Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Did you know...?" template
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Nominations WP:DYKN
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

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

Prep 5[edit]

... that the Taunton Flag (pictured) was one of the first flags used prior to the American Revolution to express dissension against the British authorities?

Picky one, but the article makes it clear that it was one of the first flags to be used in British North America. A better hook seems to be something along the lines of that noted in this website which states that Taunton became the first in the American colonies to raise a flag in opposition to British rule. and leave it at that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It was raised before the American Revolution and the hook doesn't mention the name of the colony/area that it happened in but American Revolution implies it was within the area that we now know as the US for familiarity. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with TRM's assessment here; the implication is that it was the first flag used against British authority (which at the time extended pretty far); the "American revolution" bit doesn't to me imply a location for the first part of the hook, only that the American revolution was another well-known act of dissent against British authority. Vanamonde (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, it wasn't just American colonies that objected to the Empire. Suggest the hook is pulled and revised to make it clearer without assuming any kind of national link. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, anyone prepared to action this please? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you just pull it and reopen the mom page? I'd do it but I'm on my phone. EEng 08:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't do that stuff any more, in case it's re-interpreted as something more sinister. If there's a general agreement that the hook could and should be improved, someone trustworthy should be able to handle the request. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I fully support you (like anyone else) in pulling any hook with an obvious or potential problem not trivially fixable, and sending it back to the mom page, as long as you omit the denigration of other editors. EEng 14:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Sadly it doesn't matter one iota what your opinion is in this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4[edit]

... that 88 species of orchid have been identified in the Cutervo National Park in Peru?

Question: the source for this states that 88 morphospecies are present (... a total of 88 morphospecies were found ...), not specifically "species". Shouldn't the hook use the word "morphospecies"? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I had not come across the term "morphospecies" before, but you are probably right, and I have changed both the hook and article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
First thing I did when I checked the source was to check the term. It seemed, at first glance, that it was in no way the same as "species", but I'm no expert. Thanks for making the change!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 October 2016[edit]

In queue 4, third item Anna L. Peterson, "between" needs to be changed to "among" in the phrase " ... conceptions of nature, humans, animals, and the relationships between them." Three entities are involved, not two. Awien (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Awien (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Anybody? One preposition? Just five letters? Awien (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Vanamonde (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Vanamonde. Awien (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed[edit]

Is anyone adding entries to this list anymore? I just added one today ... and the last entry was 3 weeks ago, also by me. Yoninah (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
One wonders if a bot could check hook removals from queue/prep/main template and list them there copying the edit summary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Help, please[edit]

There is something wrong with the formatting of the nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Ahn. Numerous parameters are missing, and there is no closing line, causing the next nomination on that date to appear in small print. Yoninah (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Maile66:! Yoninah (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done It was an easy fix you can tell by looking at the history. Both the top part and bottom part of the template were missing. All I did was look at a nearby one done correctly, and copy and paste the parts that were missing. New nominator. Maybe they tried to make a template from scratch, rather than doing it by the instructions. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (Rwanda swimmer)[edit]

... that despite recording the second slowest heat time in the women's 100 metre butterfly at the 2016 Summer Olympics, Johanna Umurungi was seven seconds quicker than one athlete?

I'm finding it hard to consider this a "hook", or at least "hooky" in any way. The phrasing is awkward, the fact isn't interesting. Perhaps something like she was the only female Rwandan swimmer at the 2016 Olympics? Or that she was invited to participate by FINA? These are both referenced in the (out of date) Rwanda at the 2016 Summer Olympics article. Either one of those would be more "hooky" than the current lengthy effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Since the addition of the massive thread below which will no doubt obfuscate the existence of this one, I've decided to break with convention and apply an ITN/C approach, this needs attention so I've marked it as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Being the only female swimmer is indeed more hooky, assuming that it's reliably sourced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You can find the source in the Rwanda at the Games article I linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, The Rambling Man. I added this detail to the article with the source you provided. Can we skip the pulling business and just post your new hook in prep?
ALT1: ... that Johanna Umurungi was the only female Rwandan swimmer at the 2016 Summer Olympics? Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no interest in pulling any hook, so if there's an agreement here to make this more "hooky" that's fine. I guess it would be courteous to notify the nominator and the promoter? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Blush.png Er, I'm the promoter. I'm pinging @Yellow Dingo:, the nominator. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah and The Rambling Man: ALT 1 is fine with me. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be good if either of you could just substitute the old hook with the new one. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Yoninah (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

C6 appears to have never actually been a rule, yet it continues to be applied[edit]

In an effort to fill out the entries for Destination: Universe!, I wrote two articles and posted them to DYK. I made what I think were interesting hooks about the plots, only to have both be rejected by something called C6. I read C6 and was surprised, it seems to be a rather odd rule that is utterly arbitrary. So I looked into the history.

