave it there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... annnnd scene. I'd suggest, having established one side is "100% factually incorrect", this is probably a good place at which to wrap things up and for Vanamonde93 to revisit his previous suggestion of closure. LavaBaron (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it suits me. It's about time we curtailed this ongoing fanclub for someone who continually promotes errors. Especially from those who create such drama in the first place. I wholeheartedly support this thread's closure, without prejudice of starting yet another to analyse, yet again, the behaviour of those who continue to poorly review or poorly promote hooks. Scene! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A new issue

This nomination was erroneously "fixed" by Cwmhiraeth before heading to the main page. Is there a pattern here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The error was introduced by User:Yoninah, not by Cwmhiraeth.[5] Fram (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Fram. I was going to attest my innocence here but now have no need to! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What was my error? What does "notionally illegal" even mean? Yoninah (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Theoretically illegal" I guess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The error was changing the hook from the one that was written by the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
O-kay. But I thought it was a typo. I did look in the article first to see what it was talking about, and saw: However, because Mazuism is not officially recognized as either Taoist or Buddhist, Chinese law considers it a tolerable but illegal cult, which to me means "nationally illegal", so I thought I was fixing the error. Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"tolerable but illegal" == "notionally illegal". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you understand it. Yoninah (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In cases like this it's better to consult the nominator before making a change. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)When in doubt, come to WT:DYK and ask (like I did in the "Going out on a limb" section). Some people may react badly if your concern is unfounded, but that's a lesser problem than incorrectly correcting an article (even pulling is better than erroneously correcting it). Fram (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Fram. I hear. I will try to do that in future. Yoninah (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived over an hour ago, so here's a list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through November 18. Right now the nominations page shows 262, of which 109 have been approved, but that doesn't include the 63 nominations that can't transclude because we have too many transcluded templates to show them all. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three seven that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over six weeks 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) 02:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Abzurdah (book)

Hi, I am interested in knowing how the hook approved in the DYK review got changed on the Main Page. I'm not upset about it (it did get over 19,000 hits), but I am interested in how one can track down who made the change. I can't find a link in "What links here" on the page for Abzurdah (book). I have no idea which prep it was added to. I'm not sure where the archives are for the Did You Know errors at WP:ERRORS. Thanks to anyone who can enlighten me. Yoninah (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks - tracking from nomination to main page:
a) Check nomination template edit history for the editor who closed the nomination. They might be able to point out which prep they were building if they left a summary. If not, check the timestamp against their template contributions (User contributions -> check the namespace drop down for template).
b) Check prep template edit history from when it was built until when an admin moves it to queue. Repeat above to get queue number.
c) Check queue template edit history from when it was promoted until when DYKUpdateBot moves it to the main page.
d) Check DYK template edit history from when it hit the main page until when it rolled off.
In this case, it was moved to prep on 11:41 3 Dec, moved to queue sixteen hours later, moved to the main page on 00:00 7 Dec and rolled off 24 hours later. Intermediate edits might shed some light into how the hook got changed. Fuebaey (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yoninah, it appears to have been changed in this edit while the hook was in Queue 4; Gatoclass's edit summary was tweak hook to avoid awkward phraseology and possible unduly negative emphasis. How I found it: I looked at who promoted the hook, checked Miyagawa's contributions from around the promotion time, saw which prep (4) it was added to, and when I didn't see any edits that changed the hook in that prep, I looked at the queue the prep went to and a few diffs found the edit that changed the hook. Then I checked to see when the queue was promoted, and checked Template:Did you know (the DYK section of the main page) to be sure there weren't any further edits to the hook in the 24 hours after the queue was promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In normal circumstances I might have pulled this hook for further discussion, but as I recall there were only a few hours to go before the set was featured, so decided to alter it in situ. Regarding the changes, I was a little concerned that the hook may have attracted criticism for being unduly negative once on the main page. Also, I wasn't sure that the phrase "apologetic about anorexia" was correct usage or that the intended meaning would be clear (since "apology" has a more common meaning), and it didn't help that the original source was in Spanish and didn't translate well into English. So basically all things considered, I thought discretion would be the better part of valour in this case. Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gatoclass, it did come out as a better hook. And thank you, Fuebaey and BlueMoonset, for your detective work! Now I understand what Template:Did you know is all about. Best, Yoninah (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shah Mosque (Tehran) article

The article Shah Mosque (Tehran) is presently the bolded article in the lead hook of the current DYK set.

