Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"Did you know...?" template
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Nominations T:TDYK
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Removed hooks WP:DYKREMOVED
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS
Shortcut:



This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

Who's handing out the medals?[edit]

Someone give me a 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal or else. [1] LavaBaron (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to say "please". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone please give me a 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal or else. LavaBaron (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Havard Business Review says that's a bad idea. Will a pony do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be fine. LavaBaron (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ha... You folks are funny.... Don't forget to update Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I need a 50 DYK award... just sayin'. Montanabw(talk) 23:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, ah, ah. You didn't say the magic word! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I almost just gave you one, but I checked [2] and you only have 48 DYKs. Sucks to be you. Meanwhile, I'll be trotting around the Teahouse on my brand new pony. LavaBaron (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Does the tool count DYK credits that were given out manually when the bot was down? --PFHLai (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't call me a tool. LavaBaron (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Disregard the preceding, I misunderstood. Anyway, supposedly it doesn't count DYK credits given out manually prior to 2001. I don't know that for a fact, though, that's just what I heard. LavaBaron (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The bot doesn't count manual credits. I know because I've had DYKs for Canterbury Cricket Week and Newry City Ladies F.C. done manually but the bot didn't count them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
OK. In that case I've just GF awarded Montanabw a 50 DYK medal. LavaBaron (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Emoji u1f44f.svgEmoji u1f44f.svgEmoji u1f44f.svg Emoji u1f60a.svg --PFHLai (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! And actually, it's 51: [3]. The old ones apparently didn't get counted or something... Montanabw(talk) 00:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know that these medals existed. Can I please get my goodies? I'm at 88 nominations so far. I'm not sure how many are for creations/expansions, and how many for just nominations, but I think it's about 2/3 for creations.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Please be encouraged to update Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The DYK notices tool says I have 25 DYKs while the ones I've manually listed out on my page say 26. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nominations page isn't transcluding properly[edit]

Beginning with January 27 and down, something is out of kilter on the transclusion of the nominations. On my system, anyway, it just looks like regular wiki links to the templates. It's not specific to my browser, because I see that no matter which browser is used. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

#Problems with the syntax?. We should probably add this to the FAQ. It gets asked almost weekly. Jolly Ω Janner 01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The quickest way to solve this and keep it that way would be to fill another three prep sets now, and keep the total of filled preps and queues at seven or eight. We have too many unpromoted nominations on the page at the moment, which exceeds the maximum number of transclusions for a single page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Even when it's not over the transclusion limit, this page is frequently browser-stutteringly too long. Why not have a bot move the approved-but-not-yet-promoted nominations to a different subpage? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I support this idea. That could make it easier for potential promoters to see what is ostensibly ready to go. If a promoter sees a problem with the nomination, it could be moved back to the regular nomination page. Pulling an approved nomination, whether on the suggested separate page, or from the prep areas, would the same effort. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Maile. It would make it a lot easier to find hooks to promote, rather than scrolling through hundreds of nominations. Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: You might have previously offered some insight about a separate page for approved nominations, but I don't recall. If a bot could handle this, do you see any drawbacks? — Maile (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the DYKHousekeepingBot would need to be rewritten to a certain extent, since it currently builds that helpful Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count table at the top of both the T:DYK/Q and T:TDYK pages. And would we want the table to be a straight combination of the now-separated pages, so it contains the same data, or would we want two separate tables? I'd be worried about pages being moved prematurely: the key to moving is presumably having the most recent icon be a tick or AGF tick, but sometimes discussions are ongoing even at that point, with a new ALT hook having been proposed that still needs reviewing. (On the other hand, I don't see how this is feasible without a bot moving hooks between pages; I would consider the amount of manual work moving between pages to be far more onerous than scrolling down a page that already has a table linking you to dates with approved hooks in them.) Would I be correct in assuming that the special occasion section, since it only has approved hooks, would move to the new page as well? Pinging Shubinator, whose bots would need to be updated if some form of this goes forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The special occasion hooks open up an additional question, since we already have a separate page for April Fools Day. A lot of things to consider on the overall issue, but I think it's worth community discussion. — Maile (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, people should probably stop using "approved" to mean "not really quite finished" then ;) Or make a new {{DYKready}} template or something to say "I'm definitely no-really-I-mean-it-this-time finished reviewing this and you can move it to the approved-hooks subpage." The table can be assembled on a separate page and transcluded into both the unreviewed and reviewed nominations pages. As for special occasions, those get missed or forgotten so often that I'd be inclined to add a parameter to the nomination subpage template for requested dates, which could easily be read by the bot. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis Reviews who say they've passed a nomination mean just that. What BlueMoonset is talking about, is that the DYK system allows anyone to come along after a nomination has passed and offer an alt hook, or question something about the review, which re-opens an already approved nomination. It's a good feature, because criteria gets missed in a review. The only way to get around that, is a system not in place at DYK - one or more designated persons who are the only ones who can give the final approval on a reviewed nomination. This idea has been floated earlier and met with resistance by editors who have seen it on other review processes and don't like it. — Maile (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't need "official closers". If the reviewed ones are all on a single page, then people who want to give a second look to the reviews can focus their efforts. If they feel that their input is necessary, they can remove the "ready" template. Or, if this is really such a critical function, require a seconder before the review is considered complete. The most persistently annoying thing about the DYK Rube Goldberg machine is how difficult it is to follow a nomination's progress through the whole process, which results in things getting overlooked. Being able to actually read the nominations page would be a start. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nominating an article for DYK while an AFD discussion is ongoing.[edit]