I found, to my dismay, that it was created without prior discussion by a single editor, who then used it as a reason to reject many hooks. There was no discussion of the rule before it was created (using search, which is not exactly exhaustive, I admit). The editor apparently created a new rule for their own use and then applied it as they saw fit. This so utterly flies in the face of everything that I believe the Wikipedia stands for that it takes my breath away.

A month or so later, this thread comes up, where everyone involved expresses their surprise that it even exists - even Gato had not seen it (and that says something!). Now at this point, one would imagine that such an edit would be considered disruptive and RVed. But that did not happen. What happened instead is a wonderful example of the Iron Law in action.

The next discussion I can find comes up a year and a half later, in this discussion. By this time this made-up rule is simply accepted as "real". The thread wanders off topic, but there appears to be wide consensus that it should not be interpreted in the way it is, that this was intended to prevent fictional works from being presented as if they were real. Gato first makes this point, and numerous editors all agree with it, going so far as to propose changes to make this clear. In spite of their being what appears to be some consensus on that change, nothing happens, the original rule remains as-is. Once again, at no point does the issue that this rule should never have been added even mentioned.

The issue next comes up that October, when a number of editors express their dissatisfaction with the application of this rule, with very clear consensus stating that it is being misapplied and the editor's actions are contrary to that consensus. Once again, the fact that the rule was never agreed to in the first place does not come up. Instead it drags off into a (failed?) attempt to have the editor banned from (non-review) DYKs in order to prevent this non-consensus view of the rule being applied.

Now here we are 7 years later. Today the "rule" is simply accepted, and applied in precisely the fashion that was clearly against consensus. This is such a wonderful example of the bureaucratic love of rules that it makes me smile as I write this. Rules, even fake ones, tend to become real in bureaucracies. And it's not like this was in the wild-west days of the early Wikipedia, by 2009 the process for these sorts of things was well developed, and simply not followed.

For strictly procedural reasons, I believe the argument can be made that it should be stricken as it was never agreed to. But there was wide agreement that fictional hooks should identify themselves as such, and I can get definitely behind that.


Proposal: Change C6 to read "Hooks about fictional works need to identify themselves as such."

This would mean that:

"Hamlet says the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be'"

would not meet C6, while:

"In Shakespeare's Hamlet, the titular character speaks the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be'"

would. Whereas today's application demands some sort of convoluted hook:

"Charlie Chaplin recites the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be' as king Shahdov".

