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 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

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.

The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon?[edit]

The Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following: wording has been part of the DYK nominations page since October 2011, after the test of a required review template that had reviewers checking off all such aspects was abandoned. The new wording didn't say "then indicate that you have reviewed all aspects of the article"; it's clear, given the actual wording coupled with the example that they expected the review be written out. And that expectation has been a part of DYK ever since.

DYK reviewing procedures aren't only in a single review document. Aspects can be found in many places—indeed, there have been many abortive attempts to get everything in one place, but until one succeeds and is approved, the various locations are all relevant: WP:DYKR, WP:DYK, T:TDYK, WP:DYKSG, the DYK nomination template editing window, and probably other locations I'm not remembering at the moment.

The rules do change over time, as consensus for such change is agreed to here on WT:DYK and in various RfCs that have been conducted. But there hasn't been any agreement here to change the practice of several years that reviews should specifically mention which aspects were checked, and many reviewers are careful to make sure that the reviews do mention each criterion checked and how the article/hook measure up to it.

The obvious question is whether the DYK community wishes to continue enforcing full reviews—whether volunteer or QPQ—or wishes to let the requirement lapse or be modified in some way. The usual way to do this is through discussion and consensus; of course, if any reviewer is allowed to continue refusing to follow the requirement and approve review after review, it will become quite difficult if not impossible to ask others to do what he will not, and the requirement withers. I frankly hope it doesn't wither, because the written out review is helpful to promoter and nominator alike, and it has over time improved the breadth of reviewing and the new reviewers to understand what they need to do as part of a QPQ or other review. But if it does become obsolete, it should be because the many DYK participants have decided it is no longer needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


  • Retain and enforce - For all the reasons discussed on this talk page for years, and for all the hooks pulled, for the most recent (but not only) discussion on Signpost of sloppy work on DYK, and for the outright feuds that have erupted over the sloppy quality of reviews. — Maile (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Adding that the nomination template already has a Reviewers' template in the upper right hand corner. It's a simple check list that makes it easy and convenient to check off the review. It's not difficult to use. — Maile (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain As a long time contributor, I can say it takse little effort at all to actually indicate the aspects that have been reviewed. And its been a requirement for several years at least that the aspects are stated. Lava, its not going to kill you to follow the requirements.--Kevmin § 13:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain and enforce per User:Maile66. As I mentioned in a different thread, for editors who regularly review articles, this requirement could be seen as a bureaucratic hassle, but allowing them to just write "meets all criteria" is an open invitation to new/inexperienced editors to do the same. We have to enforce accountability at the ground level. As a side note, because of the long time it takes to build a prep – due to the need to re-review all the hooks, often finding problems, and returning newly un-approved hooks back to the nominator's court – I don't even bother looking at the ones that say "GTG" or "Fine with me". Yoninah (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yoninah; today - Template:Did you know nominations/Baker Run, Windfall Run - you (1) unilaterally exempted another editor from the newness requirement, and, (2) did it through a conversation on outside the nom template. I considered heeding your call for "accountability at the ground level" [sic] and failing this otherwise excellent nom by Jakec, however, I'm not going to do that as I remain consistent and confirmed in my belief we should be enforcing quality rather than process. If you're going to demand other editors follow the letter of the law, it might behoove you to do the same. LavaBaron (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain - while, as Jackob points out below, there are a lot guidelines and criteria and unwritten rules and so forth to DYK, I've never seen these enforced as part of the rule to include all review criteria. I only check against, and include, the list of rules that appear at the top of every review template. All the rules are based off those basic rules. Sure, I forget to write out a criterion or two that I checked the review against, but, if someone challenges the review, it doesn't take long to explain that you simply forgot to mention in the review that you had checked the article against all criteria.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain and enforce. As I noted above, I think it's important to DYK to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain. I have long argued that we need better standards of accountability at DYK. This page demonstrates why I think so, but I want to emphasize that the hooks listed there are only the tip of the iceberg. In almost every hook set I review, I find misstated and erroneous hooks, hooks with obvious grammatical errors, hooks that barely make sense, hooks not worth reading, and on it goes. For every hook I pull from prep, there are probably a dozen others that need copyediting or amendment of one sort or another - and I only review a minority of hook sets. Sloppy reviewing is a perennial problem at DYK and we need to be doing everything we reasonably can to discourage it. If anything, we should be looking to enhance our review procedures, not degrading them still further. Gatoclass (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with you 100%. And going hand in hand with that is at the very bottom of DYK Prep areas N14: It is the promoter's responsibility to make sure all review issues have been resolved, that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. The promoter acts as a secondary verification that the nomination was reviewed properly. — Maile (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain and enforce. As a fairly new DYK reviewer and nominator, I find the requirement immensely helpful in reminding me to both be thorough in my review (and I hope no one intends that DYK reviews should be less thorough) and include all the relevant areas. On one of my recent reviews I almost forgot to double-check the status of the image included, but the checklist's requirement that each part of the review be detailed in the writeup saved me. I can't imagine any consequence of removing the requirement other than the quality of reviews declining (particularly as newcomers to the page might think all there was to it was writing "good to go!" without actually doing a review) and even more hooks being pulled from prep. Sure, some people might write that they did a full review without having done so, but that fact doesn't mean the current requirement should be rescinded. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think a rule like this would be much easier to maintain if we actually had one or more review templates, the way that GARs do. We've experimented with them, yes, but never developed them enough to introduce them to general reviewers via a stable page with wikilinks to it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
There are a couple out there, but there are few adherents. It might be nice to have those templates—any idea who might put them together?—though like at GAN, some people prefer to write out their review than tick a bunch of boxes. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Create and enforce.
    • The nay votes are completely correct that the current phrasing is revisionist and POV. A full checklist has never been an actual part of the review process, just something occasionally demanded by the admins when it looks like someone has been completely halfassed. "{{DYKtick}} GtoG. -Capt½Ass" The review that started this off—this one by Lavabaron—is a good example of what has been perfectly acceptable in the past: he at least mentioned going through the the checklist.
    • Further, the current review templates are terrible.
    • Further, rule creep has been growing cancerously in DYK and needs to start being cut out.
    • Further, the improvement here is minimal. The halfasses who halfassed their checkmark will now simply halfass seven checkmarks and diligent reviewers will still need to doublecheck reviews.
  • Now, all of that said,
    • this is something people should already be doing.
    • It doesn't take any more time if the editors were already actually reviewing the article properly.
    • Having an even more formal checklist than the one we already have at the top of the template will help avoid obnoxious rule creep by editors such as Maile. The checklist will be the checklist and that will be the end of it. Petty demands for more hoop-jumping will require such editors to gather support for a change to the checklist itself (a higher bar) and make such changes obvious and explicit to new editors.
    • It will hopefully spur some helpful editors to streamline the review process. Using earwig shouldn't be an optional thing available in the sidebar: a link from it should simply be the thing that shows you actually did check for copyvio.
  •  — LlywelynII 23:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