Yesterday I found an AFD for Children's Village. The article was poorly written and poorly researched and unsourced. I did a little research and I believe I can save it from AFD and make a pretty decent little article about it. That said, I would like to nominate it for DYK; but since you only have 5 days from the article's creation to nominate it for DYK, and AFDs run for 7 days, I was wondering if the ongoing AFD would make it not eligible for DYK? Obviously we couldn't have on the front page while it's up for deletion; but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about nominating it while the discussion is ongoing. Is that acceptable? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing AfD not a problem (as long as it passes of course). And you get 7 days now, not 5! Edwardx (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
ONUnicorn, you should definitely nominate it within seven days of its original creation—no later than February 4—even if it's still undergoing AfD. Any review will have to be put on hold until the AfD ends (which could take a while if it is relisted), but assuming the article survives, it will be reviewed thereafter in the normal way. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Something fishy[edit]

I recently noticed User:D'SuperHero promoting his own nomination. It caught my eye, because I recently informed the user how to correctly promote nominations and was hoping he had learned. Unfortunately, not only was it his own nomination, but it was found to be ineligible by Karthikndr on the page. However a tick was later given by an anonymous IP (but signed by a register username?). I checked the IP edits and found a similar edit voting for D'Superhero's featured portal nomination (link). I really hope I got this completely wrong... Jolly Ω Janner 20:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The user does behave very suspiciously. They randomly added hooks which had not been featured on DYK to WP:Recent additions, which I just discovered and reverted (one had already been archived). -Zanhe (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The IP geolocates to India and the same state as the train station, so that makes some slight sense. The other January edit by this IP is to an article edited by D'SuperHero and ARNAB22 (user name used by the IP when signing). The edit to the portal is really odd though - completely out of the blue. Also, ARNAB22 has made no edits to any Wikipedia namespace so this is a substantial deviation. I would not be surprised if this is DSH - there is a gap in their editing times when the IP edited, this is a supposedly new editor but shows significant skill from the start and seems to have a strong interest in collecting badges and user rights. Ravensfire (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: why do you refer to him as "Jin" on his user talk page? Is there more history to this user? I was hoping this could be resolved here with an apology, but may need to be moved to ANI. Jolly Ω Janner 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm strongly suspicious this is a sock of TekkenJinKazama. I did file an SPI which found them to be technically unrelated. The behavior evidence is somewhat strong, but not enough to warrant a block. [Several] of TJK's [previous] accounts also got in to GA and had very similar interests as DSH. I'm still very certain it's Jin, but WP:AGF it's a new user that knows Wiki markup and policies pretty well right from the start, but is fairly helpful overall. Their habit of seeking user rights and privileges is concerning and matches the potential self-promotion by the IP. Ravensfire (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Surely there is enough evidence to check whether the IP is D'SuperHero and to block? Logging out to upvote nominations surely can't be accepted as good faith. Jolly Ω Janner 21:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
SPI won't connect an IP to a user for privacy concerns. The best option may be for someone uninvolved to review and determine if the IP's comment should be considered. Ravensfire (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Zanhe has rightfully removed it on the DYK nomination. I have also posted a note on my observation of this situation on the portal nomination. Will be interested to hear what D'SuperHero has to say. I guess that's all we can do for now. Thanks Jolly Ω Janner 21:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I have just done a quick check of the nomination. While the article has been more than 5x expanded, neither hook is valid, and both contain errors in the facts given, which reflect errors in the article itself. At the moment, there is significant work to be done on both article and nomination for this to proceed, and it should never have been promoted, and certainly not by its nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Khedda lead hook[edit]