The purpose of such a connection is completely lost on me, and apparently most of the people who considered it in the past. So lets get this fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: per diff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Just delete the arcane rule. It's not as if it makes any difference, particularly if the hook was featured as the "quirky" last hook is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes lets strike off the rule. From after this discussion it should no longer apply. But it was applied in the past, so we should not make it disappear without trace. Strike it and note that it is historical. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that the rule should be stricken if there was no proper consensus for it. And I agree that we should not be prejudiced against fiction, just because it's fiction. But there is an issue in that fiction is often written to be exciting and surprising and that makes it too easy to use its hooks. I'm not sure that we want our hooks to be such obvious plot twists or spoilers. For example, "Did You Know ... that Ramsay Bolton is killed by ********** in HBO's Game of Thrones?" We should try to do more than just steal the story's thunder.
By the way, I noticed the difficulty that Maury Markowitz was having with those nominations and that got me started on something similar. I already have a good hook in mind ... that the Black Destroyer was the start of science fiction's Golden Age and inspired other works including Alien? Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! So it seems there's not even consensus for a "make it clear its fiction?". I'm happy with that too. I'm not sure who wrote the "I agree..." part (Andrew?) but perhaps then the real concern here is "No spoilers in the hooks", but perhaps that might end up being abused too. I'm up for its consideration though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree with TRM, it doesnt have any use at all, except as a reason for DragonflySixtyseven to decline noms. There is no reason to maintain any part of C6 in my opinion. In regards to "spoilers", we are writing about things that have already happened so I see no reason to try to avoid the possibility of a spoiler.--Kevmin § 00:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I imagine part of the reason people thought C6 was reasonable is that you avoid hooks that are "in-universe", and also ones that depend entirely on an unsourced plot section. One of my hooks several years back was rejected because it dealt with events in a television episode, and I came up with what turned out to be a far more effective hook once I had to bring the real world into it. All of the rules are supposed to have described a consensus at the time, either the way things were done or after a question came up and the consensus was codified, such as the article-for-article QPQ. I'm surprised to hear that this wasn't created based on how things were already being done or by consensus, in part because it makes a certain sense. Will hooks that are completely fictional need to be explicitly supported by a source other than the work in question, or will it not be possible to check those hooks any more short of reading/viewing/hearing the work in question? If the latter, I'd be concerned about uncheckable hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Such hooks would have to be cited and confirmable, as per the other rules. Preferably by a secondary source writing about that "fictional fact". Uncited plot sections could not supply DYK hooks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
        Which would apply in my two hooks, BTW, but I'm fine with that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, so there is a very clear consensus to kill C6 outright (which, frankly, surprises me while lightening my heart). What is the process for actually doing that? I saw a suggestion to leave in a note about it being historical and that seems like a good idea. So do I simply remove it and renumber the C series and put a note somewhere, or leave it in a strikeout? Does there need to me a longer process, or are we good to go with this SNOW as it is? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Either remove it or strike it with an edit summary referencing this conversation. Don't renumber the other rules though, that can cause confusion (see for example WP:CSD, when criteria A4 and A6 disappeared years ago we didn't renumber all the others because people had got used to referring to them). Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to argue in favor of the rule. Articles on fiction are supposed to be more than plot summaries; they are supposed to indicate the real-world significance and importance of the topic. Likewise, hooks about fiction should make sense to people who have not read/seen/gained familiarity with the topic. Things like the hook that Andrew Davidson mentions above, about the story setting off the new golden age of sci-fi - that indicates real world significance. That gets me interested in reading both the article, and the book it's about. A mere summation of a plot point, like, "Did you know that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's son?" does nothing. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    I believe you are confusing two issues. The demand for real-world significance is true same for any article - to establish notability. It has nothing to do with articles about fiction. The second issue is about hooks, and there is nothing anywhere about having to establish notability in the hook.
    As to the claim that it would make for better hooks... really? Anyone can write a bad hook about any topic. Here's one: "...that Robert Watt moved to London?" That meets every rule, would you say we should use it? Or contrariwise, what possible reason should we not be able to use "...that the evil antagonist from Star Wars, Darth Vader, turns out to be the father of the hero, Luke Skywalker?" That seems like a great hook, IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    Addition: Further on the last point - there's nothing to say that it's the 3rd party interest that won't be the better hook. For instance, in "Black Destroyer" I would argue that this is the case - it's both the topic of a lawsuit about Alien and the marker for the Golden Age. Either of those is more interesting than the relatively simplistic story, IMHO. But now consider the contrary case, "A Can of Paint" is not interesting because someone made a movie out of it, so why should that be the hook? For that matter, why do we need Robert Forward to simply recount the original plot point of "Far Centaurus" that makes a perfectly good hook on its own? In this case, there's not even any difference, we just put someone else's name on it. "The best hook" is a decision made on an article-by-article basis, and having a rule just for this one article type is pretty much the definition of arbitrary. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm somewhat torn on this issue, but hooks are supposed to be interesting, which usually means, that they highlight something unusual, unexpected, out of the ordinary. But when it comes to a work of fiction, it's expected that weird things will happen, so arguably, highlighting fictional events fails the hook interest requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am missing the logic here - you seem to be saying that something could not not interesting because it is expected to be interesting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I've never been totally comfortable with this rule myself. However, what it has done is prevent a small avalanche of subpar hooks making it to the main page - hooks along the lines of "Did you know that in PlatformGameW spriteX runs around bashing a whole bunch of Ys with weaponZ?" I mean, you know what they say about there being only a very limited number of plots in fiction, with most of them just being variations on a theme. So, while I'm not totally opposed to the notion of permitting fictional events in hooks, I am inclined to the view that the "interest" bar has to be set higher if you don't want to be deluged by examples such as the one above. Gatoclass (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so C6 still goes in its current form. Is there any reason for me not to do that now?
But we still have the open issue of tools to kill bad hooks. I'm all for it, with two provisos, it doesn't single out a particular type of article, and doesn't make certain hooks illegal even if they are good. It's that last part that is the real problem here, C6 kills off more good hooks than bad. I'm not sure what such a bar would look like, but I'm certainly open to any ideas along those lines. In fact, it would seem such a discussion is long overdue. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should be removing C6 unless or until we find something better with which to replace it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
C6 is clearly in violation of policies we had in place when it was written, and you're the only remaining holdout on what is otherwise a very clear consensus above. I'm happy to start a new discussion on what should replace it, I'll even stickhandle the entire process, but unless you actually have that suggestion right now then I'm going to strike unless you have a procedural opposition you would like to raise. There are hooks that are being held up for no reason, we need to move this along. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (fellowship)[edit]

... that Lisbeth Hockey was the first nurse to be awarded a fellowship by the Royal College of General Practitioners?

It should be made very clear here that this was an honorary fellowship, per the article and the sources. I'm not clear why this wasn't picked up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for catching that, TRM. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Noted, thanks for checking and picking this up. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Drchriswilliams no worries! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (dancing)[edit]

...that in the video game Bound, the main character moves by dancing?