  • Retain and enforce current wording of reviewing guide which does not require checkbox reviews Nothing is being "rescinded" where nothing has previously been enforced and where conflicting guidance is offered in multiple, equally valid, places. I object to the very wording of the proposal as POV-pushing. There's no evidence the community has ever been "enforcing full reviews." Also, this long proposal contains substantial editorial expository, opinion statements and historical revisionism, and is not a neutrally-worded proposal. A neutrally-worded proposal specific to amending the Reviewing Guide has been advanced below. LavaBaron (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Abandon, but make it abundantly clear to all reviewers that they must check the criteria. It is overly bureaucratic, and therein lies the problem. Nobody wants to type out a thousand-word essay explaining how the article meets every single one of the 100+ rules and criteria and sub-rules and policies and guidelines and unwritten rules and secret rules and whatever. What matters is the quality of the review itself, not how many words the review types on the nomination form. It would be easy for system gamers (and there would be a lot of those if we started enforcing the rule) to just slap up a thousand-word essay without actually reading the article. This rule doesn't stop people from making shoddy reviews, or from missing things. Here's another reason it's rather pointless: the prep builders don't just take it on faith; they basically do a full review all over again (but funnily enough, they just have to say "promoted" or "rejected"). So yes, there's no point. Just check all the DYK criteria and say that you've done so, and all is fine. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


I'm not sure retaining or abandoning it is the right question. I'm very much disturbed by Yoninah's comments which imply to me that DYK's need re-reviewing when being moved to prep. That sounds like a serious problem, and more to the point it sounds like a critical problem because they are not talking about the short form reviews but all reviews in general. Increasing the form of the review won't help with this issue. I think we should be discussing how to address bad reviews... ones that actually miss DYK criteria. Because then we can hopefully be more sure that whatever the review looks like it is of good quality. --Errant (chat!) 14:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Errant, back when I was taking my first steps in assembling prep sets, my mentors noted that assembling did not just involve balancing a set, it was also the point at which a new pair of eyes should recheck to be sure the article met the DYK criteria, since any single reviewer can miss things: hooks might not read well, the hook fact might not be in the article or the given source, a BLP issue might have been overlooked, and so on. Building prep sets take time, at least how I was taught: you should scan each article, spot check a few sources to see if facts line up and close paraphrasing isn't an issue, and see whether any issues leap out at you. Having a review that mentions those aspects that were checked is helpful in this regard: you know what the reviewer has looked at ... and if there's an omission or lack of clarity, you know to check that aspect more deeply. The prep assembly step and the prep-to-queue promotion are the only two places where that sort of quality control can be inserted into the DYK process, and very few admins will do it at the latter step (Gatoclass is the only one I've noticed lately removing hooks at that stage), so prep assembly is currently the most likely place to catch errors. I rarely assembled a set without sending at least one approved nomination back for repairs. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I object to the construction of the proposal. First, I'm extremely concerned this proposal has not been made in good faith and has been advanced as part of a long-term editor dispute. This discussion should be closed until one that is (1) neutrally worded sans editorial commentary by the proposer, and, (2) contains a concise and actionable proposal, is advanced. Second, and most importantly, the proposal has, in addition to its inherent POV problems, been abusively constructed so as to require a consensus to maintain the status quo; as noted elsewhere the reviewing guide only requires a written review must begin with "one of the five DYK review icons" and contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." The way in which this proposal is constructed will green-light an amendment to the reviewing guide if a consensus fails. LavaBaron (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think BlueMoonset intended this as a poll; it looked to me as if he was merely initiating a discussion, but when you !voted on it, others followed suit. I think it's going to be disruptive to start again at this point; however, if you are really concerned, you could perhaps collaborate with another user on the other side of the fence - Maile perhaps - to organize a new statement and deprecate the old one. I'm not going to have time to do this myself. I will add however that any new statement should not present your proposed amendment to the status quo as the status quo position, as I outlined in the discussion with you below. Gatoclass (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
My proposal actually presented Maile's proposed amendment to the status quo position. The status quo being the wording that is present in the reviewing guide. To demand that the form the RFC take is in the offer of an amendment to the "unwritten custom" is an utterly impossible standard. Unwritten custom can't be amended because it's (a) unwritten, and, (b) customary. I'm at a complete loss as to why this is so difficult to understand. I'm also really concerned you had the time to close my RFC with a long expository about its problems with "subliminal" POV but, minutes later, find yourself too busy to address this one with its overt editorializing. LavaBaron (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron, please stop claiming that this is all about "unwritten custom". As has been pointed out to you below, the requirement to explicitly reference all aspects of a review is right there in the instructions at the top of the nominations page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Gatoclass as has been pointed out to you, the requirement that a review only contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have" is in the Reviewing Guide. I appreciate there is conflicting language, please proactively see this as a redundancy that needs to be remedied by evaluation of each of two equally-valid positions instead of presuming the Reviewing Guide is simply erroneous because of "accepted practice" (your exact words, AKA "unwritten custom"). LavaBaron (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't proposed anything. Nor do I care to.— Maile (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, according to Gatoclass, I am singularly and personally disallowed at proposing RFCs at DYK unless you or your compatriot participates. And, conveniently, you both say you won't. What an utterly bizarre interpretation of RFC guidelines - RFCs can't be proposed unless all sides agree to have a RFC. WP will grind to an absolute halt once that's applied system-wide. LavaBaron (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
NM - it appears Gator shut-down my neutrally-worded RFC as a precursor to lodging his own !vote ... even though he supposedly didn't have time to address any underlying issues. What a joke. Elections in Haiti in the 1970s were more even-handed than this. LavaBaron (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I shut down the RFC because I believed it was malformed, and not to do so would simply waste everyone's time. There was nothing to stop you opening a new RFC with more appropriate wording, made in collaboration with others. As it happened though, this discussion then became the default RFC. I agree the opening statement of this one is not appropriate either, but rather than shut down a second RFC, suggested you work with others to rectify that. I'm fairly sure that those who have already !voted retain at this point are not going to change their minds regardless of the wording. Gatoclass (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
And yet your most recent comment [1] was that it "was not technically malformed." I think you need to maybe take a beat. LavaBaron (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Your misstatements of my comments are getting rather tiresome. There is no contradiction there. I said I believed the RFC was malformed at the time I closed it, but later conceded that perhaps it was not. Regardless, the RFC statement was still in my view not neutral, which renders it equally invalid. Gatoclass (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you made a mistake in your rationale for closing. We seem to only disagree on the number of mistakes. LavaBaron (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Move to Abort RFC[edit]