An editor complained on main-page errors that the lead hook, Khedda, is inaccurate in stating that Assam has the most elephants in India. This fact does seem to be incorrect, and moreover it looks as if that entire hook was not reviewed, with an alt being favoured. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Baleen whale DYK[edit]

I would like to obtain input here from other users regarding the DYK nomination at Did you know nominations/Baleen whale, as per concerns about extensive table content not being part of the prose count in determining DYK eligibility. Details are in my review at the discussion. North America1000 20:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've always thought of it as not being able to be counted because then you could have an article with a large table and a one sentence intro. Same as we don't count quoted text as part of the character count. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Same, C of E, but this article seems a bit different to your typical table. Jolly Ω Janner 20:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
This simply doesn't qualify, unfortunately, as it's only a 2.25x expansion even with the table prose in the pre-rewrite version not counted (DYKcheck doesn't count tables), from 16331 to 36785 prose characters. It looks like an ideal candidate for the GA process, so it could come back to DYK if it is listed as a GA; for now, however, it's too far from qualifying, so I've marked it with the X icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first twelve days of 2016. As of the most recent update, 156 nominations have been approved, leaving 212 of 368 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four remaining from December and first nine from early January that are left over from last week's list.

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) 03:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6[edit]

Just a quick suggestion. In Prep 6 the bottom hook on St. Paul's Church, Rusthall had a good image to go with it (better than the lead hook currently being used IMO) yet it is not being used as the lead hook. Can we swap them? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

An image of a building has been more recently displayed than a person, so replacing the person with the building isn't really appropriate. If someone wants to move your hook and its image to a later set, they can certainly do that. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed from main page: ... that Polyclonoolithus is one of the only dinosaur eggs known from the Hekou Group in Gansu?[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Polyclonoolithus @Ashorocetus, Kevmin, and Casliber:

What does that even mean? "... that Polyclonoolithus is one of the only dinosaur eggs known from the Hekou Group in Gansu?"

Please, can someone dissect this sentence grammatically? To me, it looks to be an unhappy marriage of two or three ideas crammed into a single hook.