Rather than just moving by dancing, the text in the article says She must complete platforming challenges and has the ability to dance to repel enemies..., i.e. "she has the ability to dance"... and it's also a platform game, so I assume she doesn't just dance her way through it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Looks like she does - further down the article in the Development section it says "Every single animation of the character was replaced to change it to a dance move." It's that sentence you quote rather than the hook that's misleading, I think. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    Ok, so the article is inconsistent, I see that now. I guess I should have thoroughly read the whole article like the reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    P.S. the main ref says in which the main character dances and performs gymnastic movements to navigate the world i.e. she does more than just dance. A quick check of the main ref, like two seconds.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    Meh. I'd normally give this the benefit of the doubt, but the article is clearly inconsistent. The hook should be something like ...that in the video game Bound, the main character mostly/mainly moves by dancing ... but to be honest given the inconsistent nature of the article, I wouldn't argue with pulling it either. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I have made the change. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (headache)[edit]

"... that the headache vine (pictured) gained its name from its supposed ability to cure headaches by being an irritant?"

The article, somewhat confusingly, contains the following text: The species gains its common name from a folk use as a remedy for headaches. (so, not a "supposed ability", a "folk use", whatever that is?), but that sentence is then followed by The aroma from the crushed leaves is inhaled, though it relieved headaches due to its highly irritant properties, and I can't for the life of me understand what "though it relieved..." means here. Before I am, once again, reminded that article quality is not important, that DYK is not GA etc etc, I'm befuddled as to what these sentences actually mean. The source is not available to me to check, so I can only assume there's some kind of misinterpretation of the reference. Either way, the language used in the article is poor, and the corresponding hook is equally bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Please provide a link to the article or nomination in such cases. Referencing a prep is not so useful because the contents of the prep pages keeps changing. In this case, it took some effort to establish that the article in question is Clematis glycinoides. There was no redirect for headache vine so I have created it now. Oddly, there was a redirect for headachevine but that goes to a different target. Anyway, the effect of this plant is well-explained by Medicinal Plants in Australia. Now, where do I get some? :) Andrew D. (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • For the avoidance of doubt, and to help you in the future, links to all the nominations can be found at the Prep and Queue areas. Or you can use the "What links here" tool! Either way, raising such issues requires no such linking, we are here to discuss the hook and look at the article, the nomination itself is somewhat irrelevant! Thanks!! P.S. It's still in Prep 1 (where I reported it). If you think the instructions need to be changed, feel free to propose something. Now, back to the issue I raised, please! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
      • TRM, perhaps you should ping the nominator and expander of the article. Here is a link to the hook Template:Did you know nominations/Clematis glycinoides ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Perhaps, but I'm looking for people who are constructing these sets to provide their interpretation of the text I've noted, that doesn't necessarily need to be the nominator or expander. Someone thinks it makes sense, obviously, just not me. And once again, if you think the instructions should be changed to include pinging the nominator, reviewers, promoter etc, please feel free to do so! Now, back to the issue I raised please. Can someone interpret those phrases I've pointed out and somehow relate them to the hook? One also imagines that the name is given because it cures headaches, (and actually, the plant doesn't cure headaches, it's supposedly the aroma that does), not because it cures "headaches by being an irritant".... Perhaps, "...cure headaches, despite its aroma being an irritant?" The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm pinging User:Casliber as the most appropriate editor to resolve this – author, nominator, expert on Australian plants, medic and member of Arbcom. Andrew D. (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Very good of you to take the time to do that, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
          • As the prep builder, I checked the source and noticed that the page creator could have given another sentence or two to explain the phenomenon. However, since this is a start-class article, I thought that what was written was sufficient for DYK. The page creator did do a good job of avoiding close paraphrasing (it's the fumes that irritate the one who smells it, not the aroma), but more description would certainly be better. Yoninah (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
            • Right, here now. Been offline for a bit and this happens. The source author seemed a bit bemused in that the irritant fumes cured a headache in what sounds reminiscent of curing a toothache by dropping a bowling ball on one's toe. I didn't think it was that obscure that someone couldn't have gotten the gist of it but whatever. Still, it was late when I wrote it and yes I could have phrased it better. So how about this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
              • Gotcha, thanks! Still think the hook needs a tweak, the "by being an irritant" isn't part of the reason it was called the headache vine, just the fact it cured headaches (allegedly)... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
              • Better now I can see the source! It's a shame we lose the potency of the reference, which academically states "the head exploding, the eyes watering and the intense irritation of the nasal passages" which results in the actual headache being "forgotten". I would have loved to have seen such vibrant and hooky language used on the main page rather than the mundane version we're soon to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
                • I am happy if someone wants to change it - stepping out soon and will be remote from keyboards for a fair few hours....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
                  • Bizarre indentation scheme we're into now! Just wanted to point out that the current hook is probably incorrect, the article was poor, yet the source was truly exciting. Let's capture some of that to interest our main page readers, all the millions and millions of them!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
                    • @The Rambling Man: The reason the indentation on this thread became so weird was because you double-indented your 11:43 post, producing an :* that becomes part of the indentation heirarchy. Pppery 23:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This hook still isn't quite right, please could someone adjust it per the above discussion, i.e. it's not called "headache vine" because .... "by being an irritant", it's called the headache vine because it allegedly cures headaches. The "by being an irritant" is quirky but doesn't form part of the causal argument over the name. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done @The Rambling Man: OK, I changed it in prep. This is a totally new way of doing things, you understand. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it? Well I'd like to help out myself, but that's no longer allowed, so the edits I used to make will now be noted here for complete transparency, and if they're not resolved, I'll move them to ERRORS. I don't think it's "totally new" in any case. But thanks so much for your response and your help!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Another anniversary-related expedited review request[edit]