  • Support - As per Gatorclass, this was not intended to be a RFC and "the opening statement of this one is not appropriate." LavaBaron (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The more you post, the more it becomes clear you don't have a good grasp of Wikipedia structure as a whole, and DYK in particular. The one you made is an RFC, because you labeled it so - that's your doing - you're the one who stuck an RFC template on it so it would be posted to Wikipedia editors at large. This doesn't claim to be an RFC, and never did. It's a talk page consensus, which is how things get done here. You can't shut down editors voicing their opinion on a talk page, any talk page. This is not a dictatorship where one editor gets to rule, or one editor who doesn't like to bother with the process can get it all tossed out for them personally. And administrators don't hand down rulings like a Supreme Court. At the end of the day, everything at Wikipedia gets done by talk page, of one place or another, and no lone person has a right to shut that down. And what you tagged as an RFC, that also takes consensus, either direction.— Maile (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
What can we do to empower you to post with WP:CIVILity and not launch scathing personal diatribes against other editors, as here? Believe it or not, an actual human being is behind this account with real human feelings, and I'd prefer not to be called a dictator. Not sure how calling other editors dictators contributes to building an encyclopedia, quite frankly. LavaBaron (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
And there you go again, misquoting. I didn't call you a dictator. I didn't call anyone a dictator. I said DYK is not a dictatorship. I'm sure you realize that all the time you've spent posting on this page, you could have done a lot of reviews and actually listed what you checked in the review. I don't know what your agenda is, and I don't care, but the process is the process. — Maile (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
My "agenda" is to build an encyclopedia. I'm starting to wonder about yours. LavaBaron (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Then perhaps you can explain to us all why it is so difficult for you to just follow the instructions on the nominations page section "How to review a nomination" that quite clearly states:
  • To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

    Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

Not only have you resisted and talked around doing that, but you keep posting hither and yon that the instructions don't say what should be listed. It looks pretty clear. Please tell us why you find it so difficult to follow those simple instructions. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide lists everything. How can you keep insisting the instructions don't say what you're supposed to check? — Maile (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, it is a very poor choice of wording to say on a review template: "I'm editing with another editor holding a gun to my head." And whatever topic ban you're referring to in the sentence before that, I've seen nothing like that on this DYK talk page. It has no place on a nomination template. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
As per the Reviewing Guide you cited, the only requirements in a written review is to place an icon and "be sure to give a thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." I always stamp an icon and I always give a thorough explanation of problems or concerns. I really do believe you still think the Reviewing Guide says something else. You should really take a moment to read it carefully, slowly, and deliberately. Wikipedia is not a race. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "abort": there is no reason to close this discussion, and every reason to continue it as it is one worth having. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Time to Conclude?[edit]

It's been a few weeks now, and the discussion and !voting seems to have come to a natural end. Have we come to a consensus? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

no; a new RfC should be opened in view of LlywelynII's observations - as this is a proposed creation of policy it should be a properly formatted RfC, policy should not be made by cliques in backrooms - also, as two different admins have held this was not neutrally worded, whether it's closed or not it will simply be an expression of the opinion of several editors and will not be binding on anyone - editors are free to adhere to or disregard this "consensus" as they see fit LavaBaron (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

AGF for a primary-source video?[edit]

I started a review of the Celebrity Fifteen to One nomination, whose current hook involves one contestant having appeared on the show during the tenures of both its hosts. I'm having some issues with verifying the facts needed to support the hook. First, for one of the contestant's appearances, the only source cited is a video of the episode, and I can't get the video to play (this seems to be a problem on my end, not with the video itself); would it be acceptable for me to AGF that the credits show the contestant's name as if it were an offline source? Does the fact that the video is a primary source make a difference?

The other issue is that there isn't a source cited which states that this contestant is the only one who appeared on the show with both hosts. There are just sourced tables listing which contestants appeared in each series, and as aforementioned, for some of the series, the only source cited for which contestants appeared are videos of the episodes themselves. I'm not sure whether this means the hook's assertion qualifies as WP:SYN or WP:OR or not, and I would like to solicit opinions from others on these questions. Thanks in advance to all who respond. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: that's pretty much a cut-and-dried example of original research, unfortunately. --Errant (chat!) 13:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was afraid of, Errant. I was hoping I was wrong. Thanks. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 09:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Two Ada Lovelace Days? 10th December is her 200th birthday[edit]

It says in Wikipedia at the start of her article "Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace (née Byron; 10 December 1815 – 27 November 1852)". By my reckoning that means that in about 25 days it will be exactly 200 years since the world's first computer programmer was born. Now some may see this as a day for articles about women, but she was also a computer programmer and also just a clever person. This is a significant anniversary. Any ideas? Victuallers (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I would love to have a mix of these themes - women scientists and computers and combinations thereof. :) Keilana (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Adding a nominations section below. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
To dream the impossible dream - if anyone had thought about it far enough ahead, the Ada Lovelace article could have been improved and brought to GA status, just in time for the lead hook at her big day. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Another to add would be to bring the article on her rather remarkable daughter, Anne Blunt, 15th Baroness Wentworth to GA as well. (This woman rode across the Middle Eastern deserts in search of Arabian horses and founded the Crabbet Park Stud and the Sheykh Obeyd stud; Crabbet probably the most influential breeding program for the modern Arabian horse in history... probably saved the breed from extinction. Montanabw(talk) 01:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Some great ideas .... I suspect that if anyone creates a GA and its looking good on December 9th then we may find two trusted editors to "ignore all rules" and just put it at the head of the set. (Object now to this idea if you see this) Victuallers (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Earwig's tool: Ada Lovelace, Anne Blunt. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Both articles have 98% matches, but to content copied from us, not the other way round. Ada might have some close paraphrasing to other sources. --Errant (chat!) 13:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


Kathryn Parsons was just promoted to prep. @Victuallers: I suggest you start a column in the Special Occasions holding area to move all the woman computer programmers/scientists after they are approved. Should we recall Kathryn Parsons from prep and move to this date? Yoninah (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Will do @Yoninah:, if you feel the author wont object then recall. Victuallers (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm the author, and I don't mind :) Yoninah (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I just moved a load of women scientists to the December 10 Special Occasions holding area. Maybe we should write some more computer programmer bios from the Women in Leadership list? Yoninah (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A gimmick? A DYK load where they are all called Ada?[edit]