Feel free to readd it when corrected, I didn't see an easy way to phrase it comprehensibly without losing one or more of the probably intended meanings (only a few eggs are known from the Hekou Group, Polywhatever is only known from eggs from that group, Polyagain is the only recognised dino from those eggs...) Perhaps something like "That Poly is only known from dinosaur eggs from the Hekou Group in Gansu"? Fram (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It may not be primary-schoo-simple, but it in no way seems incoherent. It's more a case of you failing to read the article. Polyclonoolithus is not a dinosaur, it's a family of eggs (see Dinosaur egg#Classification, linked in the very first sentence of the article). Hekou Group is a rock formation, which is in Gansu. This is pretty much the same, grammatically, as saying "badgers are one of the only known carnivores from Ireland". How this somehow came to be considered worthy of removal is beyond me. GRAPPLE X 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Grapple. There is nothing wrong with the hook. It seems perfectly intelligible to me.4meter4 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
But it is not "one of the few" or "one of the many", it is the only oogenus known from there at all. There are a few eggs known (as in shells), and one oogenus. But you can't use both at once. Fram (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I see your point, having now read the article. The hook fact is not accurate as written and should not have been given an approval tick. That said, the writing of the hook was fine in terms of clarity which was the issue originally brought here. Nice catch on the factual error. A new hook should be proposed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I thought that the discrepancy between the hook and the article was simply due to a poorly written hook, as it sounded strange to my ears. Not being a native English speaker, I demur to you (plural) that from a grammatical point of view, there was nothing wrong with the hook. It has since been reinstated (which I can understand, seeing the above), but now we have found that there is a problem with it anyway... It would be good if some other people gave their opinion as well, I don't feel comfortable removing it a second time. @BorgQueen:, like I just said, no problem with your revert, but considering the comments since, I'ld like your opinion on this as well please. Fram (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually the article IS correct, Polyclonoolithus (italics people >.> ) is the only described oogenus from the Geologic formation. NO other oogenera have yet been described, making the hook accurate. Fram, please actually read the articles before claiming inaccuracy. --Kevmin § 19:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, other eggs are known from the Hekou group (just no identified oogenera), so the hook is accurate as stated. The eggs discovered in 2009 were mentioned in the "Discovery" section of the article. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kevmin:, please don't assume that I haven't read the article before I claimed inaccuracy. "One of the only" means (in a rather confusing way) that there are others; since no others have been described, we don't know if there are others or not (other eggs have been found, could be from the same oogenus, we don't know and apparently no one does. You wouldn't write "one of the only" if there only was one, I hope. No idea why this hook couldn't be written in an unambiguous way instead of this confusing and rather misleading one. Fram (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be misleading to say "the only" because there are other eggs known from the site which have not been classified as Polyclonoolithus. Anyway it's a little late to worry about it now. Sorry about all the confusion, I could have made it clearer, you're right. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No, that's why I would have done a hook saying something like "that the only known Poly... dinosaur egg comes from the Hekou Group" or something similar, to avoid all problems and get the interesting fact across more clearly. Water under the bridge, opinions can differ and all that. Fram (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Gosh..been busy IRL and look what I've missed. I did read through it when promoting it and felt it was ok...but it was late and the article is a bit tricky to follow in places...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a great writer. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm not as great a reader as I thought, so I guess it's time for a grouphug ;-) Fram (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 :D Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Everyone, try harder. Case closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to put a note here[edit]

Hey there. I just wanted to put a repeat note here about Template:Did you know nominations/First first-class cricket match in Australia, as it was played on 11 and 12 February 1851. You may want this DYK to be placed on the main page during the said days this month. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: It's been added to the Special Occasion Holding Area for those dates. Yoninah (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

New pageview stats tool[edit]

After getting no response at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Pageview_Stats_down_again, I started looking around. It seems that there is a new tool here, but I do not understand how to use it. Does this replace the old stats tool? If so, how do I use it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Here's another pageview tool which I've just been trying: Article Comparison. It's especially good for comparing several articles together but will only take 5 - not quite enough for a full DYK batch. Andrew D. (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

ErrantX's new stat tool[edit]

I see ErrantX has created a new tool. It seems to me that the PM time slot calculation should be D0 + D+1 - (D-1 + D+2) or else one of the two days' stats still gets inflated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Tony is right; but a lot of the stats have been calculated on the page elsewith. Changing it will potentially impact the ordering of a lot of the DYKSTATS, hence my suggestion it needs consensus. I think I might build the alternate calculation into the tool in the meantime to give both options. --Errant (chat!) 08:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think there were calculations before any adjustment, but that did not stop deciding to use an adjustment. We should make the adjustment correct.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 (Desert Rat & Silver Buckle)[edit]