Hi again. This time I have created and nominated Disappearance of Joan Risch in the hope that it will be able to run on Monday, October 24, in North America, the 55th anniversary of the event. Since it seems like we have a bit more lead time than we have had on some of my other recent such requests (a little bit better time management on my part this time), and the queues for that day are still empty, I think this shouldn't be too much of a problem to review and make any necessary changes.

Hell, there's even a picture this time if we want it to be the lead hook. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have approved this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This needs promotion from the special holding area to the slot I have left in Prep 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (MotoGP)[edit]

... that Antonio Giovinazzi achieved his first GP2 series pole position at the 2016 Baku GP2 Series round and went on to win both the weekend's races?

This hook is repetitive, in that we needlessly repeat "GP2 series" (and inconsistently capitalise it, by the way). I would suggest something like:

... that Antonio Giovinazzi achieved his first GP2 series pole position at the 2016 Baku round and went on to win both of the weekend's races? or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Good take. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth are you going to adjust the hook please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. You forgot the "of" in "both _of_ the weekend's races", but meh. I guess American English is becoming the standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 (nursing studies)[edit]

... that the Nursing Studies Unit at the University of Edinburgh was the first such department in a UK university?

It always sticks out to me when I see "UK" in hooks, so I checked the refs here, the first says its the first "within the framework of a British university", the second says "the first Nurse Teaching Unit at a British university in 1956" and the third says "the first university-based centre for nursing in Europe". None seem to mention the UK. Oh, and if we change the hook, can we please avoid the redirect to the target article? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Have changed it to British as that seems to fit with the references best. Have also fixed the redirect and changed the article to fit. Pinged nominators Drchriswilliams, Nursingafwood just in case they disagree. Cowlibob (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I have no objection to the change. At the time that the unit was being established in 1955 it was reported as the "first British" in the Glasgow Herald newspaper and British Medical Journal. Later on there were also some claims that the unit was the first of its kind in Europe, such as 1996 Nursing Standard article written by someone who worked at the unit. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix Cowlibob, and thanks Dr Chris for the confirmation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 (argon compounds)[edit]

... that argon oxide, an argon compound, interferes with the detection of iron in inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry?