The six below are a quick look, we may find others. The ones below can be made into start articles in 24 hours or Dr B could do them in 24 mins Victuallers (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. Q18526292, Ada Ballin, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  2. Q18526293, Ada Swanwick, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  3. Q18526294,Ada Vachell, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  4. Q18670631,Ada Benson, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  5. Q18670632,Ada Dundas, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  6. Q18917143,Ada Chesterton, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
Not forgetting "Fucking Ada", of course (?). *chortle, chortle" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, we are clashing with Human Rights day[edit]

I have just set up a special day and found that there is a date clash. I'm suggesting that the two subjects are not incompatible. We should be able to avoid hooks that contradict the aims of the other celebration. We may need to find a trusted 3rd party to do the choosing on the day before if we end up with more than two full sets. Victuallers (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there are any hooks ready for Human Rights Day yet anyway? Worst case; do one set for Ada, and one set for HRD. --Errant (chat!) 13:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The lone hook previously identified for use on MainPage on Human Rights Day is now being considered instead for Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20th. Somehow I don't think there will be too many hooks proposed for Human Rights Day. (Bios are easier to write...) We should be able to load DYK up for Ada on December 10th without any concerns for human rights. --PFHLai (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Pleased to see that we now have sets of hooks - brilliant. I guess if we find even better ones then we will need a chooser Victuallers (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Leelah Alcorn (intended for Queue 4)[edit]

  • ... that Leelah Alcorn, a transgender girl, signed her suicide note as "(Leelah) Josh Alcorn"?

Anyone have thoughts on this hook? I'm a bit uncomfortable with presenting this on the main page, but as it isn't technically negative BLP information I'd like a second opinion or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If this hits the main page then I predict POV pushers going ballistic. It's under discretionary sanctions, after all. While obviously she's not a LP anymore, her family and friends are, and I suggest that is "close enough" to count as BLP, and a main page hook describing how somebody took their own life is not really on in my view. I'll pull the hook now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it's not an appropriate hook. --Errant (chat!) 14:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've pulled it and given suggestions for a better hook. Paging @Rainbow unicorn:, @Midnightblueowl:, @Nvvchar:, @PFHLai: Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Leelah Alcorn achieved notability and public prominence because of her suicide, so I don't think that we'll ever escape any mention of that fact. However, we could try to take the emphasis off of the suicide itself, for instance by saying something along the lines of "in her suicide note, Leelah Alcorn expressed the hope that society would become more accepting of transgender people". Perhaps that's a bit too long, but I think that it might be a better option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think any mention of a person's suicide shows incredibly poor taste. Why not say something more positive instead, like: " ... that some commentators credit Leelah Alcorn with inspiring "a flashpoint for transgender progress in 2014"? (source). I'll post this on the nomination template as well. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't necessarily agree that mentioning a suicide is in poor taste, but such issues are of course heavily culturally mediated and all in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, I think that Norecardforfree's option is a good one and would be happy to endorse it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well if there weren't any negative consequences resulting from running two articles with their names starting with Fuck that Cirt brought up to FA status as TFA, why would the mention of suicide on the main page be problematic? If anything it would encourage more people to view the articles, which is the purpose of DYK. sst✈discuss 16:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The difference here is that the articles with Fuck in the title were only potentially insensitive to those that had a problem with the cursing language, which per WP:NOT#CENSORED we readily don't try to mitigate; we tell it like it is, and that's been established for years. On the other hand, between the BLP issues (and I agree this still applies despite being months out), and the recent overall discussion on how we discuss transgendered persons in wake of the Caitlyn Jenner situation, which I don't think we're really resolved to any degree, this easily could be a problematic hook, which we have no well-defined practice of handling. Meanwhile that if the hook is not careful, that's going to start edit wars (again) on the topic. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
As the editor who GA reviewed Fuck It, We'll Do It Live with Cirt and nominated it to DYK, I can tell you there's a huge difference. One is, in my view, a humorous and sly dig at over-produced studio albums that uses a "naughty word" to gain publicity, the other is an article about a subject that I find genuinely upsetting. Apples and oranges. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a BLP issue in part, I believe, because Leelah's parents take issue with her name and transgender identity. The original hook was potentially a little too far stressing that point. It was also IMO very vague and not that intriguing. The newly proposed ALT ticks all the boxes IMO, including sensitivity. --Errant (chat!) 16:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how this is a problem, the article is called "Death of Leelah Alcorn", how'd she die? She killed herself. First sentence make it very clear what the article is about, how many hooks could be made from this article without bringing up the word "suicide"(or anything, *gasp*, death related)? I find it interesting the way she signed her suicide note, I wonder if this common in transgender suicides and I'm sure others would too. It's also one of the most cited sources in the article(cited 15x, tied for 1st, also look at the number of times her suicide note is mentioned in the titles of other sources), which includes quotes from it. The article talks about her parents, the hook doesn't, yet it is considered a BLP issue? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Now I've read the article I'm somewhat concerned, actually, by that content. Apart from the primary source, have you got any source that directly discusses the relevance of the signature? The independent source you do cite doesn't mention the signature, and I am not entirely sure it supports "She eventually rejected this forename" either. --Errant (chat!) 21:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I knew the hook would hit a nerve, but did not expect it to get pulled. Now with sourcing concerns and that there are viable ALT hooks, we should focus of the ALT hooks. I'm okay with the two ALTs so far. Whichever gets picked, I hope this nom can get back to Queue 4. It's intended to reach MainPage on Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I've put the nom back into circulation in the next prep area, so my next question is - what hook in Queue 4 would people like to throw out so this can be fast tracked back in? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no preference. Just do it! Yoninah (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Alright, I have swapped Leelah Alcorn (P3 - Q4) and Kristin Feireiss (Q4 - P3) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ritchie333. In time for Transgender Day of Remembrance tomorrow. May Leelah rests in piece. --PFHLai (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

DYKs for new Feature Articles (?)[edit]