"... that Desert Rat followed Silver Buckle?" I'm not commenting on the ambiguity of the hook here, but I noticed that Silver Buckle has its own nomination. I think common sense would be too bold it in this hook and reject its nomination. Jolly Ω Janner 21:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Beatles hook removed from Main Page[edit]

Not having learned anything from my previous removal of a hook from the main page, I have now done it again... Template:Did you know nominations/Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad

@Nvvchar, Ms Sarah Welch, Johanna, and Jolly Janner:

As said on WP:ERRORS, it wasn't a Beatles' recording (this isn't even claimed in the article) and it didn't top the charts (it made the top twenty in two countries and "did well" in another). Fram (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, John Lennon also had no hand in the recording of this single (also according to The Radha Krsna Temple (album)#"Hare Krishna Mantra" single. Not a lot of this hook actually remains after fact-checking.

Something like that? Fram (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • As someone who's done quite a bit of Beatles article work, the only thing Lennon was interested in in 1969 was Yoko Ono, beds, trees and world peace. He'd gone off the Indian thing (see Sexy Sadie) so without even looking at a source I say the hook is questionable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, the hook was accepted in AGF mode, since it wasn't linked in the article. No idea why not, as it is available online at [4]. Page 83 of that book supports the hook, the problem is that no other reliable source does. E.g. the song never was "the number one song on the English musci charts", it peaked at #12. None of the many sources discussing the Beatles' recordings seems to support the claim that "Collectively the Beatles produced and played on" this song or the album; a suorce about "Hare Krishna in India" is probably less reliable for these kinds of things than the collective Beatle-ology of the past 50 years. Fram (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It is widely documented in numerous sources that the Beatles did not collectively record anything together after 20 August 1969, save for a single session with 3/4 of them on 3 January 1970.[1] @JG66: is our resident Harrison expert, so he'll be able to supply an authoritative source or three. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ian McDonald. Revolution in the Head - The Beatles Records and the Sixties. Pimlico / Random House. p. 322. ISBN 978-0712-666978. 

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Fram:, @Ritchie333: Here are two sources, one a secondary source published by Princeton University Press and another a tertiary source published by Routledge:

1. Charles Brooks (1989), The Hare Krishnas in India, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-8120809390, pages 83–85, Quote: "Hare Krishna Mantra soon became the number one song on the English music charts, and had similar success in West Germany and Czechoslovakia".
2. Peter Clarke (2005), Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415267076, page 308 Quote: "There they captured the imagination of The Beatles, particularly George Harrison who helped them produce a chart topping record of the Hare Krishna mantra (1969) and ...".