The article actually states that it's iron-56 and other isotopes of iron, not actually just iron itself (to whit, ...which can interfere with detection of iron-56 56Fe and other isotopes of iron in mass spectroscopy.... My understanding is that isotopes differ from their element through a different number of neutrons, so perhaps just saying "iron" here is mildly inaccurate, or possibly just a little misleading. It would be better, or more accurate, to say "... with the detection of certain isotopes of iron in ...." don't you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The term iron encompasses all of iron's various isotopes, though of course certain of those isotopes are much more common in nature. There's no one isotope which is "elemental iron". "Elemental" mean Fe uncompounded with anything else i.e. not chemically compounded as in e.g. FeO; the Fe involved (whether compounded or not) could be any isotope or mix of isotopes. EEng 19:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. "Elemental", for some other elements, can mean compounded, but only with itself e.g. H2 or O2. (This is all from my highschool chemistry, so I'm happy to be corrected by someone who actually knows what he or she is talking about.)
The "and other" formulation to me implies that it doesn't matter which isotope specifically it is. The article though notes that the similarity in the mass is the issue which sounds like the isotope mass does actually matter (also because 40 nucleons in the most common isotope Argon-40+16 nucleons in the most common isotope Oxygen-16=same mass as the 56 nucleons of Iron-56). What does the source say? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The source is offline, yet the text in the article is very specific, while our hook is very generalised. It may be foolhardy or rash to assume that " iron-56 56Fe and other isotopes of iron" means that it doesn't matter which isotope. If that were the case, I don't see the benefit in the article of singling out isotopes, when just "iron" would do the trick. Perhaps, to avoid any kind of doubt, we should find a different hook from this article? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Unless someone's gonna build a faulty inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer based on this imprecise hook, we're overthinking this. It's like if we said "sharks live in water" -- well, actually, it has to be liquid water, and it needs to be salt water now that you mention it, but that doesn't make "sharks live in water" wrong. EEng 23:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the hook in the prep area. As a chemist, I can state that the article is referring not to all isotopes of iron, but specifically to iron-56, the most common isotope (~90% of iron). TRM refers to the other isotopes based on the article, but the article is awkwardly worded and is saying that the formation of ArO+ interferes with detection of 56Fe whilst ArN+ interferes with detection of 54Fe. EEng is correct that "iron" would typically mean the mix of naturally-occurring isotopes, but mass spectrometry responds to individual isotopes separately, and so is one place where different isotopes are different. Jo-Jo is correct that the individual isotope masses most definitely matter. In fact, high resolution MS will be able to separate 40Ar16O+ at m / z = 55.947 from 56Fe+ at m / z = 55.935, but at low resolution they will be detected together. The isotopes don't matter (much) when they are only present in trace amounts, so taking argon as just argon-40 (which is 99.6% of it) is ok, as is taking oxygen as just oxygen-16 (which is 99.76% of it). I take EEng's shark in water analogy for Ar and O, but in the case of Fe it is not so persuasive. The change I have made is chemically accurate and more precise, and it removes an ambiguity with TRM noted while not burdening the hook significantly. I hope it will be supported. EdChem (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Your change is not unhelpful, but I do wonder if there aren't better places the DYK hive-mind's limited pool of attention could have been expended. EEng 01:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@EEng: It did lead me to clarify the article, so there was a benefit for mainspace.  :) As for where we devote attention, it often comes down to personal interest, as you know. TRM devotes a lot of time and effect to main-page quality (and is presently making fantastic contributions, if I may say so). As a scientist, I saw this as one discussion where my expertise suggested clear support for an approach, so I followed it, and then posted a rationale here for the edification of all. Cheers. EdChem (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
In view of the article improvement, I withdraw my comment in this case. Nontheless I wonder sometimes whether the intellectual resources -- not to mention the gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair -- invested in taking certain hooks from 99% accurate ("sharks live in water") to 99.44% accurate ("sharks live in liquid saltwater") is worth it in general, given that there are plenty of hooks that are only 50% accurate, 10% accurate, 0% accurate, or even less accurate than that (if that's possible). Letting stuff like this go would allow more focus on truly needy hooks. EEng 02:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Noted, but unless others are reviewing every hook, I don't actually see that working in practice. Thanks for your thoughts though! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I own at least 10 shark-based films that show Sharks to be living places other than salt water. We have Sand Sharks, Sharknado, Sharkalaunche, Ghost Shark (if you consider the ethereal realm), Sharkano.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

[Attention needed] Prep 2 (US politics overdose...)[edit]

Do we really need two hooks relating to minor US politicians in the same set, i.e. Geary and Turner/Gewertz could easily be split over two sets. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Plus, trying to frame his political rival Kenneth A. Gewertz by planting 6,500 amphetamine-like tablets in his home doesn't seem to tie in to the text in the article. The hook implies that Turner "planted" the tablets himself, while the article states that it was someone else entirely who did that. Plus, isn't this focusing on the negative aspects of a biography once again, something the project tends to try to avoid? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Aha, I see my first point was addressed while I was getting the kids to bed, the second still remains... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree on the negative aspects here, I am certain that there will be complaints if the current hook runs as is. I have seen less negative hooks get flack for running, I don't think this one shluld go to the main page. MPJ-DK  23:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed negative, but that I thought that was a primary concern in biographies of living persons; Turner died 35 years ago in 1981, while Gewertz died 10 years ago in 2006. I have changed the hook to say Turner had the tablets planted, rather than that he planted them himself; if that isn't sufficient, we could say that he arranged to have the tablets planted. However, since neither article is a BLP, I have left the hook in the prep set. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Works for me, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 (prophetess)[edit]

... that followers of the Zimbabwean prophetess Mai Chaza replaced the New Testament with a compilation of her own words and deeds?

I think this fails one of the many fundamental rules of DYK, the word "prophetess" does not seem to appear in the article at all. "Faith healer" is there, but I don't think the two are necessarily equivalent in all aspects. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, a minor point, but it would seem to me to be far more interesting that she was "depicted as a member of the Trinity" rather than her followers simply publishing things she said and did. But your mileage may vary I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm returning it to the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (Aldersey)[edit]

... that Thomas Aldersey (pictured) gave the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers, now an educational charity, their first school?

Minor point this time round, it seems remiss of the hook to not mention that Aldersey actually founded the grammar school himself before "giving" it to the Company just under 20 years later. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Article author here. I'd prefer not to; many people founded schools but Aldersey seems to have been the first to come up with the idea of giving one to a trade guild. I can't think of a simple wording that encompasses all of the notions that he founded a school; he gave it to the Haberdashers; it was their first school; they are now an educational charity. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought you could just add "which he had founded" to the end of the hook, but no worries. Thanks for the response. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (Fun fun fun)[edit]

... that artists including The Beach Boys and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young playing at the Big Sur Folk Festival were never paid more than $50, and attendees paid only $3.50 to $5.50 each?