Is there not a provision for a "Did you know" entry for a newly promoted Feature Article? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured articles have their own main page section in the upper left hand corner. And the process to get an FA on the main page is: Wikipedia:Today's featured article. Featured Lists also have their own slot twice a week. The reason behind including GA, is that class did not have any other way to be seen on the main page. — Maile (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It's theoretically possible to run in DYK while being a featured article or list, if the article is nominated for featured status at the same time a hook is nominated and the former runs more quickly than the latter (or the hook is sequestered for a set date after passing so it's got a little longer before it runs). But as Maile pointed out, being featured in and of itself gives the option to run on the main page anyway so doing so as a DYK hook is not something that needs to be accomodated for. GRAPPLE X 09:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo[edit]

The hook for Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, currently in Prep 1, needs to be replaced as the hook fact has been removed from the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it, to make sure that it doesn't hit the main page. I have not replaced it, I have left its spot clearly open. Fram (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Cwmhiraeth Fram The first sentence in the lead gives the hook text which is cited. The text in the reference reads "A church spokesperson said it is built on an artificial mound as they wanted God to be on a supreme position." I hope it clarifies the position and the hook would be restored. Thanks.Nvvchar. 17:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • FramI find that the hook has been removed from the prep and replaced by another hook. please see. Thanks.Nvvchar. 17:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Here a link to the nom template for easy access, in case it needs to be unpromoted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at the source for that hook, [2] and comparing it with the article Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, I notice some huge differences. According to the article, the church was build just before 1880 ("action was initiated by choosing a suitable site for the purpose in 1876.") The source gives "As you walk out of the fort and up the slope on your left, you find St. Stephen’s Anglican Church- dating to the Dutch period and said to be over 300 years old. A church spokesperson said it is built on an artificial mound as they wanted God to be on a supreme position. During the British period it was taken over by the Church of England and subsequently given to the Church of Ceylon." This supports the suggested hook, but contradicts the rest of the article. On the other hand, the source given for the 1876-1880 construction date and most of the body of the article, [3], actually contradicts the suggested hook and lead text: "It would appear paradoxical that on this mound, which originally saved a military purpose, years later that church of St. Stephen was built for the glory of the prince of peace." (source) vs. " that the Saint Stephen’s Church, Negombo (pictured), in Negombo in Sri Lanka occupies a raised vantage ground created especially for the purpose of providing a commanding view?" (hook).

It looks as if there are two contradictory stories about the origin of the church, and the mound, the Dutch fort, and so on. The article should present both sources and stories side by side or decide in some way which is the correct source. But a "pick and choose" of a bit from one source and a bit from another, creating a new history which neither source actually supports (that the mound was created ca. 1880 to build the new church) and using that as the hook is not acceptable. Please reopen the nomination and rewrite the article. Fram (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination reopened. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 November 2015[edit] (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has been requested. What is it you would like to see changed? GRAPPLE X 10:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What does "a zero-energy house blends every available space with solar, wind, and geothermal methods in a "modern-organic-fusion style"?" actually mean?[edit]

We have now in Queue3, the next queue to hit the main page, the hook

  • ... that Zoka Zola‍‍ '​‍s design of a zero-energy house blends every available space with solar, wind, and geothermal methods in a "modern-organic-fusion style"?

This comes from Template:Did you know nominations/Zoka Zola. I don't claim that anything is wrong with the hook, I just don't understand it at all. Solar, geothermal and wind "methods" are mostly on the outside of a house, normally. Then how are the spaces "blended" (nothing to do with Blended Space I presume) with these "methods"? What does it mean to blend spaces of a house with solar and wind methods? I just have no idea what this means, it reads like modern art high-brow waffle but perhaps it has a perfectly normal meaning I'm just not aware of. Am I the only one not getting it? Fram (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: is the nominator. I reviewed it, and the hook is pretty much based on the source. "modern-organic-fusion style" is a quote from that source. And while the source does not use the words "blends" or "methods", it says "zeros out every square foot through solar, wind, and geothermal systems." The second source for the hook says "We will only use energy generated on site." But perhaps Nvvchar could have something to add here. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I endorse the clarification given by User:Maile66.Nvvchar. 14:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conlfict)Yes, I read the source, that's why I didn't claim that the hook was wrong (it resembles the source, although why such a short magazine article should be the "bibliography" section of the Wikipedia article is not clear). But it doesn't make me any wiser: is "zeroing out" and "blending" the same? Are systems and methods the same? The source seems more clearly to talk about the outside of the house (zeroing out every square foot of the inside would be rather impractical), while the article and hook more strongly give the impression (to me) of discussing the inside walls of the house; every available space of a house sounds to me like hooks and crannies, walls and ceilings; not roofs and other outside aspects. Perhaps it's just me. Fram (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
No, Fram, I am with you on this. I can't comprehend what the hook is trying to say, unfortunately. I wonder if perhaps it could be expressed in less flowery language (which would be more appropriate for WP anyway) such as: "All of the outer surfaces of the house used for solar, wind, and geothermal energy generation" --Errant (chat!) 14:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: perhaps should comment on Errant's ALT hook, or on the original. But the more I read the original hook, I really think Nvvchar is saying, in effect, "...every space in the house benefits from solar, wind, and geothermal power sources..." Because it's the interior of the house where the energy is consumed. The outer surfaces might be used to generate that, but that energy is delivered through interior parts of the systems. In the same way a boiler in the basement might generate heat, but it's the pipes inside the walls, and the internal vents, that deliver it. — Maile (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That would also make sense in terms of an interpretation. The fact there is ambiguity over the meaning suggests clarification would be useful. --Errant (chat!) 15:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The hook graced the main page in its original version for some 8 hours. I have now removed that unintelligible text from the main page. IF we don't know what the hook actually means, we shouldn't present it to the world at large. Fram (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The point of the original source seems to be that the house in question was large (over 3000 sq ft, which is unusual for a zero-energy house in a place with cold winters like Chicago) but that its design made it zero-energy by utilising multiple techniques across the larger surface area. I agree that the hook did not convey this very well but hooks are supposing to be intriguing rather than enlightening. In so far as we've been reading and siscussing the article, it has done its job. For some pics of the house in question, see here. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I was absolutely befuddled by it. I can't imagine what the reviewer was thinking in slapshotting that through. Maile66 - if you plan to undertake reviews, please put just at least the bare minimal effort into them. Given the amount of time you've spent auditing my reviews (including rudely placing strikethroughs on my reviews so you can review them yourself), one would think you would attempt to enforce the same standards you demand of others onto your own reviews? Don't worry everyone, I'll start double-checking each of Maile66's reviews moving forward. LavaBaron (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eulie Chowdhury seems incorrect[edit]

@Victuallers, Nvvchar, Edwardx, and SusunW: Now in Prep 4, from Template:Did you know nominations/Eulie Chowdhury:

It has been discussed at the nomination, and is sourced, but is it correct? She graduated in 1947 from the University of Sydney, Australia with a Bachelor in Architecture. Which is not in Asia, of course, so how she was more "qualified as an architect in Asia" than others is unclear, or when she got a separate "qualification as an architect in Asia". Perhaps what is meant is that she was the first qualified female architect to work in Asia? Or that she was the first qualified female architect who was also an Asian?