I am also able to verify what @Fram states, the song reaching #12, staying on the charts for weeks, etc. The good faith question is whether the other authors are referring to the same music charts in 1969, and whether there was only one music chart? Given the controversy, I will update the article further (include the above dissenting viewpoints for NPOV with WP:RS), and leave the DYK decision to the consensus. The following seems supported by the multiple sources "... that a song based on Sanskrit language mantra verses in the Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad became a chart topping recording on the 1969 music charts in Europe?" Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There is only one "official" singles chart in the UK, and on that chart it reached #12. That does not make it "chart-topping", whatever some writers might say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think proposing a different text after the blatantly wrong one has "graced" the main page for 8 hours is necessary, this article won't go in the DYK section again (no "DYK decision" will happen, if it had been caught during the standard process before it hit the main page things would have been different). I would urge you to simply remove the Brooks source from the article (at least for anything related to the song and album), as it is obviously incorrect in most of what it says. Adding a quote with the incorrect information, like you just did here, goes against everything an encyclopedia should try to be. While Brooks may be well-informed about Krishna in India, he is clearly completely incorrectly informed about the Beatles and what happened with the song, and should just not be used for that kind of information. Fram (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
<edit conflict>When I created the Radha Krisna Temple album article, I noticed that a few sources inflate the single's commercial success somewhat – I recall reading that the song was a top-ten hit in the UK, and number 1 in Czechoslovakia and/or Yugoslavia. There were at least four national singles charts in the UK during the late '60s, so it is possible that one of them listed the HK Mantra higher than number 12 (it peaked at number 11 on Melody Maker's chart, for instance). What these sources could well be referring to is radio play in W Germany, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia – as in the UK, it was hugely popular on the radio.
But although Lennon was very interested in the Krishnas (he certainly didn't leave all things Indian behind post 1968; and heroin would be another [major] interest of his in 1969!), there's no way he participated in the recording. McCartney was in the control room at Abbey Road during the session, offering suggestions on microphone placement – and it does seem that some ISKCON-aligned sources overplay that detail, imo. The single was issued on Apple Records, so, combined with George Harrison's very public support, this could well be how the idea came about that "the Beatles produced" the track. JG66 (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: Your comments and concern about the Brooks' book published by Princeton University Press is duly noted. Are you okay with the cited sources, on the Hare mantra song, published by Routledge and Cambridge University Press? @JG66/@Fram: Given your knowledge of the Beatles, the song and album, I welcome you to edit and improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I'd say the Peter Clarke/Routledge book is good. In the article, I think the Lennon picture should be replaced by one of Harrison, and the text should definitely list Harrison first. (The pic of him with Mukunda at The Radha Krsna Temple (album)#Album recording might be worth considering?) Harrison's ties to the mantra, the Upanishads and Gaudiya Vaishnavism were lifelong and a major part of his public image even before the Beatles' break-up. With Lennon, though, it was more of a passing interest as he battled heroin addiction. Hope that helps. JG66 (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec)I changed the section of the article somewhat, and removed the John Lennon image as being largely irrelevant now. Fram (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This hook ran on the main page for over eight hours of its scheduled twelve. The nomination has not been reopened, and I believe that is the right decision: it has had plenty of time on the main page, and indeed more than hooks get when we're running three sets a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5: Insert Name Here[edit]

Can some people please check the Queue5 hook for Insert Name Here? Template:Did you know nominations/For What It's Worth (game show), Insert Name Here. @Launchballer, Lemuellio, and Jolly Janner:

A) What is meant is the first UK TV panel show (see e.g. The News Quiz for a much earlier UK Radio panel show hosted by the same Sandi Toksvig)

B) What is meant is the first female to regularly front a panel show: e.g. Have I Got News for You has had multiple women to front the show, but none of them were a regular host

C) Why is A Question of Sport not a panel show?

D) If C doen't count, what about What the Dickens, hosted by ... Sandi Toksvig?

It seems as if a completely new hook will have to be found for this one... Oh well, at least I have learned that Stephen Fry will be replaced by Sandi Toksvig! Fram (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Those of us with long memories will recall Sandi Toksvig hosting the "Sandwich Quiz" on No. 73 several decades ago, but calling that a "panel show" is stretching it a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I cannot verify it myself, but another reviewer extracted this from the source: "the first female host of a mainstream comedy TV panel show". My guess is that The Times author doesn't consider A Question of Sport a panel show and doesn't consider the other ones as mainstream. I admit it seems confusing, but we'd need a reliable source that disputes this. Such as classifying A Question of Sport as a comedy panel show. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone familiar to British TV that it is both hosted by a woman and "mainstream". Jolly Ω Janner 15:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Page 110 classifies it as a Panel Show. This should be pulled. I'm not sure if The Times got this one completely wrong or were trying to be overly precise. Either way, I don't think there's any unambiguous solution. My preferred solution is to go with the original hook proposed in the nomination, which would require editing For What It's Worth in queue 4. Jolly Ω Janner 15:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
[5] "There are other BBC panel shows with women presenters – including Sue Barker on BBC1’s A Question of Sport and Victoria Coren on BBC2’s Only Connect. However, these shows are not strictly of the “comedy” variety, although their devotees may beg to differ. " So at least this reliable source disagrees with the hook as written. And of course we make a bit of a fool of ourselves if a DYK hook contradicts our own articles, like List of British game shows#Panel games. Yes, most sources support the claim in the hook, though with added qualifiers. Even so, most were ranging from debatable to flat-out wrong. Fram (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The Times remark, and any further reproduction of that fact, can be blamed on John Lloyd, who first came out with it and was consequentially paraphrased. You can probably just add the phrase "mainstream comedy TV" to the hook.--Launchballer 16:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
To any sysops, please remove this and re-open the nomination before it reaches the Main Page in six hours. I've also requested this at the errors page. Jolly Ω Janner 05:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The hook has been removed, but that leaves Queue 5 short a hook. Since the removed hook was in the quirky spot, perhaps the quirky hook from Prep 4 would do the trick, assuming the prep hasn't been promoted to queue by that point? BlueMoonset (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