Nomination page: Template:Did you know nominations/Shah Mosque (Tehran) Nominator: AlmaBeta Reviewer: AdventurousSquirrel Promoter: Cwmhiraeth

The hook which was proposed contains an NPOV violation with a link "[[Fada'iyan-e Islam|religious fanatic]]." The article Fada'iyan-e Islam does not contain the word fanatic, and the source mentioned in the nomination from The New York Times uses the phrase "religious fanatic" for the assassin, Khalil Tahmasebi, though his article did not include it until I tidied it up recently.

The Rambling Man made a request at WP:ERRORS for a correction, which was made by Stephen, quite properly. I have since made a further ERRORS request (which TRM supports) for the intent of the nomination be preserved by directing the link at the assassin's page. Both TRM and Stephen commented on the fact that a hook with an NPOV issue like this made it to the main page, and I think we should look at that issue. This was AlmaBeta's first DYK credit and the nomination page was so mangled that Vanamonde deleted and recreated it. Geni noted the article was too short, BlueMoonset called for a review when it was lengthened, and AdventurousSquirrel (4 DYK credits) did the review, noting a paraphrasing issue. Johnbod commented on the need for a review of the English, and AlmaBeta mentioned linking to the assassin's article, which AdventurousSquirrel encouraged, specifically mentioning the Fada'iyan-e Islam link. AdventurousSpirit gave the tick more than a week later, saying "cleaned up," presumably referring to these two article edits where AlmaBeta made the edits suggested to the article but did nothing to the nomination / hook. Cwmhiraeth promoted about a day later.

I wonder how so many editors could look at a nomination, as well as in prep and queues, and no one raise a flag about a proposed main page link for "religious fanatic" to an organisation whose page does not go close to supporting such a claim. The bolded article links "religious fanatic" to [[religious fanaticism]] and the Britannica source it uses reads: "On March 7, 1951, Razmara was assassinated outside the Solṭāni Mosque by a member of the Fedaʾeyān-e Eslām (Persian: “Self-Sacrificers of Islam”), an extremist religious organization with close ties to the traditional merchant class and the clergy." I'm not looking for blame, just wondering whether we as a project can learn something here? EdChem (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the error entered the picture with the piped link. It should have been caught by the reviewer, the promoter, or the admin who sent it to the main page. All the scrutiny the nomination received before that is not really relevant, because it wasn't dealing with the substance of the nomination, but more with the technicalities: for instance, I didn't even read the article in question, I was merely responding to a request for help on this page. Vanamonde (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The hook was promoted by me on 7th December and was moved to the queue on 11th December so there have been five days available to detect this error, rather than leave things till the hook is on the main page. During that time, the hook was changed once by @Fram:, with this edit, without this issue coming to light. The instructions for promoters do not include any instructions on checking that each link in the hook goes to an appropriate place. Perhaps they should. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it should be common sense to check highly POV phrasing of hooks before they're promoted. It should be, regardless of any "instructions" (or lack of). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So reading the actual article I came across this gem "by ridding it of 'corrupting individuals' by means of carefully planned assassinations" - how i that NOT religious fanaticism? Are we really complaining that an organization based on religion that actually advocate assassinations is called "Fanatic" just because that term is not used in the article? And of course followed up by recriminations against everyone who touched the nomination, because that seems to be part for the course now at DYK.  MPJ-DK  12:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assassinations may be in order.[FBDB] EEng 13:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because one source makes such a claim, there's no need for Wikipedia to use non-neutral language. And it's "par for the course" by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that numerous experienced editors passed this indicates that the usage was reasonable. Per WP:EUPHEMISM and WP:FALSEBALANCE, we are expected to speak plainly in such cases. The main issue, in my view, is that the hook is now too long and the links to other topics tend to distract the reader from the main subject. It might have been better to cut out most of the detail and just say the following. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ALT ... that the Prime Minister of Iran was assassinated at the Shah Mosque (pictured)?
That also works. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Your solution avoids any need to even point to the guideline (euphemism) you noted; but there was no "false balance", "fanatical" is way to POV to be true balance. It was an Easter egg link in any case, as you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/ReCore