But even these claims seem dubious or at least disputable: in 1946 (according to our article on the school) Aida-Cruz Del Rosario graduated from the University of Santo Tomas College of Architecture and became the first female architect of the Philippines, which were then and now in Asia. According to [4] it was in 1947, still the same year that Chowdhury graduated (Chowdhury only started working in Asia in 1951 though).

So, perhaps she is the first Indian with any of these claims? Well, not if you believe Perin Jamsetjee Mistri, an Indian woman who preceded her by at least 10 years.

(Of course, all this excludes people like Lin Huiyin who were not "qualified" architects but were good enough to become Professor of Architecture anyway...)

In conclusion, the hook is sourced but not enough care has been taken to find a contradictory source, which in this case wasn't too hard. Just read List of women architects and you find still other earlier architects, like Dora Gad or Minnette de Silva. I think it should be removed from the prep and the nomination reopened (and the article changed as well of course). Fram (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is useful research Fram, do add this to the article, I'm sure we can find an alternative hook and a sentence that says "She is said to be the first .... but... would even make a good hook. Thanks for your contribution. Victuallers (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Fram Certainly there is no question in light of your information that a new hook should be found. I don't agree that the reviewer has an obligation to disprove the claims made in a hook; the criteria requires them to make sure it is supported by a RS, but I absolutely agree that if the claim is found not to hold up, it must be corrected. Thanks for your work on the file. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
See WP:DYKSG#D10. Just be more careful next time. sst✈discuss 17:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I had no role in reviewing this article. Although Nvvchar wrote "Thanks for the review", this was a misunderstanding, as all I did was to tweak the wording, diff, which was done without looking at the article. Anyway, the position set out by SusunW seems reasonable. Edwardx (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'l be happy to review another hook if someone will propose one. But as the reviewer, I cannot make a proposal. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI it is perfectly OK for you to do so ("reviewers may also suggest improvements or alternatives to the hook." --Errant (chat!) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
True enough, but that means that another reviewer must be found to approve the hook you suggest (per WP:DYKSG#H2). BlueMoonset (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed from Prep 4, I'll now reopen the nomination. Fram (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it allowed to reuse reviews for QPQs if a nomination has been (correctly) rejected?[edit]

I nominated ten articles and did not read them carefully: Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese submarine I-179 and Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese submarine I-157. Since each of the articles duplicate 1357 characters of prose (and there is less than 1500 characters of new prose per article) the nomination should rightfully be rejected (apart from one article). Since I have already done the ten QPQ reviews, am I allowed to use these reviews as QPQs in future DYK nominations? sst✈discuss 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Gatoclass (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll allow it. LavaBaron (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list is now over a week old and almost entirely exhausted, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first couple of days of November. As of the most recent update, 128 nominations are approved, leaving 216 of 344 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from September and the first few weeks of October.

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) 00:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Requirement of QPQ for first-time nominators who have received 5 or more DYK credits[edit]

Looking at this: Template:Did you know nominations/Impossible Is Nothing (Iggy Azalea song) This is the first DYK nomination of Coolmarc, but he already has five DYK credits, due to other editors (including myself) nominating articles he promoted to GA status for DYK. DYK rules mean that in this situation Coolmarc has to supply a review. The five free nominations exemption is designed to allow editors to understand how a DYK review should be done, but Coolmarc does not have this opportunity, and may supply an inadequate review if required to do so. Should the rule be revised to instead say that the first five DYK nominations do not require a QPQ, instead of credits? sst✈ (discuss) 09:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Coolmarc's articles were reviewed in the normal way... even though Coolmarc was not explicitly the nominator one imagines they saw the reviews in the same way as a self-nom. --Errant (chat!) 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd always assumed that the 5-free rule was for nominations the editor themselves have made, not articles that were nominated by a different editor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I also understood it that way. Someone could write lots of articles that are nominated by others, but only the nominators have to do a QPQ to help the backlog at DYK. Yoninah (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Should the wording in the rules be adjusted to reflect that it's only articles a given editor nominated that count towards their 5-article get-out-of-QPQ-free card, then, if that's how we're interpreting the rule? FWIW I agree that only articles a given editor nominated themselves should count; otherwise we're going to have too many 'reviews' that have to be done over. I know my first couple of attempts at reviewing other people's nominations weren't up to snuff. And there's no reason to expect that someone credited as a creator or expander of an article by another editor who nominated the article for DYK is going to follow the review — they may not even be aware of how to do so. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Only six hooks?[edit]

Could someone please fix the DYK section of the main page? It's currently completely unbalanced by the much-shorter-than-normal DYK section. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now we have another queue loaded, issue resolved. Please don't let it happen again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Main page now down to 6 hooks (from 8 originally)[edit]


After removing the very unclear Zoka Zola hook (see above), I now also removed the Turtle Park hoos for being incorrect, even though it only had about one more hour to go on the main page.

Template:Did you know nominations/Turtle Park, @Tavix, Vesuvius Dogg, PFHLai, and Casliber:

  • ... that Turtle Park contains concrete sculptures of seven turtle species that are endemic to Missouri?

Endemic: "being unique to a defined geographic location,", "organisms that are indigenous to a place are not endemic to it if they are also found elsewhere." So, are these seven turtle species really endemic to Missouri, or just indigenous (or native, like the article says)? The species are the Common snapping turtle (lives from Canada to Florida, so not endemic), the Mississippi map turtle (not endemic as well), the Red-eared slider, and so on. None of them, as far as can be determined since not all species are named in the article, are endemic to Missouri. None. Why did no one catch this? If you don't understand what "endemic" means, don't use it. Fram (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