200 character limit[edit]

Does the 200 character limit for length of hooks include wikimarkup? You know, the '''[[]]''' at minimum, plus any other brackets needed to link other articles? Also, does it include spaces? And if we pipe a link, does it include the hidden part of the link, or just what is visible to the reader? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's 200 visible characters, so it doesn't include any of that.--Launchballer 16:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It does include visible spaces, but as Launchballer notes, not any of the behind-the-scenes wikimarkup, just the actual visible characters. The initial ellipsis and space are not counted in the total, but the final question mark is. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

International Women's Day hooks[edit]

Our sets for International Women's Day are going to look pretty boring with approved hooks like these:

  • ... that Christiane Floyd was the first professor of computer science in Germany?
  • ... that Edith Ellen Greenwood was the first female recipient of the Soldier's Medal?
  • ... that Mary F. Hoyt was the first woman to receive a position in the United States federal civil service?
  • ... that Ellen Fitz Pendleton was the first woman to serve on a panel to award the American Peace Prize?
I proposed on the template: ALT1 ... that Wellesley College president Ellen Fitz Pendleton supported academic freedom for pacifists during World War I and later opposed the 1935 loyal oath required of teachers in Massachusetts? — Maile (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You're great, Maile. Yoninah (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I suggest to add Delores Ziegler, an American with a career in Europe, hook mentioning Dorabella, no first ;) - Also a teamwork. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this is what you mean by boring, but the hooks focus too much on "first" to do something. What did these women accomplish after they chanced to step into history as the "first" of anything? — Maile (talk)
  • Also, 4 of the 5 hooks listed in the special holding area are by the same nominator. — Maile (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
We have a few weeks to assemble the March 8 sets. In the meantime, we should start some kind of page patrol to weed out and destroy these "I'm the first!" hooks. Yoninah (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Did You Know ... that Michelle Obama was the first descendant of slaves to serve as First Lady of the United States? Wouldn't it be a shame if that's if that's all someone knew about her? — Maile (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK that sounds like advertising[edit]

This DYK sounds like corporate spam:

"...that web-based jewelry retailer Bravelets donates ten dollars of each purchase to the charity of the customer's choice?"

I believe it should be removed. Duivelwaan (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Corsican protests[edit]

If anyone wants to come up with an interesting hook for 2015 Corsican protests...be my guest. I am reviewing it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Food related hooks in image slots[edit]

Can anyone explain to me the logic of having all the image slots for this coming Monday (Feb 8) dedicated to food? If these images were scheduled for Feb 9, Mardi Gras and Shrove Tuesday, then there would be an obvious connection between the image subject and the date they are scheduled to run (pancakes would be a better fit that fruit and soup, but you take what you can get). What is the connection that I am missing? --Allen3 talk 12:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Since posting my original comment, the block of food images has been broken up by Yoninah ([6] & [7]). This leads to a second question: is a thick rich bowl of soup an appropriate image for Ash Wednesday, a traditional day of fasting for many Christian denominations? --Allen3 talk 13:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I've moved the chowder to the PM slot for Shrove Tuesday. It means we have a gap of bio pics, but IMO we often overcompensate them for the lead hooks. Any other suggested improvements, Allen? Jolly Ω Janner 04:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Page view stats has a temporary fix[edit]