I thought we didn't capitalise "The" in these circumstances, such as "The Beatles" in this context becomes " including the Beatles...."? Also, I imagine the first of those $ should be linked to US dollar, just in case our audience aren't clear on the actual currency being discussed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done but The Beach Boys is the name of the group (and the article), so I wrote it with a small "t" inside the link: the Beach Boys. Let's see if some fan jumps in with a capitalization correction at WP:ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and no doubt you're right about the ERRORS report in due course! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it looks as if the Beach Boys and CSNY may have gotten a lot more than $50, as that was the limit per head, not per group. The hook to me reads as if the whole group got max $50. Fram (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And the attendance fee seems to be a piece of OR based on deciphering the festival posters, but it is impossible to read the admission price on the 1967 poster (if it is even mentioned?), and (worse) we don't have the 1971 one, which was the last festival. Fram (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Fram: The source says "Nancy...has never had to pay any performer more than scale, $50 a head". I'm sorry I missed that. And I suggest removing the part about what attendees paid, as it weighs down the hook anyway. Here's a new alt:

Prep 4 (US or U.S.)[edit]

... that in Hale v. Henkel, the US Supreme Court ruled that the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to corporations?

Minor issue, the article itself uses U.S. for Supreme Court, although the actual article (not even linked in the hook) is Supreme Court of the United States. I would suggest a consistent approach to this in hooks, perhaps once again not assuming that the whole English-reading world knows what the "US Supreme Court" actually is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I am feeling rather frustrated right now, after having worked for two hours on building prep sets, only to see your cheery corrections as soon as I post them. I do appreciate your instant reviews of the hooks, TRM, but I'm wondering if the corrections could be made in a holding area from which we could select hooks that are really ready to go. This suggestion has been made before; perhaps a bot could move approved hooks into the holding area so eagle eyes like yours could spot all the problems. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Changed to United States Supreme Court. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't afford to risk making changes to anything any more. I can simply suggest those changes. Thanks for your diligence! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue[edit]

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Have a good day yourself DYKUpdateBot, did you love that latest Brigitte Jones movie? I heard it was up there.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (Chandler)[edit]

... that Irish footballer Jeff Chandler was "never the same player" after a knee injury in the fourth game of the 1987–88 season with Bolton?

Minor points: it was specifically Bolton's fourth game of the season, and we have an article for that: 1987–88 Bolton Wanderers F.C. season which could be linked. Also, while we drop F.C. when referring to these clubs in prose, we usually keep the rest of the title, so I'd expect to see the club referred to as Bolton Wanderers, not simply Bolton (which could be confused with Bolton, after all). So it'd be more like:

... that the Irish footballer Jeff Chandler was "never the same player" after suffering a knee injury in Bolton Wanderers' fourth game of their 1987–88 season? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thanks, TRM. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for the prompt action. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (Passport to Pimlico)[edit]

Why isn't the hook written like the prose in the article, i.e. "... the 1949 film Passport to Pimlico..." rather than the awkward juxtaposition currently employed, i.e. "the film Passport to Pimlico (1949)"? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a trivial point not worth opening a thread for. EEng 08:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, of course no action need be taken but I was just asking a simple and civil question about the awkward phrasing. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Yoninah for the fix! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Potential for undue negativity in BLP hook[edit]

I recently wrote an article on Timothy N. Philpot, and nominated it for DYK. I wrote about him because I was interested in the contrasts he exhibits. A Republican State Senator praised by a liberal local newspaper, a family court judge who makes negative comments on LGBT issues but is defended as fair by the lawyers appearing before him in gay adoption cases, and a highly religious man who expresses that he does not bring religion into his court even when he sees it as the solution - yet wrote a novel based on his cases about the importance of marriage. I proposed a series of possible hooks, anticipating some could be unacceptable for undue negativity, but also a fall-back hook that I was confident was ok but also felt was much less interesting. The reviewer, Cwmhiraeth, very understandably looked only at my fall-back option as I left it as ALT0 and didn't explain my thinking - my fault entirely. Cwmhiraeth is reluctant to wade into undue negativity issues, also understandably, but is fine with my raising a discussion here.

I seek input on which (if any) of my ALTs might be seen as acceptable from a BLP perspective. If the conclusion is that only ALT0 is ok, I will accept that, obviously, but if a more interesting option is deemed usable, that would be desirable from my perspective. I note that Cwmhiraeth and EEng are the only ones to comment on the nomination page, so linking them to notify of this discussion. All perspectives welcome, obviously. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) (PS: I am travelling for much of the next 24 hours, so am unlikely to respond in that time... just FYI.)