So why not just change it to "native/indigenous" then rather than remove it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I was just about to say the same thing - as you're an admin Fram, just change it and maybe put a note on the article's talk page explaining the wording issue. Was there a need to kick up a fuss here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this was needed, as too many people obviously don't check hooks (or check hooks they don't understand). If the hook isn't correct, how am I to know that the rest of the article is up to par? The Review clearly was deficient, so off it goes. Fram (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (sigh) ok fair enough, I have proposed the alt hook and have pinged the reviewer. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Why would you propose an alt hook for an article that already was on the front page for 11 hours? Because they approved an incorrect hook, the article gets to spend 23 hours on the main page instead of 11 hours? That's very strange logic. Feel free to sigh to your hearts delight, but please don't turn this into more of a circus than it already is. Fram (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      • For some reason I read your post above as, "even though it only had about one more hour to go before going on the main page. " in my mind Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Fram (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fram: are you saying that you know how to fix things but you are removing them as a punishment? I'm not sure that you have the mandate for such behaviour. If you are claiming that you are clever enough to find errors in Wikipedia then that's fine, well done. Fix it and move on. At the moment you are causing disruption and I assume that is not your aim. Victuallers (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No. I am claiming that if I note that a review was not done correctly (like here), I remove it because the most important thing is that we don't knowingly present false information to the reader on the main page. Then can follow a more thorough check, to see whether I was correct or not, and whether it is a lone error or some farther reaching problem. Take e.g. the Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo a few sections up. Both hooks were approved, one was put into prep but removed again as the fact was no longer in the article. I was then asked to put the other hook in (remember, it was checked!). Instead, I looked a bit further and noticed that that one as well was highly dubious (or rather that the whole article was dubious as a WP:SYNTH version of two contradictory sources).
So, in the spirit of "better safe than sorry", I simply remove the hook from prep, queue or main page and let the review process work it out (although in this case I would prefer not to run it again, as it already was on the main page for 11 hours).
I notice though that some of the regulars here (and I'm looking at Victuallers specifically) rather attack the person finding a problem than actually caring about the error. You seem to have your priorities still completely wrong, if you think that the disruption is caused by the person removing a blatant error from the main page. Fram (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The consensus here is that the removal of the hook was inappropriate. We are all freaking volunteers, and even major commercial websites can have typos on their front pages. WP:ERRORS exist for a reason. sst✈ (discuss) 14:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The review looks fine to me - due diligence was done, a wording issue was found and fixed, we are all human and not perfect. After all, Fram didn't follow instructions at the top of the page which says, in a red box, "Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here". Looks like an attempt to make a mountain out a molehill to me - the disruption is not about removing an error from a main page, it is talking excessively about it in an attempt to seek justice. Now I'm off, have fun folks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
With "the review", you mean my check or the DYK review? If you mean the DYK review, then no, due diligence clearly was not done. It's not "a wording issue", it's a completely different meaning which was essential in that one sentence. "We are all human and not perfect", that's true, that's why no action is being taken against any of the people involved. That doesn't mean that the issue shouldn't be raised here, to increase awareness of the problems. As for the red box at the top, do you know why that is there? For non-admins, so that they can post the error at a page where people who have the necessary rights to change the main page (admins like you and me) can swiftly see it and take action. History has shown that posting errors on the main page (or even the queues) here doesn't always get the swift necessary reaction. That's the reason for that red box. Not that once the error is removed from the main page, you are not allowed to discuss it here, where most of the DYK regulars can be found (after all, once it is removed, it is no longer on "the current Main Page template version"). But I notice that you join the crowd of DYK'ers who want to protect their fiefdom at all costs apparently, and don't really care about what is put on the main page through this project (you can add SSTflyer to that list as well apparently). I'm happy to see that far from all editors here think the same way though. Fram (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice, now you are commenting on editors. I just said that we are volunteers, we all make errors, and errors are unavoidable. Not everyone has perfect English. If we require every DYK reviewer to be able to understand the definition of "endemic", we would have even less participation from editors not from English-speaking countries, which usually have inadequate content coverage. Are you sure you want to drive productive editors away from the project just because of one misused word? sst✈ (discuss) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
If you don't understand the words in a hook, don't review it. That seems rather obvious to me. Reviewing is (among other things) checking if it correct. If you can't even understand it, you are not able to do that check and should stick to checking hooks and articles you do understand. This is not what happened with Vesuvius Dogg (below), who understood the word but didn't know that it had a different, more restricted meaning when discussing animals (or plants for that matter). And no, I don't want to drive any editors away from here (I have done so in the past with people who made way too many errors, but that's a different story). But I have serious questions about people who care more about keeping a hook on the main page than about whether it is right or wrong, or people who don't know the difference between an error and a typo. If you claim that "The consensus here is that the removal of the hook was inappropriate. " then you have a strange reading of consensus, and your priorities wrt DYK wrong. Fram (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fram: there was nothing wrong with that word. In this case, it's a synonym for "native": ""natural to or characteristic of a specific people or place; native; indigenous." I fail to see why you got so worked up over a minor "issue". -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't help you if you still fail to see it. Fram (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Fram, Tavix, sst✈ (and others): I am fully willing to fall on my copy editor's sword here, appreciating how endemism is currently defined on Wikipedia. In my QPQ, I confirmed that all the species of turtle replicated in concrete within Turtle Park are indeed "native" to Missouri, and in retrospect, the word "native" would have more accurately suited the hook. Only belatedly do I see the secondary definition of "endemic" (at Merriam-Webster) defines it as "restricted or peculiar to a region or country". Merriam-Webster's primary definition is looser, i.e., "belonging or native to a particular people or country" or "characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field, area, or environment". Again, my apologies for relying on the common definition and not knowing the word implied a greater specificity for some scientific readers. I learned a lesson here, and I obviously should have checked the wikilink. My apologies Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Very minor mistake. Don't let it affect your editing. sst✈(discuss) 17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No problem, no need for seppuku over this! Fram (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't find my sword emoji anyway. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, this unexpectedly blew up over a minor issue. Dictionaries use endemic as a synonym for native. Here's's definition: "natural to or characteristic of a specific people or place; native; indigenous." Yes, it also means being unique to an area and the Wikipedia article defines it that way, but removing the hook for something that minor is just silly. However, now I see that "native" would have been a better word due to the confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I know, Tavix. And keep in mind the word "endemic" wasn't even hyperlinked from the hook. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It was hyperlinked in the template, but for some reason no longer when it hit the main page. I haven't checked whether the link was removed during the move to prep or during the move to queue, and would be interested to know the reason for this removal. Endemic, when used for animals, normally doesn't mean "native" but "uniquely living here". Fram (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "doesn't mean "native" but "uniquely living here"" per whom? As someone who works/ed in biology I have hear both usages equally. you are choosing only one definition and ignoring that the other usage is just as valid.--Kevmin § 15:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Now I know the difference between native and endemic. Thank you. Wish I knew about this earlier. Sorry, I didn't learn this early enough for this DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing an erroneous hook from the main page that can't readily be rectified is acceptable. Removing a hook because there might be an error somewhere in the article is absurd and totally indefensible. If we applied that standard to every article link on the main page, the page would be devoid of such links. There is no guarantee of error-free content, that's why every article has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Gatoclass (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong credits link in queue 6[edit]