"Temporary", being until WMF institutes a new and permanent one they will maintain. Until then, MusikAnimal has given us a fix. Details VP (technical) thread. MusikAnimal, you have made a lot of people on this DYK project happy today.— Maile (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. The real credit goes to the this wonderful person who works for the WMF. Not sure what their on-wiki username is. I just took their code and made it accept params so we could link to it. Cheers MusikAnimal talk 16:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Another thing I wanted to mention... I understand the DYK project does some record-keeping on the most viewed DYKs. Problem is the old stats.grok.se only reported desktop views (and probably not all of them either), where as the new pageviews API reports mobile and desktop. Since mobile accounts for 50%+ of enwiki's traffic, what you're seeing now is going to be dramatically higher than what the old tool would report. Thus you should not compare your new DYK statistics with old ones. I suppose the old record book will have to closed entirely and we can start a new one. But at least we know that moving forward we will have fully accurate data :) MusikAnimal talk 07:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I did some quick tests and it appears the pageview API data goes back as far as August 1, 2015. I have adjusted the tool to prevent querying data earlier than that. Best MusikAnimal talk 07:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Data from between Aug and early Oct. is patchy (from my testing). Earlier data is not planned to be loaded I don't think. Regarding the mobile hits; for DYK this has accounted for only a slight increase (I think it looked to be around 10%) in totals. It's at least representative; especially if we use the new stats going forward & note on the page. --Errant (chat!) 10:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@ErrantX: Thanks for the note on Aug/Sep, going to update my tool to block those months. It appears you and MelanieN are right about DYK stats... checking those articles I see marginal differences. Come to find out, DYK's aren't shown on m.wikipedia.org! So there ya go :) However raw data from day to day is drastic: For instance looking at Google on December 9, 2015 shows 17,937 hits, but through the pageview API we see 211,806. Maybe that's a bad example MusikAnimal talk 19:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Web statistics tool for a collection of questions and possible new solutions. --.js[democracy needed] 14:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Can old TFA appear as DYK?[edit]

Kerala was recently promoted to GA status and I was thinking about nominating it for DYK. The criteria states that any article that has previously appeared in the INT and OTD sections is ineligible. However, it doesn't say anything about articles that have appeared in the TFA section. Kerala was a FA long back and featured in TFA section in 2006. The article was demoted and it just passed a GAR. So, is it eligible to appear as DYK? Regards, Yash! 06:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right; the rules do not cover this scenario. Since it was ten years ago, I see no problem with this. Indeed, I'm sure there are plenty of articles that were first featured on DYK? and later became TFA. Jolly Ω Janner 15:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
True. It's the other way around here so wasn't sure if I should nominate it for DYK or not. I will move forward with it then. Yash! 19:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/List of songs recorded by Madonna[edit]

Can I some some discussion here please. nomination is slightly over the 7 day rule but I think it should be allowed. Thank you.  — Calvin999 22:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How much over the limit are we talking about here? If it's hours and up to a day, I would allow it. Days to a week and that's clearly not new. I can understand frustrations, since by the time they are received on the Main Page, nominations are typically three weeks old. I would stress the importance of getting a nomination posted as soon as you can. Jolly Ω Janner 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The expansion started at 20:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)‎, and the nomination was made at 14:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC). That's 7 days and 18:21 in toto. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Back when it was a 5-day rule, we used to allow up to 8-day nominations. I think we should accept this. Yoninah (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that as long as it passes all other DYK criteria on the review, we shouldn't quibble on a few hours (according to BlueMoonset's calculation above). It's a terrific work, and I assume you're taking it up to FLC. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I would advise User:Northamerica1000 to do a full review of the nomination if it's to be used as a QPQ for Queen Elizabeth cake. Jolly Ω Janner 01:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)