Assistance with Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Harmatz[edit]

Can an uninvolved editor help with the nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Harmatz regarding the issue of Harmatz having "led" a plot to kill thousands of SS POWs after World War II?

There are six separate sources, provided in the article and as part of the nomination discussion that all explicitly describe Harmatz as the leader of the plot to poison thousands of SS POWs. The primary source used to support the claim is from The New York Times with the title "Joseph Harmatz, Who Led Jewish Plot to Kill Germans After World War II, Dies at 91" -- that states "The second scheme was not a complete failure, however. Led by 21-year-old Joseph Harmatz, a survivor of the Vilnius ghetto in Lithuania, the plotters sickened more than 2,200 German prisoners, inducing vomiting and other symptoms of cholera." Several other sources that all use various terms to describe him as leading or organizing the plot are already in the article or in the discussion.

Renata3, who has reviewed the nomination, is bothered by the word "led". He is characterizing six different sources from major international reliable and verifiable sources, all of which characterize Harmatz as leader, as "Passing mentions in newspaper articles" from "vague, inaccurate, misleading, or out-right wrong churnalists".

I stand behind the wording in the hook and behind the multiple sources provided. I hope that independent review will help here. Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I am also flabbergasted by the review. I did a complete review and am asking the nominator just to tighten the hook. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3 (Big Sur)[edit]

" the Big Sur Folk Festival were never..." the festival does not need to be italicised. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3 (Otto Bock)[edit]

"... that Ottobock technicians at ..." the correct title for the company (and the article) is Otto Bock. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The company's legal name in Germany is Otto Bock, but calls itself Ottobock [1], which is its correct title elsewhere, including the English-speaking world and Brazil. It's okay to change it, but it's not incorrect. It might however make a better hook if people think one man repaired hundreds of wheelchairs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure a better hook is one which is completely false. FWIW, I don't think "that Otto Bock technicians..." would be read as "one man repaired hundreds of wheelchairs". If so, and maybe in any case, we need to clarify the hook with "German prosthetics company..." All I asked was to make the article title and the prose within the article (e.g. the lead sentence) and this DYK hook consistent. I'm sure it can't be that hard, but if it is, forgive me and I'll move on to the next hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Buried approvals[edit]

Just thought I'd let prep builders know that there have been a few nominations that have been approved for over a month but have not been run yet, possibly because the bot isn't picking up the tick which leads to the unfortunate consequence of buried hooks. Template:Did you know nominations/Ex Unitate Vires and Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Trenton, Georgia (preferably with the image) are two that are within that category of those that have been approved but not yet run. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the bot is picking them both up—the List of DYK Hooks by Date table shows approved hooks on September 11 and 14, the dates that these two hooks come from. There are also hooks from older dates that may have been approved more recently, but they tend to get picked up due to having been nominated earlier; at the moment there are seven approved from before September 11. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think your nominations have been overlooked, its just that certain circumstances have conspired against them. Flag of Trenton is waiting for a picture slot, and a decent gap since we last had a flag picture hook. I suggested a variant hook for Ex Unitate Vires this morning. Quite a few of the nominations that have been approved for the longest time were approved by me, so I am not permitted to move them into prep, and I look forward to other people promoting them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (Cortana)[edit]

* ... that Cortana correctly predicted the winners of the first 14 matches of the football 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage?

The "football" in this hook is redundant, the second F in FIFA stands for football. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, I did ask that question on the QPQ. Joseph2302 11:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (Consairway)[edit]

* ... that in 1992, civilian pilots for Consairway were granted veteran status by the Veterans Benefits Administration for their World War II service transporting munitions and military personnel?

The article does not specify that it was pilots, it says "employees", and given the first actual flight didn't take place until April 23, 1942 while those awarded worked for the company since December 14, 1941. Suggest replacing "pilots" for "employees" which is what the article says. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list was archived over two hours ago, so here's a new list of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through October 14. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, only 65 nominations have been approved, leaving 132 of 197 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the six 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:

Over a month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello DYK crowd. According to discussion, there is a rough consensus that it wouldn't be in the community's benefit to renew the DYK participation restrictions on LavaBaron in case of his return to the English Wikipedia. The restrictions are therefore considered expired. Deryck C. 12:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? It will take more than five comments (3 to 2) in a thread that just pooped out to overturn what a much wider community enacted for very good reasons. EEng 14:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Well that sure was fortuitous timing on this wasn't it?  MPJ-DK  19:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am Unretired[edit]

Hello DYKers. Just a FYI that, in response to a number of requests, I earlier today announced my unretirement from the English Wikipedia. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 (motto)[edit]

...noticed the motto Ex Unitate Vires on a tablecloth...

It should be clarified that it wasn't just any old motto, but the national motto of South Africa, otherwise the hook loses its impact. A year for the visit may also be useful considering many of readers may be unaware of the history of the segregation in South Africa... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)