The redlink in the Credits section on Template:Did you know/Queue/6: the nom subpage should be Template:Did you know nominations/NewYork–Presbyterian/Queens. Requesting admin to fix the link. This is normal for page titles with a slash, and I have encountered this while doing the DYK review. sst✈ (discuss) 14:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Errant (chat!) 14:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I question whether or not the article should have even been created with the slash. A slash indicates the article is a sub page of another article, and it isn't. It probably should be titled NewYork–Presbyterian (Queens). — Maile (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
FWIW mainspace does not have sub-pages enabled, so from a technical perspective it's not a sub-page. Whilst WP:TITLESLASH doesn't expressly prohibit the use case. --Errant (chat!) 14:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
With that said it should probably be at New York–Presbyterian Hospital Queens --Errant (chat!) 14:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Co-author needed for Alcohol in Afghanistan[edit]

Hi, I got some suggestion on my nomination of Alcohol in Afghanistan, you can see it Template:Did you know nominations/Alcohol in Afghanistan. Article has more than 2500 characters and if we ignore mirror sites then there is no copyright violation. Hooks are supported by sources. But it needs some copy-editing, I think things written about alcohol in US base in Afghanistan written under "NATO base" section needs some editing. If anyone is interested in fixing issues of the article can come forward to become co-author of the article. Thank you. --Human3015TALK  20:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


Unless I have miscalculated, looking at the queues it appears that on Thanksgiving we don't have any of the hooks set aside for it to run on that day. For example, We Plough the Fields and Scatter based on the current positioning in the prep area is going to run on the day after it. Can someone rearrange the queues please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, since Thanksgiving here is a U.S. holiday, Prep 4 will run from 4am to 4pm on the west coast and 7am to 7pm on the east coast. I'll swap "We Plough the Fields and Scatter" into that set. "A Very Gaga Thanksgiving" is currently in Prep 5, and set to run from 4pm on Thanksgiving until 4am the next morning on the west coast and from 7pm on Thanksgiving to 7am the next morning on the east coast, which may or may not be enough of Thanksgiving. I would be against moving any Thanksgiving hook into Prep 3, since it will be off the main page before most people are even awake on Thanksgiving in the U.S.
At the moment, the problem is with "Jauchzet Gott in Allen Landen", which has not yet been promoted. With all queues and all preps full, there's nowhere to put it at the moment, but there's no need to worry: as soon as a new prep becomes available to fill, I suggest that one of the hooks in Prep 4 be moved to it and "Jauchzet Gott" promoted to Prep 4 in its place. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

December 12: Frank Sinatra centenary[edit]

On Dr. Blofeld's initiative, a sizable inventory of hooks (16 at last count) have been approved and slotted into the Special Occasion holding area for December 12, the centenary of Frank Sinatra's birth. The centerpiece of this list is the main article, Frank Sinatra, which attained GA status. Dr. Blofeld has suggested that the main hook and image, Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Sinatra, should run in the lead slot for all 24 hours. We would appreciate consensus from other DYK editors. Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. I agree that the lead hook, which introduces Sinatra as "the greatest singer of the 20th century", should run over both prep sets on December 12, both as an introduction to the rest of the hooks (which are all about Sinatra) and to acquaint younger readers who may not know who Sinatra is or why we're dedicating whole prep sets to him. Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As suggested before.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure; why not. --Errant (chat!) 21:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Major anniversary for a major icon of modern culture. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Lots of interesting angles. Can't wait to see all the DYKs together. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the opinions expressed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with running the same image. I'm not keen on running the same lead hook twice however. One possible alternative would be to use two different hooks linked to the main article, the first one could simply be " ... that today is the 100th anniversary of Frank Sinatra's birth?" to inform readers of the reason a whole bunch of Sinatra hooks are being run, and then to run the original "greatest singer" hook in the second set. Gatoclass (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Two different hooks, for 12 hours each would be a great idea IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing that up, @Gatoclass:. Overnight, I also thought about whether someone who looked at the main page twice in 24 hours would see the same lead hook and image and think that the set hadn't changed, so no point in looking at the other hooks. I might also suggest changing the image as well, perhaps Gerda's suggestion to run a younger image in the first 12 hours and the older image in the second 12 hours. @Dr. Blofeld:? Yoninah (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A very good suggestion by Gerda, I'd not seen that, yes a 24hr showing of Frank Sinatra with a young photo and a older photo later and two different hooks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Changing the hook text is a neat idea - it keeps it fresh whilst also keeping the link to Sinatra. --Errant (chat!) 09:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Yoninah, and yes, I agree it would be better to change both the hook and image (while linking to the same main article) so that readers will not mistakenly conclude the same set is still on display. I also endorse the idea of a younger Frank Sinatra for the first image. Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support With the idea and changing the lead hook and image too. Makes a change from having the only day where there is any uniformity being April Fools Day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Great concept and execution! 7&6=thirteen () 13:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support using Frank Sinatra as topmost hook for 24 hours, but I echo Gatoclass's suggestion to use two different hooks during different times of the day. sst✈(discuss) 13:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Trembling lips
  • Comment two hooks: I reviewed Riobamba and suggested the attractive image, only then learned about the idea of one hook all day. I could well imagine the club of his debut as lead hook for the first set, the GA hook as lead for the second, - see him growing up ;) - If an image of Sinatra is not enough in the first, his name could be bold in both, I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Whatever is done, please avoid linking "Frank Sinatra" in every hook. It's unnecessary if all of the hooks are about him. You can probably switch to just saying "Sinatra" after the first hook, as readers will get the point. BencherliteTalk 01:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Prep 4 and 5[edit]

This hook in Prep 4 just looks silly:

... that the Palais des Fêtes in Strasbourg has hosted famous conductors and anonymous anime fans, though not at the same time?

The second part of this hook in Prep 5 does not appear in the article:

... that the Lenape potato was withdrawn because it was toxic, but it was used to breed other varieties used to produce potato chips?
Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
WRT to the potato hook, wouldn't Lenape is a parent of chipping varieties including Atlantic, Trent, Belchip and Snowden and a grandparent of several others cover it? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Can we go ahead and change it, or do we have to return it to the noms page? (I'll AGF your hook fact, cited inline.) Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
My point is that the second part of the hook is in fact supported in the article, in the sentence I quoted. (It also isn't my hook.) --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Now I see it, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)