@AdrianGamer and MPJ-DK: How to open a new nomination when the previous one failed? Halp. Cognissonance (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah, BlueMoonset, MPJ-DK, AdrianGamer, and Cognissonance: After having been rejected because it was submitted too late, this article underwent a GA review and passed December 13. Cognissonance would like to resubmit the article for DYK now that it is GA. Can they do it on the same template that was closed as rejected, or should they create a new template? — Maile (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether the correct procedure is to re-open the previous nomination or to start a new one, but having reached GA the article is now definitely eligible for DYK a fresh evaluation. I say this so the nominator will know that sorting out process might take a bit but eligibility is not in issue, in my opinion.  :) EdChem (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll want to set up a completely new nomination page/template, and call it Template:Did you know nominations/ReCore 2. If you want, I can set up a nomination template under that name for you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: That's fine. Is creating Template:Did you know nominations/ReCore 2 with the usual DYK template and putting it under December 13 on Template talk:Did you know all I have to do? Cognissonance (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cognissonance, creating the template with the usual DYK template contents, and then transcluding it under December 13 on the nominations page is indeed all that's necessary. I'll be happy to look it over and make sure everything's in order once you've finished it; just give me another ping. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: If you could transclude the page that'd be great. I'm not exactly sure about that part of the process. Cognissonance (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bug!

Template:Did you know nominations/Bug! @Jaguar, SounderBruce, and Cwmhiraeth:

According to the article and source, it was one of three candidates to become the new mascot, it wasn't certain that Bug! (and not one of the two others) was "going to be the mascot". The article states "one of three candidates for "would-be" mascots for Sega's upcoming Sega Saturn console in 1994" (with an offline source), and the next source says "within the first year of the Saturn, three world-be[sic!] mascots appeared on the 32-bit console"[6]. Fram (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I see your point, I must point out that IGN's article on the Saturn's failure is a contemporary source. Next Generation Magazine (the offline source you mentioned) was what I based it on. Look at the Sega Saturn article (an FA), which states in itself that "The platformer Bug! received attention for its eponymous main character being a potential mascot for the Saturn, but it failed to catch on as the Sonic series had". While I was looking for sources for Clockwork Knight (the other potential mascot candidate, though I remain sceptical as this is only speculated in IGN), there were no mentions of it becoming the mascot for the flagship console. A couple of issues did in fact mention Bug! as being the potential mascot. I have access to the Next Generation Magazine source, and it backs it up. To summarise, I think you misjudged this on IGN's retrospective, whilst it is in fact firmly sourced to the offline magazine. JAGUAR  11:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your own article describes it as "one of three candidates for "would-be" mascots for Sega's upcoming Sega Saturn console in 1994", so please don't complain that I misjudged it when you wrote it like that. Even in your reply here, you go from it being "a potential mascot" to "the potential mascot". The two are not the same... Fram (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be less confusing for reader's sake if I used the IGN source instead? To come and think of it, the Sega Saturn article itself would be better off stating that it had three potential mascots upon launch, although I don't know if I should put preference over retrospective sources or the sources that existed at the time. Other than IGN, I see no source asserting that it had a potential of "three" mascots, but as IGN is the only accessible one at the moment, perhaps it's better to change Bug! to reflect that. It's only a GA, and I doubt I'll ever bring it to FA. Should I rephrase the hook to say it was one of three potential mascots? JAGUAR  11:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is reopened, discussion about a new hook can be had there. Fram (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh deer

(I thought I had posted this already, but apparently it never got here, so this is a bit later than intended)

Pulled from Queue1, queue needs one additional hook.

Template:Did you know nominations/Deer Valley, Phoenix @MB, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth:

You can do those things in the park, but the problem is that the park is located in Glendale, Arizona, not in neighbouring Deer Valley (the park is on the border, and may be partly in Deer Valley perhaps, this isn't clear). The official address of the park, as given by the source used for the DYK hook[7], is Adobe Dam Regional Park 23280 N. 43rd Avenue Glendale, AZ 85310. The model airplane club[8] and their flying field[9] has the address Arizona Model Pilot Society Adobe Dam Recreation Area 43rd Avenue & Pinnacle Peak Road Glendale, AZ 85310. Fram (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not just the dam that's in Deer Valley (where ever that is)? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, one can read it that way as well. Still, would be a rather stupid hook if that was the intention: there is a dam in Deer Valley, and behind that dam, outside of deer valley, you can do all kinds of fun stuff! It's like having an article about Calexico touting the fun things you can do in Mexicali (sorry, "flood control dam" made me think of that region for some reason). A hook for Deer Valley should be about things in Deer Valley, not things next to Deer Valley... Fram (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A "rather stupid hook"? I'm sure that's just not possible, is it. Perhaps one could fly over the dam, not just behind it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw Fram had posted nothing here but I knew there was a problem because my promotion of the hook had been reverted, I was tempted to start a section here "Deer, deer". I guess the expanse of land is the Deer Valley and the dam is across the River Deer, however the article is about the urban village and not the geographical location, so I agree with Fram that the hook is unsuitable. On the other hand, it is possible that it is correct; where I live near the boundary of one UK county, my postal town, and hence address, is in the adjoining county. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it is possible that the hook is factually correct, but it can't be verified by the source given, and that source seems to actively contradict it... (I know, the "oh deer" pun was probably too easy, but I just couldn't resist it). Fram (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram, Martinevans123, and Cwmhiraeth:The dam and recreation area are located in Deer Valley. This can be verified if you look at the map in REF3. I have duplicated that ref after the sentence that says "The Adobe Dam Regional Park ... is located here." It has a postal address of Glendale, Arizona but in the US, postal addresses do not directly correlate to municipal jurisdictions in many cases. The area was assigned to Glendale by the US Postal Service before it was annexed into (Deer Valley) Phoenix when it was still an unincorporated part of the county. It's postal address will remain forever Glendale although it is actually located in Phoenix. The hook is correct as is. MB 15:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That verifies that at least part of the park is in Deer Valley, but doesn't make it clear whether the park continues in Glendale and whether the hook facilities are in Deer Valley or not. Fram (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, on that map the park (Point of Interest #5) is shaded in grey and it is entirely within Deer Valley. The western boundary of Deer Valley and the park are both at 51st Avenue. The mailing address given above is 43rd Avenue, which is one mile east of the boundary. All the recreational facilities are within the park and within Deer Valley. MB 15:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This can also be verified at google maps [[10]] MB 16:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was too easy. Next time please provide better sauces. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Admin needed

One way or another, Queue 1 is the next queue to be promoted (eight hours from now), and it currently has an empty hook slot after the above removal. An admin is needed to fill that slot; if the Deer Valley hook is not eligible, then please use one of the non-bio hooks in prep. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Fram: When you pull a hook from a queue, it would be good if you could put another hook in its place. — Maile (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm not interested. Checking hooks and pulling them if needed takes already enough of my time and patience. If it would help, I can of course simply remove the line instead of leaving a "... that ... " line; that would prevent that empty line to appear on the main page, but would make it less clear that another hook may be wanted. Fram (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your interest in DYK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And we have a winner! Fram (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't all be Gareth Bale, can we, dear. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive that you found such an appropriate yet shit article. You must have shares. Usual "belittling" caveat applies, although in your case, I couldn't give one, two or three fucks! Just kidding, obv!!!!!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Va tacito e nascosto

This has just been promoted GA, so I wanted to create a DYK, but on nominating I get the closed review for when it was a new article. What do I do?--Smerus (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When a GA passes, the message on your talk page states "If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know." An article cannot appear at DYK on more than one occasion and Va tacito e nascosto has already appeared there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see - apologies!--Smerus (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=755031578"